[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8924-8925]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   THE NECESSITY OF TESTIMONY FROM SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY TO 
    EXPLAIN HIS DEPARTMENT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONGRESSIONAL 
                                SUBPOENA

                                  _____
                                 

                          HON. DARRELL E. ISSA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 21, 2014

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as the House's Select Committee on Benghazi 
stands up and takes ownership of an investigation that has been 
conducted jointly by standing committees since the fall of 2012, the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee has, with your support, one 
final bit of business scheduled for May 29: subpoenaed testimony from 
Secretary of State John Kerry about his Department's failure to produce 
critical documents subject to a lawful subpoena.
  On April 17, 2014, the State Department sent a letter informing the 
Committee that it was producing previously unreleased e-mails subject 
to prior requests and subpoenas. In this letter the State Department 
acknowledged that these documents were responsive to a September 20, 
2012, request and an August 1, 2013, subpoena. These subpoenaed 
documents had been willfully withheld from the Committee and were only 
turned over after a federal judge ruled against the administration's 
efforts to block a Freedom of Information Act request from the 
organization Judicial Watch.
  One e-mail in this production showed that White House official Ben 
Rhodes coordinated talking points for then Ambassador Susan Rice, 
encouraging an emphasis that the attack was ``rooted in an Internet 
video, and not a failure of policy.'' This exposed false White House 
claims that inaccurate statements made by then Ambassador Susan Rice on 
national television were solely the product of bad information from the 
intelligence community even though the intelligence community talkers 
made no reference to an Internet video.
  Undaunted, earlier this month, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney 
argued at a White House press briefing that the Internet video 
reference in the Ben Rhodes' e-mail was the result of a, ``connection 
between the protests in Cairo and what happened in Benghazi, that's 
drawn directly from talking points produced by the intelligence 
community, as testified to by the deputy director of the CIA on 
multiple occasions.''
  New evidence obtained by the Oversight Committee, however, 
contradicts this explanation. An e-mail sent at 9:11 pm eastern time on 
September 11, 2012, (3:11 am September 12 in Libya) to the Diplomatic 
Security Command Center under the subject line ``Update on response 
actions--Libya'' recounts items discussed in a Secure Video 
Teleconference attended by senior Administration officials. Among the 
items noted in this e-mail, one states: ``White House is reaching out 
to U-Tube to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon 
Video.'' Among descriptions of actions from different agencies, the e-
mail says nothing else about what the White House was doing that night. 
This information is troubling for a number of reasons.
  First, it contradicts White Press Secretary Jay Carney's claim this 
month that White House assertions about an Internet video were ``drawn 
directly from talking points produced by the intelligence community.'' 
The intelligence community talking points that were used, in part, to 
brief Ambassador Rice were not even requested until September 14--three 
days after the attack and the White House's decision to embrace its 
storyline.
  Second, former Libya Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks--who spoke 
to Ambassador Christopher Stevens on the phone during the attack--
indicated that it was immediately clear to him that the assault on the 
Benghazi diplomatic compound was a terrorist attack and not a protest 
of a YouTube video gone awry. Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, 
who had served as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge 
Development at U.S. Africa Command the night of the attack also 
testified that the assault on the Benghazi compound was clearly 
identifiable as a terrorist attack and not a protest gone awry. Former 
Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell publicly testified that incorrect 
conclusions by his agency that there had been a protest were made as a 
result of analysis that took place after, not during, the attack. In 
fact, reports and evidence collected during the attack and embraced by 
some Administration officials specifically pointed to Al Qaeda linked 
militia Ansar al-Shaira. A State Department draft memo for Secretary 
Clinton from September 12 about a condolence letter to the mother of 
slain American Sean Smith actually references both the White House 
assertion of a YouTube video and the involvement of Ansar al-Sharia.
  Third and finally, the e-mail shows the White House had hurried to 
settle on a false narrative--one at odds with the conclusions reached 
by those on the ground--before

[[Page 8925]]

Americans were even out of harm's way or the intelligence community had 
made an impartial examination of available evidence. According to the 
e-mail, the White House--at 3:11 am Libya time--had resolved to call 
YouTube owner Google about an Internet video being responsible for 
violence more than two hours before Americans Tyrone Woods and Glen 
Doherty were killed by militants at 5:15 am.
  Unfortunately Secretary Kerry and the State Department continue to 
try to keep this information from the public, only turning this 
document over to Congress last month. While the information I have 
cited from this e-mail is clearly unclassified, the State Department 
has attempted to obstruct its disclosure by not providing Congress with 
an unclassified copy of this document that redacted only classified 
portions outlining what the Department of Defense and the Secretary of 
State were doing in response to the attack in Benghazi that night. This 
tactic prevents the release of the e-mail itself. In advance of 
Secretary Kerry's testimony, I intend to request that the State 
Department declassify this e-mail in its entirety. I will also request 
that a small sample of other documents be declassified and the removal 
of redactions from other material occur so that the Oversight Committee 
can have a more meaningful discussion with Secretary Kerry about 
information that has been inappropriately withheld from Congress.
  In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your support for this hearing 
and view it as an appropriate conclusion to the transition the House of 
Representatives has decided to make to a Select Committee. By 
discussing these issues with Secretary Kerry in a public forum on May 
29 at the Oversight Committee, the Select Committee will benefit from 
an examination of tactics this Administration has employed to obstruct 
the investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Oversight is a 
constitutional responsibility of Congress, but we can only do our job 
when the executive branch, one way or another, meets its legal 
responsibilities.

                          ____________________