[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 69 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3953-H3961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 567, ESTABLISHING SELECT
COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN
BENGHAZI
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 8, 2014, on page H3953, the following appeared: PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 567, ESTABLISHING SELECT COMMITTEE ON
BENGHAZI
The online version should be corrected to read: PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 567, ESTABLISHING SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 575 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 575
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 567)
providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on
the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.
The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to
its adoption without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question except one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Messer). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 575, which provides for a closed rule for
consideration of H. Res. 567.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 20 months since
terrorists attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya,
killing four Americans, including then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya J.
Christopher Stevens.
Since that time, the House Armed Services Committee, the Foreign
Affairs Committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have all conducted
investigations related to the events surrounding the attack and the
administration's response. And I want to commend each of these
committees and their chairmen and their members for work that has been
done that is exemplary, that has aimed exactly on the questions that
needed to be asked, and for those who have dedicated time and effort to
make sure that these important issues are not only discussed but
understood and resolved so that each of these committees, as they work
with their particular agencies in the Federal Government, come to a
clear and a clean understanding about what happened, what our responses
might and should have been, and what they would be in the future.
We are here today because this administration has chosen not to fully
participate, to block our efforts to know the truth, and to provide the
necessary people in a forthright manner who could be a part of
answering these questions. This blockage has included a timed delivery
that has not been timely but the time interval for requesting
information, for the redacting of information that has not been
properly done, and, perhaps most importantly, for the remarks that have
been made by the administration, including the President of the United
States, the former Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, and
other highly public officials who serve at the pleasure of the American
people who have tried to thwart, who have tried to misdirect, and who
have tried to--what I believe is--badger Republicans into believing
that what they did was aboveboard and correct when, in fact, an
evaluation and a proper lessons learned lesson being available not only
for them, for the United States Congress, but also accountability to
the American Government.
{time} 1245
We are here specifically today because in the last few weeks an
outside group, Judicial Watch, through the Freedom of Information Act,
obtained information and received that information through the judicial
system of the United States whereby they received emails that were not
redacted, that were not doctored or altered, and that came to them and
did not match up with the information that had been provided to
official committees of the
[[Page H3954]]
United States House of Representatives for official business.
At a time when an administration decides that they are going to take
advantage of the structure of the United States House of
Representatives under official business, then that means that it is
time for the United States House of Representatives to then learn that
they are being duped, that they are being taken advantage of, and that
our open system was being used, I believe, in a political way.
That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. We are here today not for
political reasons but because the official business of the United
States House of Representatives, article I, is to make sure that we
understand and have oversight over those that are in article II and
work with people who are in article III.
We work together in a careful balance to make sure that what we do is
in the best interest of the people--the American people, who need to
have faith and confidence in the work that is done on their behalf--but
also be accountable to the American people when great things happen and
when mistakes happen also.
To sweep something under the rug, to try and move people in another
direction and try and fool them, to not be forthright about the actions
that were taken or understood, I believe is a dereliction of duty. Most
importantly, I think that what the investigation up to now has revealed
is a lack of desire by this administration to fess up to what I believe
might be failures or weaknesses in a system that we need to work on
together.
Four Americans' lives were not only at stake, but the reputation of
the United States of America was on the line. Terrible things happened.
Worse things could have happened, also. And for the United States
Congress to have oversight to work on these issues is, I believe, an
important national security objective.
We are here today because President Barack Obama and his
administration are not forthright or interested in working with
official Members of the United States House of Representatives to clear
the issue, and to understand what happened so that we may move forward
with great confidence; that as our men and women who are in the State
Department are engaged in the sensitive work, the work that is done on
behalf of this great Nation, that we can understand that relationship
with the United States military, with intelligence, with the money that
we spend and the mission that the President of the United States
decides that these men and women will be engaged in.
We are here today to gain answers, to gain knowledge, and to gain
corrective action. And that is why I believe last night in the Rules
Committee, the Rules Committee moved forward on an original
jurisdiction hearing whereby the Rules Committee would make and take
the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we understood that
we would be taking the time of the House of Representatives, that we
would be taking, in essence, jurisdiction and putting that to a select
committee, a select committee which would have the authority and the
responsibility to ensure that the things which I have spoken of this
morning were achieved.
This is not political. This is public policy at its most important
level. It is national security that is being discussed not only today
but discussed in private among Members of Congress with this
administration to ensure that the events that occurred on that day were
well understood and reflective to the Members of Congress who provide
money, resources, and oversight relating to those events.
Unfortunately, it became apparent to me and others, including the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable John Boehner,
that these committees are struggling with an unwanted partner: the
administration. And this administration, by refusing to completely
comply with congressional subpoenas, by delaying the delivery of
important documents, by heavily redacting critical information--not
sensitive or information that might be considered national security--
and by retroactively classifying previously unclassified files, the
Obama administration has thrown roadblocks at every turn of the road.
The most recent example of this was the deliberate subversion of the
investigation which occurred on April 17, less than a month ago. This
is why the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, who
has been very deliberative and most involved but careful to let each
committee operate to the level of its jurisdiction, to make sure that
each committee had not just the resources but the ability to make sure
that they were on a process for the delivery of the things which I have
talked about, up to and including the truth, Mr. Speaker, the truth
behind the events, the truth behind how we would describe this event so
that lessons would be learned, and evince how we would effectively and
capably understand the new and current threats against the United
States and what occurred on that day and on a moving-forward basis. If
you refuse to participate with the United States Congress, if you
subvert the process and take advantage of our structure, the Honorable
John Boehner will then respond with that which is given to him and to
the United States House of Representatives, and that is to honorably
pivot based upon something that happened less than a month ago, April
17.
