[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16215-16216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION TO CREATE A HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 
       TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE U.S. CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI, LIBYA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 4, 2012

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a resolution to 
establish a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi 
to ensure a unified investigation of the attack and the Obama 
Administration's response. A select committee is essential to combine 
the myriad existing investigations into a single, comprehensive and 
exhaustive review. I believe such a combined effort will yield even 
more information regarding the true nature of these terrorist attacks 
and the administration's response.
  More than 80 days have passed since the terrorist attack on the U.S. 
consulate and annex that occurred during the late evening and early 
morning hours of September 11-12. The attack took the lives of four 
Americans, including a U.S. ambassador--the first ambassador to be 
killed in the line of duty since 1979. Yet the American people still 
have been told little about the timeline of this attack and the 
administration's response in the hours, days and weeks following. The 
American people still haven't been provided answers to serious 
questions. For example, why was additional security denied to the 
ambassador? What intelligence was known about the threat prior to the 
attacks? There are also serious questions about links of this terrorist 
attack to the protests at the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Egypt, Tunis, 
Tunisia and Sanaa, Yemen that same week--where each American compound 
was breached by individuals allegedly linked to al Qaeda-affiliated 
groups. What, if any, were the connections between these incidents and 
the attack in Benghazi?
  These questions are too serious--and the consequences too grave--to 
be brushed

[[Page 16216]]

aside. There are critical legislative decisions the next Congress will 
have to make based on the answers of these questions. But more 
importantly, the American people deserve answers to these questions--
including open hearings and an unclassified report.
  The select committee I am proposing should draw from the existing 
congressional investigations by including the chairman and ranking 
member of each committee of jurisdiction--Intelligence, Foreign 
Affairs, Judiciary, Armed Services and Oversight and Government 
Reform--as well as five additional Republicans appointed by the Speaker 
and two additional Democrats appointed by the Minority Leader.
  I appreciate the support I have received for this resolution from the 
original cosponsors, as well as the Heritage Foundation. I also submit 
for the Record a recent op-ed that was published on 
RealClearPolitics.com by former Senator Fred Thompson articulating the 
benefits of a unified select committee. Senator Thompson has a unique 
perspective on the need for this committee given his experience as 
counsel on the Senate select committee on Watergate.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the families of the victims, and the 
American people, to fully investigate this terrorist attack. I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.

                            [Nov. 28, 2012]

         Investigating Benghazi: Why We Need a Select Committee

                           (By Fred Thompson)

