[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7634-7643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615
   ESTABLISHING SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 
                      TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 575, I call 
up the resolution (H. Res. 567) providing for the Establishment of the 
Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in 
Benghazi, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Pursuant to House Resolution 
575, the resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 567

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is hereby established the Select Committee on the 
     Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``Select Committee'').

[[Page 7635]]



     SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.

       (a) The Speaker shall appoint 12 Members to the Select 
     Committee, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation 
     with the minority leader.
       (b) The Speaker shall designate one Member to serve as 
     chair of the Select Committee.
       (c) Any vacancy in the Select Committee shall be filled in 
     the same manner as the original appointment.

     SEC. 3. INVESTIGATION AND REPORT ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING 
                   THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI.

       (a) The Select Committee is authorized and directed to 
     conduct a full and complete investigation and study and issue 
     a final report of its findings to the House regarding--
       (1) all policies, decisions, and activities that 
     contributed to the attacks on United States facilities in 
     Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, as well as those that 
     affected the ability of the United States to prepare for the 
     attacks;
       (2) all policies, decisions, and activities to respond to 
     and repel the attacks on United States facilities in 
     Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, including efforts to 
     rescue United States personnel;
       (3) internal and public executive branch communications 
     about the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, 
     Libya, on September 11, 2012;
       (4) accountability for policies and decisions related to 
     the security of facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the 
     response to the attacks, including individuals and entities 
     responsible for those policies and decisions;
       (5) executive branch authorities' efforts to identify and 
     bring to justice the perpetrators of the attacks on U.S. 
     facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012;
       (6) executive branch activities and efforts to comply with 
     Congressional inquiries into the attacks on United States 
     facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012;
       (7) recommendations for improving executive branch 
     cooperation and compliance with congressional oversight and 
     investigations;
       (8) information related to lessons learned from the attacks 
     and executive branch activities and efforts to protect United 
     States facilities and personnel abroad; and
       (9) any other relevant issues relating to the attacks, the 
     response to the attacks, or the investigation by the House of 
     Representatives into the attacks.
       (b) In addition to any final report addressing the matters 
     in subsection (a), the Select Committee may issue such 
     interim reports as it deems necessary.
       (c) Any report issued by the Select Committee may contain a 
     classified annex.

     SEC. 4. PROCEDURE.

       (a) Notwithstanding clause 3(m) of rule X of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives, the Select Committee is 
     authorized to study the sources and methods of entities 
     described in clause 11(b)(1)(A) of rule X insofar as such 
     study is related to the matters described in section 3.
       (b) Clause 11(b)(4), clause 11(e), and the first sentence 
     of clause 11(f) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives shall apply to the Select Committee.
       (c) Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     shall apply to the Select Committee except as follows:
       (1) Clause 2(a) of rule XI shall not apply to the Select 
     Committee.
       (2) Clause 2(g)(2)(D) of rule XI shall apply to the Select 
     Committee in the same manner as it applies to the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence.
       (3) Pursuant to clause 2(h) of rule XI, two Members of the 
     Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking 
     testimony or receiving evidence and one-third of the Members 
     of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking 
     any action other than one for which the presence of a 
     majority of the Select Committee is required.
       (4) The chair of the Select Committee may authorize and 
     issue subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the 
     investigation and study conducted pursuant to section 3 of 
     this resolution, including for the purpose of taking 
     depositions.
       (5)(A) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation 
     with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of 
     depositions, under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena, 
     by a Member of the Select Committee or a counsel of the 
     Select Committee.
       (B) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in 
     this paragraph shall be governed by the procedures submitted 
     by the chair of the Committee on Rules for printing in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (6) The chair of the Select Committee may, after 
     consultation with the ranking minority member, recognize--
       (A) Members of the Select Committee to question a witness 
     for periods longer than five minutes as though pursuant to 
     clause (2)(j)(2)(B) of rule XI; and
       (B) staff of the Select Committee to question a witness as 
     though pursuant to clause (2)(j)(2)(C) of rule XI.

     SEC. 5. RECORDS; STAFF; FUNDING.

       (a) Any committee of the House of Representatives having 
     custody of records in any form relating to the matters 
     described in section 3 shall transfer such records to the 
     Select Committee within 14 days of the adoption of this 
     resolution. Such records shall become the records of the 
     Select Committee.
       (b)(1)(A) To the greatest extent practicable, the Select 
     Committee shall utilize the services of staff of employing 
     entities of the House. At the request of the chair of the 
     Select Committee in consultation with the ranking minority 
     member, staff of employing entities of the House or a joint 
     committee may be detailed to the Select Committee without 
     reimbursement to carry out this resolution and shall be 
     deemed to be staff of the Select Committee.
       (B) Section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 (2 U.S.C. 4301(i)) shall apply with respect to the 
     Select Committee in the same manner as such section applies 
     with respect to a standing committee of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation 
     with the ranking minority member, may employ and fix the 
     compensation of such staff as the chair considers necessary 
     to carry out this resolution.
       (c) There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of 
     the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary 
     for the expenses of the Select Committee. Such payments shall 
     be made on vouchers signed by the chair of the Select 
     Committee and approved in the manner directed by the 
     Committee on House Administration. Amounts made available 
     under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
     Administration.

     SEC. 6. DISSOLUTION AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.

