[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7670-7673]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            BENGHAZI ATTACK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 years, on September 11 and 
12, 2012, the United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, were the 
target of terrorist attacks. These attacks resulted in the deaths of 
four Americans: Sean Smith; Tyrone Woods; Glen Doherty; and the U.S. 
Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, as well as two other Americans 
critically injured.
  It comes at a time close to Memorial Day, when this country can honor 
these individuals that gave their life and their service not just for 
this country, but for the freedom and democracy around the world of 
others.
  The gravity of the attacks raise serious questions regarding the U.S. 
presence in Benghazi, Libya, particularly as those questions related to 
the policies, decisions, and activities of the administration and 
relevant executive branch agencies before, during, and after the 
attacks.
  For nearly 2 years, Congress sought answers to these questions. 
However, the administration's valid response has exposed the limits 
encountered by our standing committees.

                              {time}  1330

  These responses revealed a less than competent or transparent 
accounting about the attacks. Consequently, the House created, with the 
support of our Democratic colleagues, the Select Committee on the 
Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
  Everywhere I go, Mr. Speaker, I have people ask me: What is taking so 
long? What is taking so long for us to get
the facts about what happened in Benghazi?
  We are going to do our best today to explain to the American people 
and to the public and to you, Mr. Speaker, why it has taken so long, 
why it is requiring us to continue to subpoena and beg and plead for 
the information that we need to be able to deliver this report to this 
body and to the American people.
  The Speaker appointed me and six of my Republican colleagues to this 
committee. The minority leader appointed five of our Democratic 
colleagues. We have been directed by the House to conduct a complete 
investigation across the spectrum of all, A-L-L, all relevant executive 
branch agencies and issue a definitive final report on the events 
surrounding the September 11-12, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, 
Libya.
  Specifically, we are directed to investigate and report on: all 
policies, decisions, and activities that contributed to the attacks on 
United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 
2012, as well as those that affected the ability of the United States

[[Page 7671]]