       As we fixate on the latest version of Gen. David Petraeus' 
     testimony or the misleading statements of Susan Rice, I 
     suggest that we stop and think about the size of what we are 
     dealing with. The Benghazi tragedy raises questions 
     concerning the protection of our embassies, the performance 
     and capabilities of our military and our intelligence 
     community, as well as the decisions of high-ranking officials 
     in the Department of Defense, the State Department, the White 
     House and possibly the Justice Department.
       The scope of the questions that involve an array of 
     officials, and sensitive agencies and departments of our 
     government, is unprecedented. The inquiry into what happened 
     and why, along with who is or should be accountable, calls 
     for a focused, responsible effort equal to the seriousness 
     and the complexities the issues.
       I've seen this rodeo before, both in a constructive manner 
     (Watergate, where I served as a counsel) and a less-than-
     constructive one (Clinton-era investigations, where I chaired 
     a committee that probed at least one facet of the various 
     scandals). On our present course, the prospects for a 
     relatively short but thorough, credible, bipartisan 
     congressional investigation are not good. The prospects for a 
     disjointed, drawn-out mess, replete with partisan bickering, 
     are much better.
       It is easy to identify at least eight congressional 
     committees (four in each chamber) with claims of jurisdiction 
     in the Benghazi matter. No committee has jurisdiction over 
     all of it, and several committees have jurisdiction over 
     parts that overlap with the jurisdictions of other 
     committees. Some of the committee hearings will involve 
     classified information and will be conducted behind closed 
     doors. Members of ``Committee A'' will not know what a 
     witness told ``Committee B'' in a closed hearing. Gen. 
     Petraeus' recent appearance on Capitol Hill demonstrates how 
     difficult it can be to get a consistent story when the 
     witness is making multiple appearances before even the same 
     committee.
       Perhaps not all committees with jurisdiction will have 
     hearings, but if half of them do it will produce competing 
     hearings, with competing staffs and competing press 
     conferences over much of Capitol Hill. It will also take 
     longer than necessary, as government officials shuffle back 
     and forth giving repeat performances. Different committee 
     chairmen and their committees will make different rulings on 
     document production, whether to move for immunity for 
     witnesses who refuse to testify on the basis of the 5th 
     Amendment, and a host of other matters.
       This is simply not the most efficient and credible way to 
     proceed. And it is less likely to arrive at the truth. The 
     seriousness of the matter calls for something better. It 
     calls for a select committee that is given a specific 
     mandate, a budget and a cut-off date that can be adjusted if 
     it is agreed upon. It needs to be comprised of members of 
     both parties who have been selected by their leadership 
     because of their proven integrity, reputation for fairness, 
     and expertise in a given area.
       In a matter fraught with political implications, it is 
     especially important that Congress accept its responsibility 
     and minimize partisanship as much as possible. History 
     demonstrates that this goal is much easier to achieve with a 
     handful of selected people than it is with many. Since 1789, 
     when Congress investigated a failed military expedition, 
     select committees have been utilized to serve such important 
     and sensitive functions, and the Benghazi matter should 
     follow in that long tradition, whether by means of a joint 
     committee of both houses of Congress or by either chamber.
       Most select committees have become historical footnotes. 
     Some, however, are well remembered because of the 
     contribution they made to helping Congress carry out its 
     duties of legislating, overseeing the executive branch and 
     educating the American people as to the operation of their 
     government. Ironically, it is because of the success of these 
     panels that some members of Congress and others oppose the 
     formation of one in this case.
       They say that forming a select committee for a matter such 
     as Benghazi, where a consulate and four American lives were 
     lost, would attach too much importance to the investigation. 
     They fear that it would be equating it with Watergate. Of 
     course, if the Watergate standard, as they define it, is now 
     the operative standard for the formation of a select 
     committee, then seldom, if ever, will another select 
     committee be formed.
       Critics of the select committee miss the point on several 
     levels. First of all, if indeed a comparison is to be made, 
     one must look at the seriousness of facts and issues 
     presented concerning Benghazi and compare them with the 
     seriousness of facts and issues presented at the times when 
     other select committees, such as Watergate, were formed. So 
     compare the Watergate burglary with what we have here. Can 
     there be any doubt that Benghazi passes the Watergate test?
       The wisdom of utilizing a select committee should not just 
     be judged on the outcome of the committee's work; dramatic 
     results are not always achieved or warranted. The select 
     Watergate Committee is a beneficial reference point, not 
     because of the end result of its investigation a year and a 
     half after it was formed, but because of the process Congress 
     utilized to deal with a difficult situation.
       At that time, we had a Republican president and a Congress 
     controlled by the Democrats. Yet the Senate voted unanimously 
     to form the committee. Democratic leadership appointed Sen. 
     Sam Ervin, reputed to be the chamber's leading constitutional 
     scholar, to chair the committee. The Republican leader 
     appointed Sen. Howard Baker to be the vice chairman and 
     leading member of his party on the committee--a senator who 
     was respected on both sides of the aisle. These men protected 
     the legitimate partisan interests of their respective parties 
     and the path was not always smooth, especially behind closed 
     doors, but they understood that their colleagues, as well as 
     the nation, were depending upon them to be responsible and 
     seek the truth. Authority and accountability were clearly 
     placed on the committee, and its members performed 
     accordingly.
       Select committees are not perfect creations by any means. A 
     clear narrative is often difficult to produce under any 
     circumstances. However, a select committee is simply much 
     more likely to produce focused and credible results. Soon we 
     will see if the United States Congress is still capable of 
     coming together toward the common goal of getting to the 
     bottom of a very serious matter. Or, are decisions about 
     select committees simply reflective of positions based upon 
     whose ox is in danger of being gored?

                          ____________________