       (a) The Select Committee shall cease to exist 30 days after 
     filing the final report required under section 3.
       (b) Upon dissolution of the Select Committee, the records 
     of the Select Committee shall become the records of such 
     committee or committees designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on 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, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I believe the whole House 
and the American people deserve to know how I came to the decision that 
brings us here today.
  On September 11, 2012, a terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya 
left four of our countrymen dead, including our Ambassador.
  Since that time, four committees of the House have been investigating 
these events, and those committees have done exemplary work. Chairman 
Issa, Chairman McKeon, Chairman Rogers, Chairman Royce, and all the 
members of their respective committees deserve our gratitude; but last 
week, a line was crossed in two places.
  First, it came to light that the White House did more to obscure what 
happened and why than what we were led to believe.
  Second, we now know that the administration defied a formal 
congressional subpoena.
  Our committees sought the full truth, and the administration tried to 
make sure that they wouldn't find it, which means they tried to prevent 
the American people from finding the truth as well.
  In my view, these discoveries compel the House to respond as one 
institution and establish one select committee, a committee with robust 
authority, a committee that will do its work while the House continues 
to focus on the people's priorities.
  I have asked the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) to chair 
this panel. He is a well-respected Member of this body, and he has my 
complete confidence. I will convey to you what I conveyed to him. This 
doesn't need to be, shouldn't be, and will not be a partisan process.
  Four Americans died at the hands of terrorists in a well-coordinated 
assault, and we will not take any shortcuts to the truth, 
accountability, or justice; and we will not allow any

[[Page 7636]]

sideshows that distract us from those goals.
  Our system of government depends on transparency and accountability, 
and either we do this well, or we face the terrifying prospect of our 
people having less knowledge and less power over their own government. 
We owe it to future generations to make the right choice.
  I ask all the Members of this body to reflect on this matter, and I 
ask you to support this resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree--I think all Americans agree, and we 
certainly understand from the Speaker that he agrees that the attack on 
Benghazi was a tragedy; but here we are, once again, riling up the 
community and the country and causing, again, grief to the families of 
the four people who died, in a pursuit of some kind of truth that they 
were unable to find in 2 years of hearings, over four committees, 13 
congressional hearings, 50 briefings, five reports, 25,000 pages of 
documentation, and wasted millions of dollars, going nowhere, and that 
is just in the House.
  The Senate has held hearings. The State Department did a thorough 
report; and yet, now, after all that, we want the truth.
  What does it say about the House of Representatives that whatever 
that was going on over there did not get to the truth?
  This is so reminiscent of what we have done in the House of 
Representatives by doing over and over and over again, like trying to 
repeal the health care, that we are just going to keep doing it until 
you reach whatever it is you want.
  Well, we know what it is you want with this special committee. We 
understand that thoroughly. Earlier today--I want to make a comment, 
that one of my friends on the other side of the aisle--I deeply regret 
this--cited a report claiming that the Democrats were fundraising off 
of the crass Republican fundraising off Benghazi.
  Certainly, we looked into that because I was very concerned because I 
was the one making the charge about the fundraising. It is absolutely 
false that Democrats are doing that.
  That report was from The Daily Caller, a conservative Web site, and 
all they found was that the chairman of the Democratic Congressional 
Campaign Committee posted a statement on his Web site condemning the 
Republican campaign committee for their attempt to capitalize and 
fundraise off the tragedy in Benghazi.
  Let's stick to the facts here. You are going to continue. As I 
understand it, several reporters have asked the leadership do they 
intend to stop fundraising off these people's deaths; and the answer 
is, no, they don't.
  So what we are doing here, again, is an awful waste of time, is 
looking for another answer to something that--unless you get some 
answer that you want, I guess we will go on even yet another year or 
so.
  Now, one more committee that will be weighted in favor of the 
majority, as this one is expected to do, will do absolutely nothing to 
yield different results.
  I had an amendment to this bill that was based on a simple premise, 
that the investigations and reports on the tragic attack in Benghazi 
produced by the House committees so far have been nothing but partisan 
and political.
  My amendment would have made membership on the committee equally 
divided between the minority and the majority and would have guaranteed 
minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions and guaranteed equal 
distribution and money and staffing and other resources of the 
committee and certainly have ensured that the witnesses who come before 
that committee, unlike the other witnesses that the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee has had, who were totally ineligible to 
even speak on the subject--one of them, I gather, was giving all the 
details of what happened that night, but he happened to be in Germany 
at the time.
  Had our amendment passed, we could have added some decorum to this 
process, and we could have worked to ensure the tragedy never happens 
again, but it is clear that this majority will not allow that.
  So we have seen all the reports. We know what everybody thinks; and 
we know that, once again, we will be going into this because you are 
the majority, and you have the votes to do it.
  I am appalled by this posturing. To use the tragedy of those four 
deaths for political and financial gain is shameful and contemptible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Majority Leader of the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, to 
proceed with a select committee to find out what happened at the 
American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of September 11, 
2012.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 2 years since a terror attack claimed 
the lives of four brave Americans in Benghazi: Ambassador J. 
Christopher Stevens; U.S. Foreign Service Information Management 
Officer Sean Smith; former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty; and former Navy SEAL 
and Bronze Star recipient, Tyrone Woods.
  Over the past 2 years, our committees in the House have aggressively 
investigated what happened that night in Benghazi and the Obama 
administration's preparedness and response to those terror attacks.
  Unfortunately, the White House has engaged in a pattern of 
obstruction, consistently ignoring subpoenas, redacting relevant 
information, and stonewalling investigators. This obstruction gives 
cause to the grave concerns expressed by countless Americans across the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, what is worse, as the White House refuses to turn over 
documents, they go in front of the American people and claim to be 
transparent. Those in the administration claim to be cooperating. They 
claim to be focused on bringing the perpetrators of that attack to 
justice.
  Mr. Speaker, the attacks in Benghazi brought the first time an 
American Ambassador was killed in the line of duty since the 1970s and, 
to this day, not a single perpetrator of the attacks has been arrested 
or brought to justice. We should be using every tool necessary to find 
those responsible and bring them to justice.
  After ignoring for nearly a year a lawful congressional subpoena, the 
White House, under court order, finally released emails showing that 
administration officials deliberately and deceptively misled Americans, 
claiming that the attack in Benghazi was the result of an offensive 
Internet video, rather than the product of a failed foreign policy that 
allowed radical Islamic terrorists to flourish in post-Qadhafi Libya.
  This obfuscation and refusal to come clean to Congress has left us, 
as well as the people of this country, wondering: What else is the 
White House hiding?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want Americans to 
believe that this investigation is motivated by politics. No. This 
investigation would not be necessary had the Obama administration come 
clean. This investigation would not be necessary had the Obama 
administration complied with congressional subpoenas.
  This investigation would not be necessary had the Obama 
administration not misled the Congress, the American people, and the 
media about what happened in Benghazi.
  The American people deserve the truth and, most importantly, the 
families of those four brave men deserve the truth.
  This committee will build upon the excellent oversight work conducted 
to this date and ask questions and demand answers. Constitutional 
checks and balances were intended to ensure that each branch of 
government conduct itself with the utmost integrity and do so within 
the law. That is our duty, and we will solemnly and judiciously carry 
this out.
  Today, we have an opportunity to stand together and take another step 
closer to accomplishing that goal, to