This administration chose to deliberately mislead the United States
Congress, and we responded therein. On that day, the administration
delivered 276 documents consisting of 779 pages. They gave these to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, many of which continued
to be heavily redacted. The same day, the State Department complied
under a Freedom of Information Act requested by Judicial Watch. I
believe that the timing of these two productions is not a coincidence
as to whether or not Congress would have received these documents
absent Judicial Watch's FOIA request. The two sets of documents are
incredibly similar, and, shockingly, some of the documents received by
the committee are more redacted than those received by Judicial Watch.
Well, I get that. That is because under FOIA, the Freedom of
Information Act, there is a criminal statute attached to that which
those lawyers preparing these documents knew they could be criminally
held liable.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of this is this administration has not
respected the United States Congress, did not respect the committees
that were asking for this information, and there, too, made sure that
they made their job even more difficult. These roadblocks, I believe,
serve as two important points for us to remember: that the Speaker of
the House of Representatives did not choose to be where we are today
but, rather, it was this administration through its deliberate attempt
to place us exactly where we are.
So, first, the committee will have questions that it has to ask, and
they are going to this administration to make sure that we have
complete documentation. Every Member of this select committee will have
the opportunity--and should have on a bipartisan basis--to see the
documents. The select committee will consolidate itself into a
centralized location in order to make sure that they work together. We
are going to streamline congressional efforts when we find out the
things which we could have and should have known but know now to avoid
in the future.
And lastly, we are going to come with an answer to the American
people that we believe is what they are due, and that is: what
happened; how could we have avoided it; and what do we look for in the
future.
Our representative government is founded on the assumption of a
transparent government. Our President, Barack Obama, stated when he was
elected that this would be the most open and transparent government.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to take the President at his word. The
question is: Will the President live up to his word and expect this
administration to join with the House of Representatives in this new
era, this new way of trying to go about getting an answer for the
American public?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the 2012 attack on Benghazi was a tragedy that took the
[[Page H3955]]
lives of brave American public servants representing and serving our
country. And Congress has an obligation here--both to the families of
the victims and to the country--to try to prevent this from ever
happening again. But that is not at all what we are doing here today.
The Senate has produced two bipartisan reports on the issue, and the
State Department's Accountability Review Board has produced a
constructive, unbiased report. There is a vast body of evidence already
collected, and none of it demonstrates any sort of coverup or
conspiracy.
The majority here has had 13 congressional hearings over four
committees, 50 briefings, produced five reports and 25,000 pages of
documentation, wasted countless millions of dollars, and has gotten
absolutely nowhere. One more committee weighted in favor of the
majority is not going to do any better. We have bottomed out on
Benghazi.
Nonetheless, the majority has repeatedly demonstrated that rather
than engaging in a serious, objective examination of the circumstances,
they want to use the tragedy as an excuse to generate partisan talking
points, and then has descended into the crass and the unbelievable.
Several press reports this week, including one from Politico,
indicate that the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out
a fundraising email entitled ``You Can Become a Benghazi Watchdog Right
Now,'' and that leads to a donation page where you have to pay to be a
Benghazi watchdog. And even after their fundraising effort was exposed,
Republicans are continuing to use this effort to raise money off of
this tragedy. This morning's Politico says: ``Republicans stick with
Benghazi cash grab.''
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit into the Record these two
articles from Politico, May 8 and May 9. The first one, ``NRCC''--which
stands for the National Republican Congressional Committee--
``fundraising off Benghazi,'' and the second one this morning,
``Republicans stick with Benghazi cash grab.''
[From POLITICO, May 7, 2014]
NRCC Fundraising Off of Benghazi
(By Jake Sherman)
The House Republican campaign arm is rebuffing the chairman
of the Benghazi select committee and is raising money off the
GOP's investigation into the 2012 attack.
A post on the National Republican Congressional Committee
website dated May 6 is titled ``You Can Become a Benghazi
Watchdog Right Now.''
``House Republicans will make sure that no one will get
away from [Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee,'' the blog
post says. ``This is going to be a national effort for a
national investigation.''
Once a visitor to the site enters their name, email and ZIP
code, it asks for a donation to ``stop Democrats from
controlling all of Washington.''
But Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), whom Speaker John Boehner (R-
Ohio) tapped to chair the panel, said Wednesday morning on
MSNBC's ``Morning Joe'' he would ask Republicans to forgo
fundraising off the attacks.
``Yes, and I will cite myself as an example,'' Gowdy said.
``I have never sought to raise a single penny on the backs of
four murdered Americans.''
For right now, the NRCC doesn't appear to be backing down.
``The Obama administration has not been honest with the
American people with regards to the security failures in
Benghazi, which left four Americans dead,'' said NRCC
spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. ``Our goal is to hold Democrats in
Congress accountable who vote against creating the select
committee on Benghazi and who continue to try to sweep this
controversy under the rug.''
____
[From POLITICO, May 7, 2014]
Republicans Stick With Benghazi Cash Grab
(By Byron Tau and Katie Glueck)
Republicans have no intention of listening to Trey Gowdy.
