[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 71 (Monday, May 12, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2896-S2898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--S. RES. 225 and S. 1386

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, 8 months ago yesterday I requested 
unanimous consent for S. Res. 225 calling for a joint select committee 
of Congress to investigate the terrorist attack on our facilities in 
Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, which resulted in the murder of 
four brave Americans: Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, former Navy 
SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher 
Stevens, who was our first Ambassador murdered while serving since 
Adolph Dubs in 1979.
  At the time my colleague, the junior the Senator from California, 
objected on the grounds that the administration was trying ``to address 
Benghazi,'' and that President Obama would ``not rest until the 
perpetrators were caught.''
  Here we are, 8 months later, and the perpetrators still have not been 
caught, and the confusion about what occurred on September 11, 2012, in 
Benghazi has only gotten worse. In recent weeks, what happened on that 
terrible night has gotten more and more obscure.
  On April 2 of this year, Mike Morell, the Deputy Director of the CIA 
during the Benghazi attacks, testified regarding the CIA talking points 
that he ``took out the word `Islamic' in front of `extremists' '' 
because he thought there were other kinds of extremists in Libya and 
that he did not use the word ``terrorist'' because ``we see extremists 
and terrorists as the same thing.''
  On April 29 of this year, in response to a FOIA request by Judicial 
Watch, the White House released emails related to Benghazi, including a 
September 14, 2012, email from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben 
Rhodes that had as its stated goal ``to underscore that these protests 
are rooted in an Internet video and not in a broader failure of 
policy.''
  I would note that is a stated political goal from the White House, in 
writing, days after the attack--not to get to the truth but to further 
that political goal.
  Then, on May 1, 2014, Gen. Robert Lovell, Deputy Director of 
Intelligence of U.S. AFRICOM during the Benghazi attacks, became the 
first former military officer to question the administration's 
insistence that a rescue attempt was not possible, arguing ``the 
discussion is not in the `could or could not' in relation to time, 
space, and capability, the point is we should have tried.''
  It is hard to disagree with the good general that we should have 
tried to save those four Americans who were murdered that tragic night.
  We are left once again with persistent questions on Benghazi to which 
we still don't know the answers. Here are 10:
  No. 1. Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the 
requested level of security to Benghazi in the summer of 2012?
  No. 2. Do President Obama's daily intelligence briefings in the runup 
to September 11, 2012, support the assertion that there was no credible 
threat of a coordinated terrorist attack on Benghazi during the time, 
and do the daily intelligence briefings following that date support the 
claim the administration made that the cause was an Internet video? Why 
hasn't the White House declassified and released those briefings, as 
President George W. Bush did with his pre-September 11, 2001, 
briefings?
  No. 3. Why did we not anticipate the need to have military assets at 
the ready in the region on the anniversary of September 11--of all 
dates?
  No. 4. Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did 
Secretary Clinton? Neither has answered that very simple question: Were 
they awake or asleep while Americans were under fire? When was 
President Obama told about the murder of our Ambassador?
  No. 5. If the Secretary of Defense thought there was ``no question 
that this was a coordinated terrorist attack,'' why did Ambassador 
Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the 
American people that the cause was a spontaneous demonstration about an 
Internet video? None has squarely answered that question.
  No. 6. Why did former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell edit the 
intelligence community talking points to delete the references to 
Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda?
  No. 7. Why did the FBI not release pictures of the militants taken 
the day of the attack until 8 months after the fact--why not 
immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?
  No. 8. Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report? 
If all the relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, as our 
friends on the other side of the aisle often like to say, why did the 
State Department's own inspector general's office open a probe into the 
methods of that very report?
  No. 9. Why have none of the terrorists who attacked in Benghazi been 
captured or killed?
  No. 10. What additional evidence that the White House engaged in a 
partisan political campaign to blame the Benghazi attack on the 
Internet video is contained in the additional emails requested by 
Judicial Watch but withheld by the White House on the grounds that it 
would put a ``chill'' on internal deliberations?
  I would suggest to my colleagues that what is truly chilling is that 
20 months after the Benghazi attack, we have four dead Americans and no 
dead terrorists. It is chilling to think our President may have had 
better things to do than personally attend to an ongoing terrorist 
attack on our people. It is chilling to imagine that we could have 
mounted a rescue attempt of our own people but that we didn't even 
bother to try. It is chilling to think our Secretary of State would not 
insist on giving an interview for the ARB report. It is chilling to 
think we have an administration that is reluctant to utter the words 
``radical Islamic terrorism,'' let alone fight effectively against it. 
It is chilling to have former administration officials respond to 
questions in response to Benghazi with, ``Dude, this was like two years 
ago.''
  The clock is ticking. Memories are fading. It is beyond time to get 
the full resources of both Houses of Congress behind this 
investigation. The President should release his daily intelligence 
briefings in the times surrounding the Benghazi attack, as President 
George W. Bush did concerning 9/11. This body should join with the 
House of Representatives, with a joint select committee to get to the 
bottom of what happened. Why didn't we protect Americans? Why didn't we 
stop this attack? Why haven't we captured the terrorists who killed 
four Americans including our Ambassador?
  Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the rules and 
administration committee be discharged from further consideration and 
the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 225. I further ask unanimous consent 
that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, this request is, in my 
view, without merit. It is an effort to follow in the footsteps of the 
unfortunate, politically motivated creation of a just-founded special 
committee by the House of Representatives just in time for midterm 
elections. The supposed reason once again we hear colleagues saying we 
need to have another review, another hearing, another investigation, is 
the White House email. This is the smoking gun.
  When you read the email, in fact, it is nothing more than a day-to-
day work product and part of the job of the President's staff when they 
are talking about, not Benghazi--not Benghazi--but what is happening 
across the entire region, and clearly across many parts of the Arab 
world. What happened as a result of that video was a visceral response, 
and it is in that context that this email is being discussed, but our 
friends--who will never be satisfied because it doesn't solve their 
political concerns--at the end of the day seek to use this as their 
latest claim for their ``investigation.''
  Their previous one-trick pony, repealing the Affordable Care Act, has 
finally been put out to pasture. The Republicans desperately need 
another political trick, and apparently when there is nothing else of 
substance to fire up their base, their plan is to yell ``Benghazi'' as 
often and as loudly as possible.