[[Page 7637]]

finding the truth; and I urge my colleagues in the House to support 
this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my 
good friend and member of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, as its ranking member.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
  Benghazi was a tragedy. We lost four brave Americans that night, and 
I extend my deepest sympathies to their families. In my opinion, we 
honor their memories best by bringing their killers to justice and by 
working in a bipartisan way to strengthen security for all U.S. 
personal overseas.
  As family members of Ambassador Stevens have stated, ``What Chris 
never would have accepted was the idea that his death would have been 
used for political purposes.''

                              {time}  1630

  Unfortunately, that is what House Republicans have been doing for the 
last year and a half.
  On April 23, 2013, the Republican chairmen of five different House 
committees issued a highly partisan staff report with absolutely no 
consultation or input from a single Democratic Member of the Congress 
of the United States of America. Their report included a reckless 
accusation that Secretary Clinton personally authorized security 
reductions in Benghazi. Chairman Issa then went on national television 
and said, Secretary Clinton ``outright denied security, in her 
signature, in a cable.''
  When we located the cable, however, we discovered that the Republican 
report distorted the facts. The cable had only a printed stamp of 
Secretary Clinton's name, the same stamp that appears on hundreds of 
thousands of cables sent from the State Department every year.
  This report was issued under the direction of the Speaker. It was 
posted on his Web site, and it was prepared only for Members of the 
House Republican Conference. How is this a bipartisan search for the 
truth?
  House Republicans have also excluded Democratic Members from fact-
finding delegations to Libya, in violation of the rules issued by the 
Speaker. How is that bipartisan?
  Democratic Members have been denied equal access to witnesses, and 
Republicans have selectively leaked documents and cherry-picked 
transcript excerpts without any official committee consideration. How 
is that bipartisan?
  Republicans have also been doing something worse. They have been 
using the deaths of these four Americans for political campaign 
fundraising. I call on the Speaker of the House to end that process 
right now.
  For example, on February 17, Chairman Issa traveled to New Hampshire 
to attend a political fundraiser, where he spoke about Benghazi. He 
suggested during his speech that our military's response on the night 
of the attacks was deficient because Secretary Clinton ordered Defense 
Secretary Panetta to ``stand down.'' That was a shocking accusation, 
and he had absolutely no evidence--none--to support it. In my opinion, 
his statements were reprehensible not only to the Secretary of State 
but to our brave men and women in uniform.
  And so today, we are here to consider a resolution to create another 
partisan committee to investigate what the Speaker and his five 
chairmen have already been investigating.
  With all due respect, if the Republicans want to fix the problems 
with their partisan investigation, they need more than just a new 
chairman. They need a new approach. I have tremendous respect for the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), and I am glad that he said 
that fundraising should not be done on the deaths of these four people, 
and I hope that the Republican Conference will finally agree with that. 
We are better than that.
  They need a new approach, one that is truly bipartisan, and one that 
seeks the facts before drawing conclusions, rather than the other way 
around.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day for this institution. As a 
result of the Obama administration's unwillingness to openly work with 
House Republicans in our ongoing effort to uncover the facts 
surrounding the events of the 2012 terrorist attack on the American 
diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, the United States House of 
Representatives is left with no option except to establish a select 
committee on Benghazi.
  As the author of this resolution, I would like to take the 
opportunity to provide the American people with a sequence of events 
that have led us to this point and explain how the newly formed select 
committee will operate on their behalf.
  Immediately following the attacks on Benghazi on September 11, 2012, 
which took the lives of four brave Americans, including then-U.S. 
Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, four House committees began 
investigations into the events prior to the attacks, those that 
occurred during the attacks, and the administration's response 
afterwards.
  And I want to thank our House chairmen and the committees who did 
what I believe was an outstanding job in supporting this effort--
Chairman Darrell Issa of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 
Chairman Buck McKeon of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Ed Royce 
of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Chairman Mike Rogers of the 
Intelligence Committee--and for their exemplary work that has advanced 
this issue and brought up new facts. Without their diligent work, we 
would not be where we are today.
  But, Mr. Speaker, that work was thwarted; and by this administration 
not proactively addressing the issue equally themselves in an open and, 
I believe, transparent way, they have placed us where we are today. It 
comes as a result of their being an unwilling partner. It comes as a 
result of many, many turns. The administration has chosen to build 
roadblocks to the congressional inquiry. Whether failing to comply 
completely with opportunities to come speak to Congress, objecting to 
and not complying with subpoenas, delaying the delivery of important
documents, heavily redacting critical information, and retroactively 
classifying previously unclassified files, this administration earned 
exactly the title that has been placed on it today, ``uncooperative.''
  Mr. Speaker, this will not be tolerated, and this is what has brought 
us to where we are today. I will tell you that many of the things which 
you have heard on the floor today are accusations pitched our way; and 
I will tell you that the American people, through this process, will 
find out exactly who is after the truth and who is exactly for hiding 
the truth, because I believe that it is not just mismanagement at the 
top, but bad decisions that they should and will be embarrassed to have 
uncovered by the select committee on Benghazi.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 1 minute 
before yielding to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) offered an amendment that was supported by all 
the Democrats on the committee. That amendment would have allowed for 
membership on the committee to be equally divided between Republicans 
and Democrats. It would guarantee minority signoff on subpoenas and 
depositions. It would guarantee equal distribution of money, staffing, 
and other resources of the committee. It would require the committee to 
establish written rules, specifically including rules concerning how 
documents and other information may be obtained, used, or released.
  I will offer a caveat there about the intelligence that you are about 
to get into with the select committee. It