A number of Republican candidates and conservative groups
have openly used the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi,
Libya, as a cash grab. And that's likely to continue despite
a strongly worded rebuke from the new chairman of the
Republican select committee assigned to investigate the
response to the attacks.
Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, commented on MSNBC
Wednesday that he and fellow Republicans should not fundraise
off ``the backs of four murdered Americans''--creating a new
standard by which the party can be judged and opening the GOP
up to charges of past, present and future hypocrisy.
That's put the party in an awkward spot. Republicans on
Capitol Hill are eager to lend the looming committee
investigation into the murder of four Americans an air of
sobriety, dignity and seriousness. But political strategists
are eager to mobilize the GOP base and amp up grassroots
fundraising by capitalizing on the base's outrage over how
the Obama administration handled the attacks.
The 2012 consulate attack and accusations of a White House
cover-up are catnip for grassroots donors and activists. And
Benghazi--and the select committee assigned to investigate
it--is a key part of the GOP fundraising and mobilization
strategy. This week, the National Republican Congressional
Committee rolled out a new fundraising campaign called
``Benghazi Watchdogs''--an effort by the aiming to raise
money off Gowdy's new position. Publicly available domain
registration data shows that the site was registered Tuesday.
Other fundraising solicitations about Benghazi include:
A fundraising page from the NRCC with a photo of Obama and
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accompanied by big
bold text proclaiming: ``Benghazi was a coverup. Demand
answers.''--and asking for donations of up to $500.
A May 2 blog post from the National Republican Senatorial
Committee titled ``Dude. You're Being Lied To About
Benghazi.'' The post was in response to former White House
spokesman Tommy Vietor's appearance on Fox News last week
where he used the line ``Dude, that was like two years ago.''
It concludes: ``Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi
and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate
today and elect a Republican Senate majority.''
A May email blast from the conservative nonprofit Special
Ops OPSEC Education Fund that asks for an ``immediate
contribution'' of $25, $50, $100 or more to ``hold Obama and
Hillary's feet to the fire until justice is done.''
A January email from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the
aftermath of the State of the Union noting that Obama
``failed to mention Benghazi, the IRS, or the NSA'' and
asking for donations.
A John Bolton PAC email from April accused Obama, Clinton
and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of refusing to take
responsibility for ``leaving Americans to die at the hands of
terrorists.''
An email from Senate candidate Joe Miller saying that there
is ``strong evidence that senior administration officials
crafted a false narrative for purely political purposes.''
An email this week from Rep. Scott Rigell's (R-Va.)
campaign asking for ``$5, $10, $20, or $50 to help keep him
in Congress and hold the Administration accountable'' that
also asks ``Why didn't the military respond to the events in
Benghazi Were there even military assets in the region
available? If not, why not? Who made the decision not to send
support? House Republicans are committed to finding out the
truth about Benghazi.''
An email from House candidate Andy Tobin accusing Obama of
``covering up vital information about what happened that
night'' and asking for donations.
Conservative pundits and former politicians like Mike
Huckabee, Allen West and others have sent emails to their
lists, according to the liberal watchdog group Media Matters.
Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the NRSC, said that there
hasn't been a coordinated effort from the committee to
fundraise off of the issue, even though his committee wrote a
blog post with a fundraising solicitation about the hearings.
``Part of politics is fundraising. I think fundraising is a
separate activity than calling attention to important
issues,'' he said in an interview. ``Benghazi is going to be
a topic of discussion because it deserves answers, and I
think it's important for both candidates and elected
officials to discuss it.''
GOP strategist Rick Wilson said that while fundraising off
of such a sensitive topic needs to be done within the
``bounds of propriety,'' candidates on both sides of aisle
aren't hesitant to try to turn the ``story du jour'' into
donation pitches, especially when seeking to round up small-
dollar contributions.
``It's a tragedy, a serious national security question that
has to be resolved, and the administration owes answers,''
Wilson said of Benghazi. ``On the other hand, you're going to
see people on both sides use it to build mailing lists, build
name ID, fundraising lists, etc. There's a base level of
inevitability.''
Democrats pointed to both the committee itself and the fact
that it was being used as a fundraising ploy as evidence that
the entire investigation was a political farce.
Chris Lehane, a veteran Democratic strategist, said that
Republicans fundraising off of Benghazi could easily overplay
their hand.
``At the end of the day you're dealing with an issue that
was a tragedy,'' he said. ``From a political perspective,
that's raising money from a situation where people
representing our government were killed. It's a politically
perilous, treacherous thing to do.''
In a general election, he said, a Democrat could easily
dismiss such a Republican as ``playing politics with people's
lives.''
White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest on
Wednesday jabbed the NRCC for its fundraising efforts.
``I think that the fact that the National Republican
Congressional Committee is raising money off the creation of
this committee
[[Page H3956]]
is a pretty good indication of the political motivation
that's at work here,'' he said aboard Air Force One.
And Republicans aren't the only ones to use national
tragedies for fundraising or list-building.
The nonprofit Organizing for Action has come under fire
several times for using gun-related events to build their
email list--sending emails on the anniversary of the Newtown
shooting and the day of the Navy Yard shooting.
Republican officials defended their tactics as giving
voters answers to pressing questions.
``The Obama administration has not been honest with the
American people with regards to Benghazi, and if Nancy Pelosi
becomes speaker the American people will never know the
truth. Our goal is to hold Democrats in Congress accountable
who vote against creating the select committee on Benghazi
and who continue to try to sweep this controversy under the
rug,'' said NRCC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Additionally, reports today from a prominent
journalist say that Mr. Boehner himself says that he will not try to
stop the fundraising.