to prepare for those attacks; number two, all policies, decisions, and 
activities to respond to and repel the attacks on United States 
facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012, including 
efforts to rescue United States personnel; number three, internal and 
public executive branch communications about the attacks on the United 
States facility in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012; 
number four, accountability for policies and decisions relating to the 
security of facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the response to the 
attacks, including individuals and entities responsible for those 
policies and decisions; number five, executive branch authorities' 
efforts to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of these 
attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11 and 12, 
2012; number six, executive branch activities and efforts to comply 
with congressional inquiries into the attacks on the United States 
facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012; 
recommendations for improving executive branch cooperation and 
compliance with congressional oversight investigations; information 
related to lessons learned from the attacks and executive branch 
activities and efforts to protect United States facilities and 
personnel abroad; and any other relevant issues relating to the 
attacks, the response to the attacks, or the investigation by the House 
of Representatives into the attacks.
  I think that number nine is a particularly relevant point. It says 
``all other relevant issues.'' That is one of the questions that we 
have been receiving: Are we stepping out of bounds on what this 
committee was supposed to do? The answer is absolutely not.
  Using these instructions as a guide, the committee requested and 
reviewed a substantial volume of information that was previously 
produced to the House, and new information never before produced to 
Congress.
  The committee has reviewed more than 20,000 pages of emails and 
documents produced by the State Department never before released to 
Congress. This new material includes emails that were sent to or 
received by the former Secretary of State relevant to Benghazi, as well 
as documents and emails that were part of the State Department's 
Accountability Review Board proceedings.
  In addition, hundreds of pages of emails never before seen by 
Congress have been produced by the White House. The Department of 
Justice and the intelligence community have also produced documents 
never before seen by Congress.
  Further, the committee has interviewed executive branch personnel, 
including survivors of the Benghazi terror attacks, none of whom have 
ever been interviewed by previous committees. The committee has also 
interviewed others who have been able to provide indispensable 
firsthand details of the U.S. presence in Benghazi, Libya.
  We know that this is not a complete universe of information held by 
the executive branch. Our investigation has uncovered new witnesses, 
new documents, and new facts related to the Benghazi terror attacks.
  Ironically, the largest impediment to getting this investigation done 
in a timely manner and being able to write a final, definitive 
accounting of what happened before, during, and after the terrorist 
attacks in Benghazi is the executive branch itself.
  The committee has issued letters, subpoenas, has threatened to hold 
and has held public compliance hearings, with slow to little to no 
action at all.
  Take the State Department, for example--the State Department is a 
necessary focus of this investigation; yet their compliance posture 
with the committee and Congress has proved unpredictable at best.
  When this committee was formed 1 year ago, the State Department had 
yet to fully comply with two outstanding subpoenas issued in 2013 by 
another committee. One subpoena dealt specifically with documents 
pertaining to the State Department's Accountability Review Board, known 
as the ARB.
  The other subpoena dealt with documents that had previously undergone 
limited congressional review, where Members' access to the documents 
and information was restricted to certain dates and times set by the 
State Department. These subpoenas were still legally binding on the 
State Department when this committee was created; yet the Department 
had not fulfilled them.
  In an effort to expedite the Department's fulfillment of these 
subpoenas, the select committee prioritized the Department's production 
of documents under these two subpoenas, as opposed to issuing new 
requests.
  In addition, by directing the Department to identify documents under 
these existing subpoenas, the committee was better positioned to 
receive new documents in a more expeditious manner while, at the same 
time, judiciously reviewing the work of past committees.
  These negotiations resulted in the State Department providing 15,000 
pages of new documents to the committee in August and September of last 
year. This production also fulfilled the Department's obligation for 
one of the two subpoenas.
  The review of these documents was enlightening, both in what it 
disclosed and what it did not. Here is what it did disclose. For the 
first time, the Department produced eight emails, eight to or from 
former Secretary Clinton.
  Additionally, the committee became aware that former Secretary 
Clinton had used a private email account to conduct official State 
Department business. Importantly, the committee did not release the 
existence of the private email account because of its commitment to 
investigate all the facts in a fair and impartial manner.
  Here is what it didn't disclose. From the review of the 15,000 pages, 
however, the committee recognized that there were significant omissions 
in the documents. Notably, there were very few emails between and among 
former Secretary Clinton's senior staff and the Secretary.
  As a result, last November, the committee requested the State 
Department produce specific documents and emails related to Benghazi 
and Libya for the Secretary and 10 of her senior staff. In the 2 months 
following the committee's request, committee staff consistently relayed 
to the Department that its new top priority was all of Secretary 
Clinton's emails.
  Almost 3 months later, on February 13, 2015, the Department produced 
approximately 300 emails to and from the former Secretary during her 
time as the head of the State Department. Remember, these are emails of 
which the State Department never possessed and didn't have to look for; 
yet it took that length of time.
  They didn't produce a single document to the committee related to the 
remaining portions of the November request. What was the State 
Department doing during the time the former Secretary was going through 
her emails?
  After they produced these emails, the State Department asked what our 
priority was. We continued to inform them that the 10 senior officials 
identified in the November request were our priority, including Cheryl 
Mills, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, and Susan Rice. The State Department 
told committee staff that this request was too broad and that it was 
unable to search for these documents.
  On March 4, 2015, the committee issued a subpoena for the documents 
and emails first requested in November. This subpoena sought documents 
and emails for the 10 senior State Department officials, including 
those named previously.
  Despite the committee indicating emails and documents from the 
subpoena were its top priority, the Department informed the committee 
that it would instead begin producing documents pursuant to the 
outstanding ARB subpoena. Remember, this subpoena was first issued in 
August of 2013 and reissued on January 28, 2015, since it expired at 
the end of the previous Congress.
  I would also point out that the law requires that these records--and 
this is the records from the ARB--and, Mr. Speaker, it is very 
important that you