[[Page 7638]]

would guarantee equal access to evidence and materials of the 
committee. It provides for transparency of the committee's expenditures 
and budgeting, and it would ensure that a quorum for taking testimony 
or receiving evidence includes at least one minority Member.
  Finally, it would ensure that the minority has a say in decisions 
about extended questioning and staff questioning of witnesses. That 
would produce a bipartisan result that would be credible.
  I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), my good friend and a 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CLAY. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this misguided, highly partisan 
select committee that seeks to exploit the tragedy of the attack on our 
consulate in Benghazi for purely political purposes.
  There have already been eight--eight--reviews of that terrible 
incident. There were legitimate oversight questions about Benghazi, and 
we explored them in exhaustive detail. More than 25,000 documents have 
been produced, and dozens of witnesses have been interviewed. Millions 
of tax dollars have already been spent responding to repetitive and 
partisan congressional requests. The majority has alleged multiple 
conspiracy theories, each of which has been dispelled by the facts.
  Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty 
are American heroes who gave their lives in brave service to our 
Nation. But instead of honoring their memory, even before it convenes, 
this sham select committee is already blatantly being used for 
political purposes. Evidence of that comes directly from the National 
Republican Congressional Committee, which created an online fundraising 
solicitation yesterday. And it reads, in part:

       You're now a Benghazi watchdog. Let's go after Obama & 
     Hillary Clinton. Help us fight them now.

  So this is not about discovering new facts about Benghazi. This is 
about creating a partisan vehicle to exploit this tragedy to raise 
money and to provide the majority's echo chamber on cable TV and talk 
radio with red meat rhetoric to influence the 2014 midterms and the 
2016 Presidential election.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2012, terrorists stormed the American 
consulate in Benghazi. Four Americans were murdered. Nineteen months 
later, the killers are still running loose. One killer was even 
interviewed on CNN, but this country cannot capture him and his fellow 
outlaws.
  Why? What has been the problem?
  Today there are more questions than answers. Americans are still not 
really sure what happened that night and the days following the attack.
  Several House committees launched investigations but were 
stonewalled. Subpoenas were issued but ignored. And last week, a White 
House email was disclosed that indicated there may have been 
coordination to purposely deceive Congress about what really happened.
  Did the administration deceive America? If so, why? Let's find out.
  We have no choice but to establish this select committee to ensure 
that the full story is told, even if the evidence reveals an 
inconvenient truth, to shine light on what happened when Americans 
overseas were murdered in the darkness of the night.
  And to those who oppose this bill, I ask the question, Mr. Speaker: 
Why don't they want to know all of the facts?
  Let's find the truth--the good, the bad, and the ugly truth. Justice 
demands it, and justice is what we do in this country.
  And that's just the way it is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New 
York will control the remaining time for the minority.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, America suffered an incredible 
tragedy; 241 Marines in Beirut lost their lives when terrorists bombed 
the barracks in which they were living. At that time, we had a 
President whose name was Ronald Reagan, and we had a Speaker of the 
House whose name was Tip O'Neill. Different parties.
  That was an enormous tragedy. An investigation needed to be done, and 
it was done. It was done on a bipartisan basis. One investigation was 
done. And there was a presumption that no matter how tragic this was 
and no matter how important it was to hold people accountable--and that 
was done--that everybody involved had the best intentions for America's 
future strength.
  And there seems to be a premise, at least to me, that this President 
of the United States has any less commitment to protecting the lives 
and safety of the American people than any other President.

                              {time}  1645

  I will tell you, I was an opponent of the war in Iraq, and I was 
critical of the policies and the decisions of our then-President George 
Bush. But never once did I question that his motivations were anything 
less than what he thought was best for America.
  We are going off the rails here. This is a tragedy. But there is a 
real question, at least on the part of many of us, and I think many 
Americans, as to whether we are doing this right. How is it that there 
is such glee that the decision is made to go forward after seven other 
committees, 25,000 documents--more work could be done--but how is it 
that there was such glee on one side that they turned it into a 
fundraising opportunity? Who would do that?
  Mr. Gowdy won't do it, and he is a good man. But do you know what? If 
we are going to proceed, it has got to be on the level. We have a 
seven-to-five committee that is being organized. It is not even-handed. 
You can't have these tough decisions that not only have to be made 
right but have to be made so that there is credibility with the 
American people that they are on the level and not political where you 
don't have a bipartisan approach, you don't have everybody weighing in 
on subpoenas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, there are lots of questions. The first one 
is, Why didn't the military come help these men when they were in need 
over this firefight for several hours? We will just start there.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Dardanelle, Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), who is a member of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, a couple of lessons I learned in the Army 
were you move to the sound of gunfire, and the most important step in 
the troop-leading procedures is to supervise the execution of your 
orders.
  When Americans were fighting for their lives in Benghazi, Barack 
Obama did neither. He sent no Quick Reaction Force, and he didn't even 
stay in the Situation Room to supervise the execution of his orders. We 
expect more from lieutenants in the Army than our President gave us 
that night. For 2 years, he has covered up this failure of leadership 
by stonewalling. Not anymore. We will now get to the truth.
  But what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say to 
this? They express great outrage at politicizing this matter. When I 
was leading troops in Iraq in 2006, men and women who were being shot 
at and blown up by al Qaeda, where was the outrage as they fund-raised 
endlessly off the Iraq war? Where was the outrage as they viciously 
attacked our commanders? Where was the outrage when they said that 
soldiers were war criminals? Where was the outrage when they said the 
war was lost? Where was the outrage when they said that only high 
school dropouts join the Army?
  Forgive me if I don't join my Democratic colleagues in sharing their 
fake