[[Page S2897]]

  This request is, from my perspective, purely a political witch hunt 
without merit. There have been 11 congressional hearings on the attack. 
The executive branch has released 25,000 pages of documents and email 
related to the incident. There has been an independent Accountability 
Review Board report. There have been multiple Congressional reports on 
the attack. The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan 
report last January on the attack. The House Armed Services Committee 
issued a report on military response to the attack. The Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, which I chair, has held multiple hearings and 
briefings to review the events that occurred in Benghazi. We heard from 
Secretary Clinton. We heard from Secretary Kerry. We have heard from 
Deputy Secretary Burns. We have met with survivors of the Benghazi 
attack. We have multiple briefings from Assistant Secretary Starr and 
with diplomatic security. We have had briefings from the intelligence 
community and the Department of Defense.
  Whatever questions remain are meant, from my perspective, only to 
score political points. I feel confident the Congress and the American 
people have received the necessary information about the attack, but 
Congress is not without responsibility. We also have an obligation to 
do our part to comply with the Administrative Review Board's 
recommendations.
  Benghazi again highlighted the need to maintain focus and to revise 
policies to better protect the nearly 70,000 men and women serving 
across the world in more than 275 posts. The Congress took a serious 
look at the issue following another set of tragedies in Nairobi and Dar 
es Salaam that resulted in 224 deaths, including 11 American citizens.
  We may not be able to prevent every single terror attack in the 
future, but we can and we must make sure our embassies and employees, 
starting with high-risk, high-threat posts, are capable of withstanding 
such an attack. That is why the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
passed S. 1836, the Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen 
Doherty Embassy Security Threat Mitigation and Personal Protection Act 
of 2013.
  If the Senate wants to take effective action to safeguard our brave 
men and women serving in U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, if we 
want to actually be serious about discharging our duties and to make 
sure these attacks are less likely to occur in the future, rather than 
grandstanding for cheap political advantage, then it is time to take up 
S. 1386 and immediately pass a bipartisan bill--that Senator Corker and 
I authored together with support from both sides of the aisle on our 
committee--that would authorize the funding for the key items 
identified by the Accountability Review Board on Benghazi, including 
embassy security and construction, language training, and an improved 
and integrated foreign affairs security training for State Department 
personnel.
  It provides contract authority to the State Department to allow it to 
award contracts on a best value basis, rather than to the lowest 
bidder, where conditions require enhanced levels of security, and it 
goes on and on about our high-risk, high-threat posts meeting all the 
elements of what the review board said was critical to make sure we 
don't lose lives again.
  I would rather we legislate, which our constituents sent us to do, 
and pass bills extending our Nation's security policy and addressing 
the real challenges and real lessons to be learned from the tragic 
events at Benghazi. The bipartisan embassy security bill does just 
that.
  For that purpose, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 257, S. 1386, a 
bill to provide for enhanced embassy security; and further, that the 
committee-reported amendments be agreed to; that the bill as amended be 
read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request made by 
the Senator from New Jersey?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, my friend, 
the senior Senator from New Jersey, suggests that this is a request on 
the eve of a midterm election. The only reason for that of course is 8 
months ago, when I made the exact same request, the Democrats objected 
and blocked a joint select committee looking into Benghazi at that 
time. The Senator from New Jersey also suggested this was some kind of 
distraction from ObamaCare. I promise the Senator, there is no one in 
this Chamber less interested in distracting from ObamaCare than I.
  I would encourage the senior Senator from New Jersey, if he believes 
what he says, to go and campaign for his Democratic colleagues who are 
up for election this year with the simple message that he said on the 
floor of this Senate, which is Senator so-and-so is the critical 60th 
vote to passing ObamaCare, and if you like it you can keep your 
Senator. I feel quite confident that the Democratic Senators up for 
election this year are running as rapidly away from the point suggested 
by the senior Senator from New Jersey as possible.