The majority is demonstrating without a shadow of a doubt that like
the many, many votes we have taken trying to kill health care, this is
a political move. That is the most crass and awful thing to do to the
families of these four people who died. We keep over and over rubbing
salt into that awful wound by bringing this up over and over. And how
do you think they feel now knowing what this game is about in the House
of Representatives?
I am appalled the majority would use these deaths for political gain
and political money when what the families of the victims and Americans
want to do is to ensure it never happens again. But we are doing
nothing in the world to ensure that.
Not only is the majority disregarding the bipartisan findings, but
their own process is so wrought with error, partisanship, and deception
that leaders in their own party are calling foul.
The Oversight Committee has produced several witnesses of dubious
quality, but the most recent one is a brigadier general, to testify
about the minority, and the minority was only give his name and had no
way--we didn't have any address or anything else--to even verify his
credentials.
{time} 1300
We are indebted to Congressman Buck McKeon, Armed Services Committee
chairman, who discredited this witness by calling Brigadier General
Robert Lovell an unreliable witness and criticized Lovell's assertion
that the State Department was not quick to deploy troops to respond to
the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya. Lovell testified Thursday before
Issa's oversight panel.
Congressman McKeon stated:
Brigadier General Lovell did not serve in a capacity that
gave him reliable insight into operational options available
to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific
courses of action not taken.
McKeon added:
The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a
dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that
night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, emails,
and other documents. We have no evidence that State
Department officials delayed the decision to deploy what few
resources DOD had available to respond.
How tragic is that? How tacky is that? How beneath the dignity of the
House of Representatives is that?
I have an amendment to this resolution based on a simple premise
that, if this thing is going to be put together and funded, that it
really does some kind of work bipartisanly, which would be really
strange in this House, but the idea of having another committee to try
to get different results from all of other committees and all of the
other hearings with the results they have had really is a foolish waste
of time.
Our amendment makes membership on the committee equally divided
between Republicans and Democrats. We know already that is not going to
happen.
It guarantees the minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions--no
such luck.
It guarantees equal distribution of money, staffing, and other
resources of the committee.
It requires the committee to establish written rules--that would be a
good one--specifically including rules concerning how documents and
other information may be obtained, used, or released.
It guarantees equal access to evidence and materials of the committee
and perhaps can identify witnesses who are going to be coming before
the committee.
It provides for transparency of the committee's expenditures and
budgeting.
It ensures that a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence
includes at least one minority member.
Finally, it ensures that the majority has a say in decisions about
extended questioning and staff questioning of witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful what is happening here today. People, not
just persons right now, but I believe that future historians looking at
the setup of this committee will be appalled, as all of the rest of us
are on our side, that to make use politically and financially of the
tragedy of the loss of four brave Americans is beneath contempt.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is the committee that
meets upstairs. We decide what legislation will come to the floor. In
this case, the House Rules Committee has original jurisdiction over
this bill, but the Rules Committee is made up of specialists, of
experts across this Congress, not only on the Republican and Democrat
side, but people who represent people back home who hear from and want
to know about the effects that Congress does and about the daily
impact.
One of those Members comes with vast experience and comes to us as
former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is a person who
is well respected and thoughtful.
More importantly, she was on duty as the chairwoman at the time
Benghazi occurred, and we are delighted she is on the Rules Committee.
She has brought incredible integrity and insight into this matter.
At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions for his
inspiring leadership on the Rules Committee on every issue, but most
especially as he spearheaded the creation of this select committee on
Benghazi to examine what happened, what led to this attack, and what
has happened since. Thank you for your leadership, Chairman Sessions.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here to fully support this measure, but it
really is unfortunate, it is sad, it is tragic that it has come to
this. We shouldn't have to be here today debating the rule and, later,
the underlying resolution on having to form a select committee to be
able to get to the truth about what happened on that tragic day and
night of September 11, 2012; but, unfortunately, our patience has been
sorely tried, so here we are.
The administration has, for nearly 2 years now, been stonewalling and
obfuscating, anything it can do, to avoid letting the truth out about
that tragic terrorist attack in our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time of the
attack, as Chairman Sessions has pointed out, I know, perhaps as well
as any of our colleagues, just how much the administration has been
trying to protect this false narrative and President Obama, the
narrative that Libya was a political success. Repeated requests for
more protection were ignored.
When the Accountability Review Board report was released, I planned
on convening a hearing to examine the assessment and the
recommendations; but in true stalling fashion, the State Department did
not release the report to us until about 8:30 p.m., just a few hours
before our hearing was set to begin.
Then, of course, there was a new song and dance every time we tried
to secure a date for Secretary Clinton to come before our House Foreign
Affairs Committee to testify.
We would even have taken any administration official, for that
matter. It took 3 months for the administration to provide us with
witnesses, and it did not provide Secretary Clinton to our committee
until the following year.
This is not the moves, Mr. Speaker, of an administration that had
planned on being the most transparent in history. In fact, this
administration has been anything but transparent, as we
[[Page H3957]]
have seen with the emails, having been the latest revelation in the
never-ending attempt to avoid telling the American public the full
truth about what happened, what was the lead up to the terrorist
attack, what happened during the many hours of that firefight, and what
happened to all of those documents afterwards
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need this select committee, to get the
truth out there for the American public, so that we can have an open
and honest debate about what happened on that fateful day and to ensure
that we can do everything in our power to prevent another terrorist
attack like this from happening in the future.