[[Page 7639]]

outrage. Four Americans lost their lives that night in Benghazi. They 
deserve justice, and the American people deserve the truth.
  One other lesson I learned in the Army is we leave no man behind, and 
we will not leave these four men behind.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 20 seconds to just 
respond to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be outraged, too, if anybody did the things that 
he accused us of doing, and I don't believe a word of it.
  I am now pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues to vote against the creation of this select committee. 
Because this is not a select committee to investigate what happened in 
Benghazi, which has been done many times already, it is not a select 
committee to investigate what we can do to better protect our 
embassies, consulates, and diplomatic corps, which appears to have 
generated little interest in the majority, it is not even a select 
committee to probe where we were in the hunt for those responsible, 
which involves classified information and is something done best in 
closed session.
  No. This is a proposal to create a select committee on talking 
points.
  I have been involved with the investigation into Benghazi from day 
one as a member of the Intelligence Committee because, like every other 
American, I wanted to know what happened, why it happened, and how we 
can keep it from happening again. And I want to bring to justice those 
who perpetrated this horrible attack.
  But almost 18 months later, and after eight reports from House and 
Senate committees and the Accountability Review Board, the questions 
that this select committee purports to investigate have been asked and 
answered time and time and time again. There is no question that this 
select committee on talking points will waste potentially millions of 
taxpayer dollars in a purely partisan exercise and serve as little more 
than a fundraising vehicle for Republicans.
  Up until last Friday, the Speaker of the House resisted the siren 
call from his base for yet another wasteful committee. Here is what he 
said just a month ago:

       There are four committees that are investigating Benghazi. 
     I see no reason to break up all the work that has been done 
     and to take months and months and months to create some 
     select committee.

  I agree with the Speaker's previous assessment.
  Democrats made a proposal to structure the committee so that it had 
equal numbers of members of each party, so that it required cooperation 
on subpoenas and depositions, and so that it guaranteed equal access to 
evidence and material collected by the committee. Yet, in each case, we 
were rejected.
  If this isn't a fair investigation and select committee, there is no 
reason for Democrats to vote for it or to participate in it. Let's end 
the political circus and focus our efforts on preventing another 
Benghazi and accelerating the hunt for the murderers of four Americans, 
including Ambassador Stevens.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, when pressed last week by a reporter 
about the tragic events on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, the 
former spokesperson for the National Security Council said this: 
``Dude, this was like 2 years ago.''
  Now, this juvenile and unprofessional response has only added to the 
concern that we do not--still do not--have a full understanding of what 
occurred that night. What we do know is that our Ambassador, Chris 
Stevens, and three other Americans are dead.
  Now, several congressional committees have looked into this question 
and have concluded different things, and there are many lingering 
questions still unanswered. They have reached different conclusions. 
But these lingering questions are made worse by the fact that we now 
know that emails from the administration may have been withheld from 
Congress.
  This is the reason that we need a select committee, to probe deeply 
and get clear answers with a singular goal in mind: to restore the 
public trust.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Government 
Operations.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, we don't need a select committee because a 
particular chairman who is subpoena-happy can't quite draft a subpoena 
to capture the emails in question.
  I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 567, which represents yet 
another unfortunate chapter in the majority's relentless commitment to 
wasting taxpayer dollars on round after round of Benghazi political 
theater.
  There is a reason that State's slogan is ``diplomacy in action.'' To 
effectively represent our Nation, American personnel overseas and their 
families make significant sacrifices. Ambassador Stevens' own family 
knows that. They issued this eloquent statement after his death:

       Chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would 
     strut around in fortified compounds. He amazed and impressed 
     the Libyans by walking the streets with the lightest of 
     escorts, sitting in sidewalk cafes, chatting with passersby. 
     There was a risk to being accessible. He knew it, and he 
     accepted it.
       What he would never have accepted was the idea that his 
     death would be used for political purposes. There were 
     security shortcomings, no doubt. Both internal and outside 
     investigations have identified and publicly disclosed them. 
     Steps are being taken to repair them. Chris would not have 
     wanted to be remembered as a victim. He knew and accepted 
     that he was working under dangerous circumstances.
       He did so--just as so many of our diplomatic and 
     development professionals do every day--because he believed 
     the work was vitally important.

  That is the statement of Chris Stevens, the deceased, murdered 
Ambassador to Libya, his family.
  I deeply understand the demands we place on our Foreign Service, and 
I know the stakes are high. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee staff from 1979 to 1989, I vividly recall shortly after I 
returned home from a visit to the U.S. barracks in Beirut, a horrific 
truck bomb was detonated there, killing 241 U.S. members of the Marine 
Corps. Our Embassy was blown up twice in Beirut in that same timeframe.
  The Democrats didn't pile on. The Democrats didn't call for a select 
committee to investigate Ronald Reagan and his administration for 
malfeasance and incompetence. We didn't darkly hint there was a 
conspiracy by the Reagan administration to hide the facts and to deny 
terrorism had occurred. We were patriots. We came together. We mourned 
our losses. We worked with a Republican President to make it better. 
That is the spirit in which we should approach this issue.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is absolutely necessary when we 
look at the facts as we know them currently and we look at the 
information that we are uncertain about. Number one is we have lost 
four people in an attack that we now know is a terrorist attack. We now 
know that some things could have been done to save these people, but 
for some reason they weren't done.
  Now, Beirut has been raised a couple of times, showing the 
cooperation between Speaker Tip O'Neill then and Ronald Reagan when we 
lost 241 soldiers in that attack. I remember it vividly. But the 
difference is how the leadership between then and now reacted.
  The leadership at the White House responded to this attack by 
developing a false narrative to--probably, we don't know why they came 
up with this fake story about an impromptu protest gone