  But secondly, I would note, in his entire speech, the senior Senator 
from New Jersey said there is no need for any further inquiry because 
we had lots of hearings and there is no need to know anything, but let 
me point out, the senior Senator from New Jersey did not answer even a 
single question that I asked. I outlined 10 questions that have not 
been answered. He is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. 
Yet he either could not or did not answer even a single question--two 
simple ones--which are ``yes'' or ``no'' questions.
  No. 1. Did President Obama sleep on the night of September 11, 2012? 
The senior Senator from New Jersey chose not to answer, I suspect, 
because none of us knows because the White House has never answered 
that question.
  No. 2. Do the President's daily intelligence briefings reflect the 
political spin from the White House on Benghazi? Likewise, the chairman 
of the Foreign Relations Committee did not answer that question. Again, 
I suspect it is because he does not know because the White House has 
not released that information.
  There are far too many questions remaining, but the senior Senator 
from New Jersey, my learned colleague, proposed a counter unanimous 
consent request to improve embassy security.
  I would ask unanimous consent to engage in a very brief colloquy with 
my colleague and ask him specifically one question about the unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection.
  Mr. CRUZ. The question I would ask my colleague from New Jersey is, 
If I were to consent to the unanimous consent that the Senator has 
proffered, and if this side of the aisle would request, would he 
likewise consent to the unanimous consent request that I put forward 
for a joint select committee composed of Republicans and Democrats in 
the Senate to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would say to my colleague from Texas that the consent 
request for embassy security we passed in committee in a bipartisan 
effort is much different than a partisan effort to have an 
investigation that ultimately also is led by a partisan effort in the 
House of Representatives. So one is guaranteed to have the support of 
both sides of the aisle in order to ensure that we protect our men and 
women in the Foreign Service in the days ahead. The other one is 
guaranteed to pursue a political line and a political attack instead of 
making sure we ultimately save lives in the future, not because I said 
it but because an independent review board made these recommendations 
that we incorporate them. So, of course, the two are not the same.
  Mr. CRUZ. So why is it--I am curious--the senior Senator from New 
Jersey believes an inquiry to ascertain the truth about what happened 
is necessarily a partisan endeavor? Is there no partisan interest on 
that side of the aisle in finding out what happened, how it could have 
been prevented, and why we didn't save those four Americans?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to answer my colleague on that, because he 
suggested that his 10 questions--that because he asked the 10 
questions, they are suddenly worthy of being answered, worthy of in 
fact not being viewed