Let's remember these names, Mr. Speaker: Ambassador Chris Stevens,
Information Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and
Glen Doherty. These are names that the American people need to remember
each and every day.
Mr. Speaker, some folks have mentioned the fundraising aspect of this
Benghazi investigation, and that is rather sad and pathetic to bring
that up, but it is interesting because I was reading a newspaper
article.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meadows). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It is interesting that this says that the Democrats
are fundraising off GOP fundraising off Benghazi. It is a very
interesting article, and I hope that all of our colleagues will look at
it.
It is an article, and it says:
Contribute now, Democrats 2014.
I am not pointing fingers and calling names; but if we are going to
get blamed for something, I think that there is enough blame to go
around. To sensationalize this and to fundraise off it, this is
something some groups are trying to do, but I believe that the pot is
calling the kettle black.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your respected leadership on this issue.
The American people deserve to know the truth. We must not keep
promoting a false narrative. Libya was not a political success. Libya
continues, to this day, to be a tinderbox waiting to explode.
Terrorist groups are all over the place. Let's not ignore the facts
on the ground. Let's get to the truth about what happened to Benghazi,
and having this select committee is a way to get to the truth--pure and
simple--no politics.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the former
chairman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter from New York.
I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying
resolution, H. Res. 567. The majority's obsession with keeping Benghazi
conspiracy theories front and center through the midterm elections,
despite the fact that Republicans have held 10 Congressional hearings
already, nine classified Member briefings, and 16 Intelligence
Committee oversight events on the Benghazi attack, despite those 35
congressional proceedings here in the House alone on Benghazi, the most
astonishing information to emerge has been the striking level of
disinterest exhibited by certain Members of the majority with respect
to posing substantive questions that actually might inform efforts to
enhance the security of American personnel abroad.
In fact, the independent Accountability Review Board of Admiral
Mullen and Ambassador Pickering, two of the most respected civil
servants in our lifetimes, as well as the report of the Republican
majority-controlled House Armed Services Committee, have thoroughly
vetted and debunked the outrageous and irresponsible Benghazi
conspiracy theories that may make for good Republican fundraising, but
disgracefully slander the service and dedication of public servants in
the military and diplomatic corps.
In a USA Today op-ed published yesterday, my friend, Mr. Gowdy, from
South Carolina asked:
Was our military response during the pendency of the siege
sufficient?
To save us all the time and resources that the Speaker now apparently
plans to spend on his proposed partisan show panel, respectfully, I
would recommend that my colleagues pose that very question to the
esteemed Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who
stated last week:
The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a
dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command, yielding
thousands of pages of transcripts, emails, and other
documents. We have no evidence that the Department of State
officials delayed the decision to deploy those resources
available to the DOD to respond.
With their one-sided partisan select committee, we will not further
an investigation or get at the truth the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen) talked about.
We will reveal nothing new; rather, we will do our great Nation a
grave disservice in continuing to perpetuate myths and conspiracies
that cloud a simple, painful truth: the attack on Benghazi was a
tragedy perpetrated by jihadist terrorists--not by foreign diplomats,
not by U.S. diplomats.
There was no coverup. There was no soft-pedaling of this act of
terror, not by the President, not by the Secretary of State, not by the
Secretary of Defense, nor our Intelligence Committee; and to suggest
otherwise is a great slander.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Instead, Republicans on the Oversight Committee remain
obsessed with recycling tired and worn talking points in a cynical
attempt to fire up the GOP base before the midterm elections this
November.
Unfortunately, the regression into crass demagoguery has real world
consequences, Mr. Speaker. Our country's diplomatic corps cannot
operate effectively if we lock them in fortresses and prevent them from
engaging in foreign nations because there might be a risk.
The reality is that striking the right balance between necessary
security and effective diplomacy is an inherently complex and daunting
challenge for our foreign service every day, everywhere.
As Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen accurately stated in their
review report:
No diplomatic presence is without risk, and the total
elimination of risk is a nonstarter for U.S. diplomacy.
In closing, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle:
Why do they not trust the judgment of this Chamber's foremost military
expert, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who pronounced
himself ``satisfied that where the troops were, how quickly the thing
all happened, and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn't have
done more than we did''?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
{time} 1315
Mr. CONNOLLY. We probably couldn't have done more than we
did.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 8, 2014, on page H3957, the following appeared: We probably
couldn't have done more than we did
The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. CONNOLLY. We
probably couldn't have done more than we did
========================= END NOTE =========================
Those are the words of our colleague from California, the chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services.
I urge all Members to oppose this cynical, exploitative, partisan
ploy that is not worthy of this House.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville,
Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the recognition. I thank the
chairman of the committee, the distinguished Texan, for yielding me the
time. I certainly thank him for his confidence in me in allowing me to
be on the Rules Committee this past year and a half.
Mr. Speaker, it is now nearly 2 years, an administration that ran on
the concept of transparency but now only functions in opacity. We heard
from the administration on September 12 of 2012:
We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is
done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will
be done.
It seems strange now, almost 2 years later, to think on those words.
That seemed like a sincere promise. The American people believed that
promise that was made just days after the attack. If then we could have
known that 19 months later the President's press secretary would stand
before the White House press corps and laugh about the
[[Page H3958]]
event and call it a conspiracy theory. I don't think we would have
believed it if someone had told us what the future held, but sadly,
that is the state of affairs today.