[[Page 7672]]

understand this, that the law says that these ``records shall be 
separated from all other records of the Department of State and shall 
be maintained under appropriate safeguards to preserve the 
confidentiality and classification of information.''
  This means the records should have been sitting on a shelf somewhere, 
easily identifiable. Unfortunately, it took them 2 years to find where 
this ARB report was supposed to be segregated and put up. The committee 
continued to indicate that its priority was for the emails from the 
senior State Department personnel that were first requested in 
November.
  The Department's response: it could not search for these documents. 
Instead, the Department ignored the committee's request; and, on April 
15, 2015, nearly 2 years after Congress first issued a subpoena for the 
ARB's documents, the State Department finally produced more than 1,700 
pages of documents related to the ARB.
  Again, instead of responding to the committee's request, on April 23, 
2015, the Department produced an additional 2,500 pages of documents 
related to the ARB. The Department has said that, with minor 
exceptions, it has now fulfilled the requirements of that subpoena.
  Notwithstanding the ARB production, the committee continued to press 
the Department. Its top priority is the documents from the original 
November 2014 request and the March subpoena.
  The State Department, however, has done little but talk about the 
breadth of the subpoena and the inability to adequately search for 
documents.
  The Department continues to state that it does not have the technical 
capabilities to do such a wide search without specific search terms; 
yet the Department never used any search terms to conduct in its 
search, nor has the Department ever suggested any search terms to the 
committee.
  To help the committee better understand the Department's technical 
capabilities--or lack thereof--the committee has taken several 
different steps. We asked the State Department to bring its technology 
expert and its records officer to a meeting to discuss how records were 
kept, retrieved, and produced.
  Specifically, we requested a meeting ``with the relevant people from 
within the State Department who can explain in detail how the State 
Department maintains its records and how it has researched for 
documents pursuant to this committee's November request and further 
detail the limitations of the Department's ability to fully respond to 
the Chairman's document request. These people would likely include 
individuals from Legislative Affairs, Office of the Legal Adviser, 
Bureau of Information Resource Management, and possibly the records 
officer and any other individual who will be able to answer detailed 
questions on the topic. This meeting will help us further sequence and 
prioritize the information and issues in the committee's request, as 
you suggested we do in your letter of February 13 to Chairman Gowdy,'' 
that the State Department sent us.
  We also included a list of 13 questions to the Department to help 
guide the discussion. Samples of these questions include ``the size of 
the universe of potentially relevant hard copy and/or electronic field 
for each person from the data range period, keyword or phrase searches 
the Department plans to use for production,'' and ``any limitations 
imposed on the type of data to be searched.''
  These are some pretty straightforward questions.