[[Page S2898]]

through the prism of any politics. I would simply say if there is 
political spin--several of the Senator's questions are pretty shocking 
to me in terms of the political nature of them.
  As I said to the body, we have had a whole host of efforts to review 
the facts and come to a determination of the truth of what happened on 
that day. They have been in public hearings and they have been in 
secure intelligence briefings. Members on both sides--on both sides--
have been exposed to it. Members on both sides got to ask questions 
across the spectrum, and so from my perspective we have gone through 
the search of what happened on that fateful day. We all abhor what 
happened to the men who lost their lives on that day. That is why what 
I want to do is ensure that we lose no more lives as a result of this 
Congress's irresponsibility to act on embassy security, knowing what in 
fact a panel of experts, undisputed in their capacity, has said is 
necessary to protect our men and women around the world. Yet we cannot 
seem to get that legislation passed through the Senate. Now, that is 
about congressional responsibility from my perspective.
  Mr. CRUZ. I would note that my friend from New Jersey did not 
endeavor to answer any of the questions I proffered, including the most 
simple question, such as did the President sleep on the night of 
September 11, 2012.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I think whether the President slept on that day, the 
question is, Did he even get told by those who had information that 
such an attack was going on? I don't know. The bottom line is would 
that have saved anybody? I don't know that either.
  The bottom line is does the Senator want to do something about saving 
future lives or does he just want to do politics with this issue? If he 
wants to save lives tomorrow, where he does have the control--where he 
does have the control at this moment--then he will let the embassy 
security bill go forward. If, God forbid, we have an attack somewhere 
in the world, and the legislation we are seeking in a bipartisan way in 
response to that independent board is stopped because the other side 
wishes to stop it, then God forbid we have an attack and lives are cut 
off. Then there will be an accounting at that time.
  Mr. CRUZ. I would thank my friend from New Jersey for a colloquy in 
support of this joint select committee on Benghazi because the 
Democratic Senator from New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, just told this body he has no idea if President 
Obama was even told that four Americans were under terrorist attack. He 
has no idea. He doesn't know what, if anything, the President could 
have done to save them.
  I would suggest that is exactly the reason we need this committee. If 
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 2 years later cannot 
answer that question, it makes abundantly clear that the response of 
the administration, sadly, and the response of the Senate Democrats has 
been partisan stonewalling rather than getting to the truth. In the 
immortal lines of Jack Nicholson, it makes one think perhaps they 
cannot handle it or at least they don't want to know.
  I would finally say I am more than prepared to consent to the request 
from the senior Senator of New Jersey if he would only show the same 
reciprocal courtesy of agreeing to the same request; a bipartisan 
committee, in which he would no doubt participate, to answer the 
question--the senior Senator from New Jersey just told this body he 
doesn't know if the President knew. He doesn't know what the President 
could have done. Apparently, the premise of the statement is he doesn't 
think the American people care.
  I suggest that the American people care a great deal as to what the 
President knew about national security. They would want to know if he 
was not engaged or if he didn't act to stop it. That is a matter worthy 
of inquiry by this body.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I say to my colleague from Texas that we have come to a 
conclusion based on all of the hearings, all of the testimony, and all 
of the reports as to what transpired and what we can do to save a life 
prospectively; therefore, I say to the Senator, he has it in his 
control to ultimately ensure that we set the foundation so no one else 
will lose their life. If he wants to hold that hostage to his political 
efforts to continue an issue that has had thousands of hours of 
reviews, hearings, reports--all with bipartisan participation--then he 
can choose to do so.
  Mr. CRUZ. Since my friend from New Jersey has made it plain that he 
will not consent to this request, I will note that this is an open 
offer that anytime my friend from New Jersey will simply stop blocking 
a fair, bipartisan, joint inquiry as to what occurred in Benghazi--the 
terrorist attack that tragically took the lives of four Americans--I am 
happy to consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for morning business has expired.
  Is there objection to the request made by the Senator from New 
Jersey?
  Mr. CRUZ. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the request made by the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.

                          ____________________