Here we have a tragic event against our Ambassador, against American
citizens, and the darned thing has nearly become a cold case because of
the refusal of the White House to prioritize anything related to the
investigation except for their own bizarre political spin about what
happened.
Mr. Speaker, we have been forced to look into the anguished faces of
the victims' families and tell them that we have not been able to find
answers for them about the attack, the attack that killed their sons.
We have an entire Caucus that has threatened to boycott an
investigation that they have simply dismissed as political excess. It
is not political excess to those families, Mr. Speaker.
In turn, we as a Congress must do everything in our power to do what
the President said, what the President stated back in 2012: to ensure
that justice is done for this terrible act. The only way to deliver
that justice is to establish the select committee.
This is another step in what has become a very long process. I urge
my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman,
the ranking member on the Rules Committee, and my friend, the
distinguished gentleman from Texas, for the hard work that the Rules
Committee engages in.
I think the first comment that I would like to make is what we have
been making, Ms. Slaughter, throughout this process, is our deep and
abiding sympathy for the Americans who lost their lives in the name and
in the duty to this country. I don't think there is a divide on that
issue.
I would take a different perspective from a cold case. This is a hot
and ongoing case that has been investigated and has evidenced
individuals whom I would believe that, in any other instance, my
friends on the side of the aisle would hold to the integrity of their
representation.
One hundred years of military experience testified on the question of
Benghazi, I believe, in the Committee on Armed Services. We have heard
over and over from those in the State Department. We have had
conclusions on the question of coverup, and we have seen nothing
pointed to the administration to do so.
I think the issue today is a question of fairness. That is what
Democrats have always stood for. I have watched my leaders through the
endless investigations, starting from Waco and the impeachment process,
and I can almost say--maybe I should even say that I come from a
district where the Honorable Barbara Jordan served. She was on the
Watergate Committee and the impeachment process as a member of the
Judiciary Committee. I remember her posture on that committee and
holding up the Constitution. As a Texan, as a Democrat, we admired
that. That is the premise upon which I believe we should be looking at
this process.
As I read this resolution, I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, because if we
are going to do fairness and if we are going to reach a level of
ethical respect, then there is a concern. We need an amendment, because
this follows the rules of the House, which means that the chairman is
solely given and ceded the authority--that means he or she could--of
subpoena power. That does not rise to the level of fairness.
Now, someone refuted our leadership's request for a bipartisan, even-
numbered committee and cited that the only committee that is even-
numbered is the Committee on Ethics, and they are right, Mr. Speaker.
We want this to be an ethical, fair, responsibly, constitutionally
grounded committee investigation report, because the committee is
unending. It will end only 30 days after the completion of its work;
therefore, it can go on and on and on. The question is will the
American people see fairness.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman another minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, what we want them to see, if we truly
honor those dead Americans that died in the line of battle and duty,
then we need the kind of face to the American people that balances the
subpoena power so that we all--meaning Republicans and Democrats who
are on that committee, if that committee is finalized--can responsibly
question witnesses, and that the issue will not be the committee in its
process, but it will be the fairness, it will be the Constitution, it
will be the dignity and honor we give to those who have fallen.
I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, we can waive the
point of order, amend this on the floor of the House to give a balance
to this committee, to add the balance that our leadership has asked
for, the fairness that our leadership is asking for, give the subpoena
powers in a balanced manner, pay tribute to those who have honored this
Nation by being willing to stand in the line, in the eye of fire.
I conclude simply by indicating we are the people of this Nation.
Respond to our concerns. And I ask my colleagues to reject this rule
and the underlying bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Members of Congress who attend hearings and heard the testimony
yesterday should not mislead the American people by their statements on
the floor as the gentlewoman from Texas did.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee)
just talked about how we have proposed that this be a balanced
committee like the Ethics Committee. That was done with regard to
another special committee, in fact, the bill that was sponsored by
current Speaker, then-minority leader, John Boehner in the 110th
Congress.
They set up a special committee with regard to voting irregularities.
They had an equal balance between Democrats and Republicans to remove
any taint of partisanship from the proceedings. That would be a
welcomed change, but again, that was not even allowed to be discussed
under this rule.
Another language of concern in the underlying bill which we tried to
address in the Rules Committee but unfortunately were voted down is
that this bill allows for such funds that are needed to be appropriated
for this purpose. We were not even presented with any cost estimates
for this committee.
On the committee, it was noted that Kenneth Starr's investigation of
then-President Clinton cost in excess of $80 million. We simply don't
know if this is a $1 million, a $10 million, a $50 million, or a $200
million endeavor; nor were we allowed to even allow for a vote our very
simple bipartisan proposal to pay for this bill, which would have been
to allow a vote on H.R. 15.
H.R. 15, which is a bill that has bipartisan support, has already
passed the Senate by more than two-thirds, would pass as a pay-for if
brought to the floor of the House, actually generates over $200
billion. Even if this select committee were to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars, if we were able to include immigration reform as a
way of paying for it, it would still reduce the deficit by $199 billion
or more.
We weren't even allowed an up-or-down vote on that topic. In the
spirit of bipartisanship, I offered to support the establishment of the
select committee if we could establish immigration reform as the way of
paying for this. Unfortunately, despite support from both sides of the
aisle in committee, we were, nevertheless, voted down.