                              {time}  1345

  When the State Department appeared for the meeting, they did not only 
bring those subject matter experts with them, the staff they did bring 
could not answer these basic questions. In fact, it was during this 
meeting for the first time that the committee learned that the State 
Department was not in possession of the former Secretary's emails. 
However, there was no mention of her use of a private server.
  The committee again asked the Department to meet with these 
individuals. Again, the Department did not provide them. At an April 10 
meeting between committee staff and the Department, the State 
Department brought in an individual. Yet when pressed by committee 
staff on these specific questions, the Department refused to provide 
the specific answers.
  Last week, we continued the pressure. We told the Department that 
members of the committee, including myself, would travel to the State 
Department to view firsthand how they search for documents and have a 
discussion about the shortcomings they claim to have.
  But what did the Department do when we told them that we were coming? 
They scrambled and did everything possible to deter our visit.
  Earlier this week, however, we did learn more about the Department's 
internal process for identifying and reviewing documents, but we didn't 
get this information from the Department. Instead, we had to learn it 
from a lawsuit.
  This past week, on May 18, the State Department's Acting Director for 
its Information Programs and Services filed a sworn declaration in a 
FOIA lawsuit, the Freedom of Information lawsuit. That declaration 
outlined the steps the State Department had taken since it received 
approximately 55,000 pages of emails from former Secretary Clinton in 
December of 2014 to review those documents for public release under the 
Freedom of Information rules.
  Also, in that sworn statement, the State Department asserted that it 
had dedicated, on a full-time basis, a project manager, two case 
analysts, and nine Freedom of Information reviewers to review all 
55,000 pages of emails since April. These 12 individuals are precisely 
the 12 FTE positions that were recently funded by the State 
Department's $2.5 million reprogramming request.
  Let me say that again. The State Department repeatedly complained to 
the committee that a lack of staff and other resources prevented it 
from making more timely production of documents to the committee, so 
the committee supported a reallocation of funds to enable the State 
Department to hire additional staff to work on document production to 
provide to this committee.
  However, we continued to press the State Department for answers. Last 
month, we went so far as to put in writing 27 specific questions that 
the State Department needed to answer regarding its ability to produce 
documents to the committee and the use of the private email account by 
Secretary Clinton.
  These were simple questions that fell into three simple categories. 
These categories are: the State Department's initial approval, if any, 
of Secretary Clinton's email server arrangement; the State Department's 
knowledge about this email server arrangement, its attempt to retrieve 
her email, and the lack of candor by the Department towards the 
committee about this, despite the committee's persistent requests for 
these emails; and number 3, details of the Department's review of her 
emails to ensure the Department is properly marshaling resources to 
respond to our requests.
  Yet here we are, more than 1 month later, and the Department hasn't 
even been able to answer a single one of the 27 questions in writing.
  In addition, we have attempted on multiple occasions to direct the 
Department toward specific key documents that we are after. We have 
prioritized our subpoena from 10 names down to 4 names, and then again 
down to 3 names. We have prioritized dates of documents from 2 years, 
down to 1 year, down to 3 months.
  But again, here we are, 2\1/2\ months after we issued a subpoena and 
6 months after we first sent the letter, and the Department has still 
not produced any of these priority documents. First, we moved a foot, 
then we moved a yard, and now we have moved our position one mile, but 
the State Department has not budged 1 inch.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to show a little chart that shows the 
noncompliance that the State Department has done so far:

[[Page 7673]]

  On 11/18 of 2014: The committee requests from the Secretary 10 senior
officials' documents and emails--response, nothing.
  On 12/17, we got a response: Let's meet. No documents produced.
  2/13/2015: State produced Clinton emails acquired from her attorney.
  3/4/2015: We subpoenaed the documents and emails of the 10 senior 
officials.
  The State Department response: Let's meet. No documents produced.
  3/26/2015: Three outstanding requests, ARB documents, 10 senior 
official documents and emails and server questions.
  4/10: Briefing on document retention policies and procedures. No 
documents produced.
  4/14: Compliance needed on both subpoenas.
  4/15: Part of ARB documents produced 2 years after requested.
  4/18: Two subpoenas outstanding. Full ARB compliance and documents. 
Emails of 10 senior officials.
  4/22: Subpoenas outstanding for full ARB compliance and documents and 
emails of 10 senior officials.
  State response: Just beginning to assess volume of emails. No 
documents produced.
  4/24/2015: Response, second part of ARB documents produced 2 years 
after requested.
  4/27/2015: Reminder of priority of 10 senior officials.
  4/29: Response: Estimate given for volume of emails for 2 of the 10 
senior officials. No documents produced.
  5/4/2015: Lack of compliance on document request is unacceptable.
  Response from the State Department: State responds but fails to 
identify any steps taken to produce documents. No documents produced.
  Mr. Speaker, we have done everything we know to do to get these 
documents so we can finish this investigation. I don't know that 
anybody has any more right to know what has gone on than the American 
people and especially those families of those four great Americans that 
lost their lives.
  The only thing holding us up from getting a definitive report of 
those actions before, during, and after those attacks is this executive 
branch and their Department of State. We are begging them. And as we 
have said before, we have moved an inch, we have moved a foot, we have 
moved a yard, we have moved a mile, and they have not moved one iota.
  So our request to them is to listen, to give us the documents and let 
us finish this report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________