[[Page 7640]]

bad, therefore causing these deaths, so if they are making up a story, 
what are they trying to hide? Their own incompetence? We don't know 
that.
  We talked about then in Beirut, as my friends from the other side of 
the aisle had mentioned, about all of the documents that were received 
in the Beirut investigation. Well, that is because they were 
cooperative. The documents that we received, despite what the gentleman 
from Virginia just said, that they were subpoenaed incorrectly, the 
documents we received were heavily redacted. They were purposely not 
providing that information. It was redacted.
  Now, why was that redacted? Why was it that we had to find out some 
of the truth about the coverup that occurred on that narrative about a 
protest gone bad from an outside group that provided the unredacted? 
So, now, what we have before us is an email that was redacted from the 
White House and another one that was obtained through an outside source 
that provided us the same but unredacted that says now that the White 
House was telling us something different.
  When you have a White House that has gone out of their way to cover 
up the truth, it is incumbent upon all of us on both sides of the aisle 
to fight for the truth so that the four people that lost their lives--
one of which an Ambassador, for God's sake--they are the ones that 
deserve justice by this select committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for rebuttal, I am going to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, it is amazing that he 
claims the White House is covering up when the same White House gave an 
unredacted version to the Judicial Watch. The easier conclusion----
  Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I am rebutting what I just heard.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says this is about getting at the truth. 
Really? Because there have been so many falsehoods propounded on this 
subject by the other side of the aisle. There was a stand-down order 
proved conclusively by our own Republican-controlled House Armed 
Services Committee. There was no such thing.
  We could have and should have mobilized the military to intervene and 
save lives. The military did what it could, but there was not enough 
timeframe for the military efficaciously to intervene in the tragedy 
unfolding in Benghazi.
  The Secretary of State knew and deliberately covered up. There were 
talking points that deliberately avoided the word ``terrorism,'' even 
though the President of the United States a few days later most 
certainly did use the word ``terrorist'' to describe what happened in 
Benghazi.
  The Islamic video had nothing whatsoever to do with Benghazi. The 
Islamic video was erupting----
  Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield now? Because that is absolutely 
wrong, and you know it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Let me remind the other side that the gentleman from Virginia has the 
floor. He has been unwilling to yield. Let the gentleman have the 
floor.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Speaker for returning us to regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, these are all falsehoods used to justify a needless 
expense of taxpayer dollars to beat to death for political purposes the 
tragedy that occurred in Benghazi. And the invocation of the name of 
the deceased Ambassador, Chris Stevens, even though his own family has 
pleaded that he not be used as a political pawn in a political partisan 
game, is something that is beneath contempt.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why Judicial Watch received the information 
they did in an unredacted basis was because there are criminal 
penalties associated with that act. Those criminal penalties do not 
exist in a congressional inquiry. The administration is simply taking 
advantage of that, and they know that and so do all Members of 
Congress.
  This administration was playing games. They are taking advantage of 
the structure which has been established in the relationship of trying 
to have the three branches of government coexist, and that is exactly 
what this administration did, and that was the trigger point to where 
the Speaker then said enough is enough.
  When we recognized that the documents that we were getting, which are 
heavily redacted, did not coincide or agree with what outside groups 
would get because they, Mr. Speaker, asked for it under FOIA, which has 
criminal penalties associated with it, which meant that those lawyers 
knew exactly what they were doing and could be held to that criminal 
penalty point, but in providing them to Congress, they would just 
redact it and then claim national security, and we might not ever know 
the difference.
  We are not stupid. We have been deliberate. We have been cautious. We 
have stayed after it. But redaction after redaction after redaction and 
wrong, wrong direction and trying to lead us down a path that was not 
correct is exactly where this administration has been, and they deserve 
what they are getting.
  They are the ones that brought this to Congress. We are simply 
properly and carefully responding.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for bringing this important resolution forward and also 
Congressman Frank Wolf, who has been tenacious in insisting that there 
be a select committee.
  There are serious gaps. We all know it. The people who lost their 
lives who died unnecessarily their loved ones and the American people 
deserve to know the truth about Benghazi.
  When Secretary Clinton came before the Foreign Affairs Committee, I 
asked her point blank:
  You have said, Madam Secretary, that you take full responsibility. 
How do you define ``full responsibility''?
  She defined it from the day of, and all that preceded Benghazi is 
precluded from that definition.
  Despite the fact that there was one cable after another, suggesting 
that there were serious gaps in security, all of that seemed to have 
not made its way to either her or her senior staff. That is very much 
of a lack of attention to detail, and a light needs to be brought to 
that.
  I asked two of the people who headed up the ARB, the Accountability 
Review Board, why they did not interview Secretary Clinton. They had no 
good answer. I asked them twice--no good answer.
  Back in 1998, when we got hit in Dar es Salaam and in Nairobi, I 
chaired the hearings of the Accountability Review Board. We looked 
painstakingly at all of the gaps that existed and I wrote the Secure 
Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999.
  There were lessons learned. Those lessons were not applied the way 
they should have been to Benghazi. Requests were made for help. We 
still don't know the truth. The new select committee will leave no 
stone unturned. It will get answers.
  Again, those who died, their loved ones, and the American people 
deserve to know the truth.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more 
requests for time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, I do.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tampa, Florida (Mr. Jolly).
  Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, a 
resolution necessitated today by a crisis in trust, a crisis in trust 
between this Congress and this administration.
  This body has the article I constitutional authority to provide 
oversight over the administration, an authority that has been 
repeatedly ignored by this administration, and ignored with