I want to be clear that the issue of immigration reform will not go
away. We will continue to offer it as a way of paying for various
bills. I hope that a discussion is allowed about how to pay for this
committee, and that is why I oppose the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding
me this time.
[[Page H3959]]
I rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the bill. It is
really a political charade and a pointless attempt to find a scandal
that simply doesn't exist.
What happened in Benghazi in September 2012 was a tragedy. The loss
of those four Americans broke our hearts, and it reminded us that
diplomacy can be dangerous work and that we need to do all we can to
protect those who represent our country around the world.
What have we seen from certain members of the majority since that
day? Partisan games. And this select committee would be nothing more
than the next chapter in this political farce, just in time for the
midterm elections and with 2016 peeking over the horizon.
What is it exactly that my colleagues are after? After the attack in
Benghazi, we all wanted answers: What happened that night that led to
the death of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty?
Where did we fall short in protecting our people, and who was
responsible? What could we do to make sure something like this wouldn't
happen again?
Well, an Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Thomas
Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, two men with seriousness of
purpose and no partisan agenda, helped answer those questions. They
found serious management and leadership failures at the State
Department. Bipartisan reports from the Senate Homeland and
Intelligence Committees supported those findings.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sat before
committees in both Houses and took full responsibility. She and her
successor, John Kerry, have said over and over again that the State
Department is implementing all of the recommendations of the Review
Board.
That didn't satisfy some of my friends on the other side. They
started moving the goalpost, and so began this long, costly exercise.
They tried to tie Secretary Clinton directly to the security failures
that led to this tragedy, but that didn't turn up anything. Then they
floated the idea that our military was told to stand down in the moment
of greatest need in Benghazi. Even the Republican chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services said that claim had no merit.
Since there is no wrongdoing to be found with respect to the actual
attack, now we are focused on the talking points and the so-called
coverup. I ask again: What is it my colleagues are after? What is
allegedly being covered up?
At the time the attacks took place, American Embassies from Southeast
Asia to the Middle East, to North Africa, to England were surrounded by
protestors angered over an anti-Islamic video. In Egypt, our Embassy
was stormed.
So as the fires in Benghazi were still burning and the air was thick
with smoke, the CIA's assessment was that the attack was the result of
a spontaneous protest. They were wrong. In the days that followed, they
corrected that mistake, confirming that the attack was a deliberate and
organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.
In the days after the attack, these protests in the region were still
raging. Some of them were violent. In Yemen, additional marines were
deployed to protect our personnel. The latest conspiracy theory centers
on an email sent at the time. In context, it is clear that Ben Rhodes,
the Deputy National Security Adviser, was concerned about protecting
Americans amid a volatile climate around our diplomatic facilities all
over the world.
Those who want to create a scandal where none exists call this a
smoking gun. That is not much to go on. Nevertheless, after more than a
year of turning up nothing new, my colleagues want to create a new
committee with sweeping powers, a broad mandate, and no fixed timeline
for producing any sort of report.
When I heard of the terrible idea to create this special committee, I
could not help but think of Iraq where, not four, but 4,000 Americans
died. My Republican colleagues conducted virtually no investigations
into that tragedy based on a lie. They set up no committees to uncover
the truth behind the phony intelligence, the torture, the secret
prisons, or the spin about how Iraqis would greet us with flowers.
Nothing.
So I have to ask a final time: What is it my colleagues on the other
side are after? I think the answer is pretty clear. They are after a
political win. They want to tear down leaders in the Democratic Party
and raise money for their campaign committees, and they are willing to
politicize the deaths of four Americans to do it.
{time} 1330
Our constituents aren't interested in this. They want us to do our
jobs, not waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a fabricated scandal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Let's do what they sent us here to do. Let's protect our
diplomats and development experts. Let's work to create jobs and shore
up our crumbling infrastructure. Let's fix our immigration system and
promote energy security. Let's vote ``no'' on this resolution and get
back to governing.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Colorado will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining
speakers on his side.
Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, I do not.
Mr. POLIS. Then I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As we have seen time and time again, sadly the Republicans are taking
an unspeakable tragedy--the death of four brave American citizens--and
turning it into a partisan talking to the point of selling membership
to become Benghazi investigators on a partisan Web site rather than
engaging in a bipartisan process to get to the root of the matter.
The families of those who died deserve more than that. They deserve
that Democrats and Republicans work together rather than use their pain
for political or financial gain for either party.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to make in order our amendment to ensure that the
select committee has a chance to succeed where four previous House
investigations have not to ensure that we have a full, accurate, and
objective accounting for the American people of the events in Benghazi.
By ensuring equal representation, equal resources, and equal say over
the use of subpoenas and depositions, we can fulfill our obligations to
our Nation and to our institution to ensure that we get to the bottom
of this matter for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we and my colleagues on the Rules Committee
have tried to make this process work. We tried to propose a bipartisan
way of paying for these efforts, we tried to propose a balanced way for
this committee to go about its business. But at every turn we were shot
down. That is why I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who
care about honoring those who lost their lives, who care about getting
to the bottom of the events, join me in opposing this rule and
defeating the previous question so that we may begin a process that has
the confidence of the American people rather than just speaks to one
partisan base or the other.
The American people deserve this institution acting at its best with
regard to this matter, Democrats and Republicans acting in concert,
both enjoying the power of subpoena, the ability to schedule witnesses,
equal resources on the committee, so we can have a full, objective, and
hopefully unanimous account of the events.
That should be the goal of the legislation. Under this rule, we are
not even
[[Page H3960]]
allowed to discuss our proposals to ensure equal representation on this
committee. We are not allowed to discuss our proposal to pay for the
proceedings under this bill with a bipartisan bill that passed the
Senate with more than two-thirds.
This is a closed process that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, risks losing the
faith of the American people in the outcome of this process. I fear,
Mr. Speaker, that whatever the outcome of this process, if it moves
forward, will fall on deaf ears of the American people because they
will know that there was not an institutional commitment to being
objective, there was not an effort to reach out in a bipartisan manner
to find the truth, there was not a bipartisan effort to even pay for
the costs of this investigation or this bill or contain or estimate
those costs in any way.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so we can get this process right. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the
underlying resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There is an old saying that the closer to the target you get, the
more flak comes up. While that is probably a naval or an Air Force term
whereby pilots who are on their duty know when they are getting close
to the real target. Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the real
target.
The facts of the case are really pretty simple. There is no gag order
involved here. We spoke last night and yesterday in a very open,
probably several-hour meeting on original jurisdiction at the Rules
Committee. I was very open with the members of the committee. I told
them, which has not been expressed today, that the last day of the
113th Congress this investigation, if it is still going on, would have
to be reauthorized by the next Congress. It is not like there is a
never-ending date. As a matter of fact, we say in the original
jurisdiction that 30 days after the completion of their report this
select committee would go away.
Secondly, we spoke very openly about not having new money available,
but rather the money that was originally given to the House of
Representatives for the purposes of running the House. The Speaker of
the House would have to make sure that this committee operates within
what we had originally asked for. There are not unlimited amounts of
money. And to suggest as has been done on the floor, up to $200 million
to run this investigation, that simply would not be truthful.
Mr. Speaker, the closer to the target we have gotten, we have found
that the Obama administration is trying to do everything they can to
keep the United States House of Representatives and the committees from
doing their job to try and misdirect us, to try and trick us, to try
and fool us, to try and redact information that did not fall under a
national security title but rather was to politically save them from
what might be an embarrassment.
What are some of those embarrassments? Well, some of the
embarrassments would be: Why didn't the State Department understand on
September 11 of any year why you probably do not conduct official
operations, especially in a dangerous area? That might be one question.
Another question might be: Who is it that said no? We have heard that
there are serious flaws in the State Department. We already knew that.
The former Secretary of State has numerous investigations that have
revealed inadequacy all the way to the top of the State Department when
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
But what we are about here is to get to the bottom of it, to
effectively get this done, to report to the American people, and they,
Mr. Speaker, will see exactly why this was done, because the oversight
responsibilities of the House of Representatives were done at the
highest levels of this House. And by the way, we will read the bills
before we pass them, we will understand the facts of the case and be
able to explain them, and, more importantly, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives will be in support of the American people knowing
the truth.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the Rules Committee to bring
forth its rule today to talk about this important, not just
intelligence operation and national security and State Department and
military operations, but to be able to say that the confidence that the
American people have in the brave men and women who represent America--
that we will never leave them on the battlefield alone in hours of
firefights without a backup position of knowing that the next sound you
hear will be the United States Navy or the United States Air Force
coming to aid the men and women who are in harm's way. That is the
bottom line to this: an apology, not just stating a mismanagement,
based upon the facts of the case.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution
and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. I believe what we are doing
today is an honorable day for the American people, and I am proud to be
here as an American, as a Member of Congress, saying we will get to the
bottom of this, it will be done quickly, and it will be done
efficiently, and the American people can then make their decisions and
us move on, knowing that we will support the men and women who wear the
uniform.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 575 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
Strike ``except'' and all that follows and insert the
following:
``except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules; and (2) the amendment specified in
section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative
Slaughter of New York or a designee, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question.''
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section is
as follow:
Page 1, lines 9 and 10, strike ``after consultation with''
and insert ``on the recommendation of''.
Page 4, strike lines 15 and 16 and redesignate accordingly.
Page 4, line 22, after ``Select Committee'', insert ``,
including one of the members who was appointed to the Select
Committee after consultation with the minority leader under
section 2(a),''
Page 5, line 3, strike ``chair of the''.
Page 5, line 7, before the period, insert ``, only upon an
affirmative vote of the majority of its members or with the
concurrence of the ranking minority member''.
Page 5, lines 8 and 9, strike ``upon consultation with''
and insert ``with the concurrence of''.
Page 5, line 16, before the period, insert ``, and shall be
taken only upon concurrence of the ranking minority member''.
Page 5, line 18, strike ``after consultation with'' and
insert ``with the concurrence of''.
Page 6, after line 3, add the following new subsections:
(d) All Members of the Select Committee shall have
equitable and timely access to all evidence and other
material received by the Select Committee.
(e) The Select Committee shall adopt written procedures
governing how documents and other information may be
obtained, used, or released by the committee or any members
or staff of the committee.
Page 7, after line 11, add the following new subsections:
(d) The chair and ranking minority member of the Select
Committee shall receive equal allotments of resources for the
expenses and staff necessary to carry out this resolution.
(e) A complete report of the expenditures of the Select
Committee shall be made available to the public on a monthly
basis.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the
[[Page H3961]]
opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was
entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-
Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused,
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked
the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled
to the first recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________