[[Page 7641]]

an audacity rarely seen in modern politics. Today, with this 
resolution, we confront that audacity.
  Here are the facts. We have a President that rules by pen and a 
phone. We have an Attorney General that selectively enforces laws when 
he wishes to and in which States he wishes to. We have a Veterans 
Affairs administration that is withholding documents about the death of 
veterans.
  We have agencies that legislate by regulation, and we have an 
Internal Revenue Service that has targeted organizations and refuses to 
testify about it. So is it any surprise that, last week, additional 
information comes to light about Benghazi? No, it is not.
  This administration has kept information from this Congress, and they 
have refused to recognize the gravity of this obstructionism. They have 
done so in the context of a loss of American lives and a loss of life 
that is personal for a family in my district. That family deserves 
answers.
  Yes, we have a crisis in trust between this Congress and this 
administration, but this is not political theater. This has not been 
brought upon this House by this side of the aisle. It has been brought 
upon this house by the stonewalling of the administration.
  It is a rightful execution and a proper execution of the article I 
oversight authority of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I am going to ask a couple 
of questions. First of all, I have to give a disclaimer that I was one 
of the Members on this side of the aisle that did not favor a select 
committee. I actually took my name off of a request by Mr. Wolf. I 
thought we could handle this matter in regular order. Four committees 
proceeded to investigate the matter.
  I am the senior member of the chief investigative panel of Congress. 
I have been through many investigations. I have never in my life seen 
the stonewalling. I have never seen the contempt for Congress displayed 
by this administration.
  Then last week, to make a mockery of the entire system, we saw from 
an outside party getting information that four committees of Congress 
had never received and requested. I have never seen anything like this. 
Why are we doing this? The other side has brought this, the 
administration has brought this upon themselves.
  Let me ask a fundamental question: What difference does it make? What 
difference does it make?
  I want you to tell that to the State Department employees who every 
day go to work, sometimes put their life at risk. Four American 
officials were killed--murdered--and no one has been held accountable. 
No one has been brought to justice, and to have an official come before 
a committee of Congress and say: What difference does it make? Ask that 
to the families of the State Department people who work for the 
American people.
  What difference does it make? Ask the military.
  Oh, there is no evidence of an order to stand down, but we know our 
military had the ability to save those Americans. We know that the 
State Department had the ability to keep those Americans safe, and no 
one acted.
  What difference does it make? What difference does it make to those 
four families?
  What difference does it make? We don't have to investigate anything. 
We don't have to hold anyone accountable.
  No one died in Watergate. Four American officials lost their lives. 
Under our system, individuals--whether it is the Secretary of State or 
the President of the United States or any official at any level--need 
to be and must be held accountable and responsible under our system.
  Otherwise, we make a mockery of this whole business of a government 
of and for and by the people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. MICA. What difference does it make?
  People were asleep at the switch. They need to be held accountable 
again, regardless of rank. This is the United States of America. This 
is the Congress. People sent us here. They are out there trying to make 
a living, provide for their families, pay their taxes. They sent us 
here to keep this government responsible, accountable.
  What difference does it make? It makes a great deal of difference, 
not only to the men and women of the State Department, our United 
States military, the families of those slain, but it makes a big 
difference to the people of the United States who sent us here to keep 
this a responsible government and accountable, no matter who must be 
held responsible or accountable.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time as long as my 
colleague has speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We are now through with our speakers, and I am prepared 
to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I think probably the best way that I can close would be with another 
quote from the man who is fast becoming my favorite Member of the House 
of Representatives, Congressman Buck McKeon, Republican chair of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  He said to the Associated Press on April 10:

       I think I pretty well have been satisfied that given where 
     the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how 
     quickly it dissipated, we probably could not have done more 
     than we did. At some point, we think we will have as much of 
     this story as we are going to get and move on.

  Mr. McKeon, it is long past time for us to move on.
  I really appreciate so much hearing from Mr. Connolly, the statement 
from Ambassador Stevens' family--I had not heard it before--and the 
eloquence with which they talked about him. Remember, he had only been 
there in Benghazi--was basically there for the day, and everybody 
said--and all of the things that I have read, he was that kind of man.
  He spoke the language, and he wanted to be out with the people. He 
would not have wanted to be behind the walls of a compound, and he knew 
what he was doing, and he made his choices.
  The thing that rang so strong with me was the one thing that they 
said that he would not have wanted was to become a political pawn, and 
that is exactly what we are making of Ambassador Stevens and the other 
three Americans who died in that tragic event.
  Without any question, we are also causing, once again, to those four 
families of people who loved them most grievous hardship to deal with 
all this again, and it is being done for politics. It is being done to 
raise money.
  So I want to close by paraphrasing another great American at another 
time and ask the majority: Have you no shame? At long last, have you no 
shame?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I do want to thank the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member 
of the Rules Committee, my dear friend, who presided over a very long 
hearing yesterday, where we went through, in a meticulous fashion, the 
understanding of why this committee, who this committee might comprise 
itself of, and what their mission would be.
  We intervened into this process as a result of a real problem, Mr. 
Speaker. We have intervened in this process because the administration 
and the standing committees here in the House of Representatives were 
unable to quickly and thoroughly accomplish their goal of providing not 
only proper oversight, but getting a fair and transparent answer back.
  Hiding the ball is one thing; deception is another.

                              {time}  1715

  This administration has gone out of their way. They have lawyered up 
to make sure that they could, I think,

[[Page 7642]]

mislead Congress. Well, they would make sure that we really could never 
get involved in anything but a goo ball, and then they would try and 
explain themselves in such a way that they would blame our insistence 
upon getting the truth as a political witch-hunt.
  Mr. Speaker, that must mean there is a witch somewhere. And I don't 
have any clue what that answer is. What I will tell you is this: we 
must get to the bottom of this without it being a political witch-hunt.
  So yesterday, I meticulously went through with the committee an 
understanding, and I stated three important parts of what this 
resolution is about: a select committee is authorized and directed to 
conduct a full and complete investigation and study; and to issue a 
final report and its findings to the House regarding all policies, 
decisions, and activities that contributed to the attack on the United 
States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, as well as 
those that affected the ability of the United States to prepare for 
these attacks; and number three, in particular, that information 
related to lessons learned from the attack and executive branch 
activities and efforts to protect the United States facilities and 
personnel must be understood.
  Mr. Speaker, John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, has announced 
that the gentleman from South Carolina, a distinguished Federal 
prosecutor, a reliable person who serves in this body, is not the least 
bit interested in the political outcome. In fact, he is interested, 
because I know him and know him well, in doing the things which are 
under the charge that we at the Rules Committee and that this House 
today, I believe, will give him, that he will well and faithfully 
discharge those duties that have been given to him as the chairman of 
this select committee.
  And I believe that the Speaker of the House has met with former 
Speaker Pelosi, now the minority leader, to ask the minority leader to 
please offer him the names of those five personnel, Members of 
Congress, who might represent the Democrats, or the minority in this 
case, an opportunity to be a full and forthwith member of this 
committee.
  It is our intent that these 12 people will work together, not apart, 
that they will work with a mandate that is clear and that provides them 
the necessary information and the discretion to the full extent of the 
law.
  It is also understood by this that these members of this select 
committee need to be met forthwith by the administration of the United 
States of America, and that is the office and the executive branch of 
the Presidency.
  It is a full request that I would make at this time for the American 
people to understand that we are asking this administration to lay down 
their sword, to lay down those things which have been impediments to 
properly providing transparency and things that are information that 
would allow us to get to the bottom of this.
  We have heard over and over how people accepted that the buck stopped 
there and they took full responsibility. In accepting full 
responsibility, we have not learned enough about what those mistakes 
were if they are willing to accept the responsibility.
  This is not going to be wished away, Mr. Speaker. Our young chairman, 
Trey Gowdy, will not whitewash this investigation. Our committee is not 
empowered just to go off and fritter away the time. They will be 
serious members of this body.
  I look forward to finding out who former Speaker Pelosi, minority 
leader, appoints to the committee. I will be intensely interested to 
see who Speaker Boehner appoints. And I would bet that they will 
represent the very best from this body, that they will be young men and 
young women who have been in and a part of understanding how to 
carefully look for the facts of the case and not an inch beyond, how to 
ask questions that are fair and those that represent the very best of 
only learning the truth and not an inch more.
  I have confidence that this House of Representatives, through the 
leadership of Mr. Gowdy, will bring not only excellence, but will stand 
as a model of how the House of Representatives should conduct itself 
when they have a problem with an administration, whether it be 
Republican or Democrat. I will predict today that those people that 
former Speaker Pelosi brings to the table and that we bring to the 
table will be prepared to do exactly that.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I know I am ending my time. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will debate 
and vote on a resolution authorizing a new Select Committee on 
Benghazi. Indeed, the attack in Libya was a tragedy, as is losing an 
Ambassador doing official work for the United States abroad, but using 
these deaths to score political points is politics at its worst. After 
9/11, our nation came together to do what is best for all Americans. 
There were no gotcha politics, no hearings to blame the victims; 
instead, we worked together as a unified body on Capitol Hill to 
protect the American people.
  There have already been seven reviews of that terrible attack: one by 
the State Department's Accountability Review Board, two bipartisan 
reviews in the Senate, and four partisan reviews in the House. It 
certainly seems as though the Republicans' proposed special committee 
is nothing more than an attempt to exploit the deaths of four brave 
Americans to divert attention away from their own do-nothing record 
here in Washington.
  Moreover, this new select committee is in reality, nothing more than 
a monumental waste of time and taxpayer dollars to help Republicans 
mobilize their extreme base ahead of the election. According to the 
Department of Defense in fact, they have already spent millions of 
dollars and thousands of hours responding to congressional inquiries. 
Nor will the new select committee have any additional powers that 
Chairman Issa doesn't have already--including the ability to issue 
unilateral subpoenas for any document or any witness, authority he just 
used to subpoena the Secretary of State.
  To be sure, Benghazi was not the first time Americans have been 
killed in an embassy while in the service to their country. In the last 
100 years, there have been 39 attacks on U.S. embassies with at least 
44 American deaths. In one Embassy bombing in fact, a constituent of 
mine, Mr. Julian Bartley, Sr. one of the most senior African Americans 
in the U.S. Foreign Service, was the highest-ranking U.S. official 
killed in the August 7th, 1998 explosions at the American Embassies in 
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Jay, his son, a sophomore at the 
U.S. International University in Nairobi, also died in that explosion.
  On that day in August, Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group, al-
Qaeda, simultaneously set off bombs at the American embassies in 
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 250 people were killed, 
including 12 Americans, and 5,000 wounded in the twin bombing attacks: 
we were all outraged at these coordinated attacks on Americans.
  However, as Dana Milbank of the Washington Post put it: `Benghazi 
doesn't qualify as a scandal because the Republican allegations, even 
if true, don't amount to much. It is indeed scandalous that weak 
security allowed the killings to occur, and that the perpetrators still 
haven't been brought to justice. But Republicans are focusing on 
(United Nations Ambassador Susan) Rice's TV talking points, under the 
theory that she emphasized the role of a provocative video and street 
protests so the violence wouldn't disprove President Obama's contention 
before the 2012 election that terrorists were being defeated.'
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 567 and urge the 
House to approve the measure as soon as possible.
  On September 11, 2012, a group of terrorists ruthlessly attacked our 
consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans: U.S. Ambassador to 
Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management 
Officer Sean Smith, and two private security contractors and former 
Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The terrorists who 
perpetrated the attack have still not been brought to justice and the 
State Department officials, whose failure of leadership contributed to 
grossly inadequate security In Benghazi, have not been held 
accountable.
  Despite numerous House oversight hearings on this issue, it is clear 
that there are too many questions that remain unanswered. Additionally, 
the Administration's unwillingness to present full and accurate 
information to these Congressional committees show officials are more 
interested in maintaining their public image than providing real 
answers.
  That is why I am proud the House of Representatives is considering H. 
Res. 567 that establishes a Select Committee on the events surrounding 
the 2012 terrorist attacks in

[[Page 7643]]

Benghazi. In fact, I was a proud cosponsor of a similar measure. I also 
want to thank you Mr. Speaker for appointing Rep. Trey Gowdy to head 
the Select Committee. A former federal prosecutor who never lost a 
case, I know my friend and colleague from South Carolina Rep. Gowdy 
will help these grieving American families finally get the answers they 
deserve.
  I am hopeful that this Select Committee will finish the much needed 
work of holding the Administration accountable for its failures 
surrounding this attack, deliver justice to those terrorists who 
murdered these four Americans, and bring peace to the families of the 
victims.
  I urge Members to support this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 575, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                          ____________________