Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a section-by-section analysis of the resolution as well as a July 21, 2014, memorandum prepared by the Office of the Parliamentarian for the Over-Criminalization Task Force of the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. Res. 5

Adopting Rules for the 114th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Resolved Clause.

This section provides that the Rules of the 113th Congress

are the Rules of the 114th Congress, except with the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Disclosure of Foreign Payments to Witnesses. Subsection

(a)(1) requires, to the greatest extent practicable,

nongovernmental witnesses to disclose payments or contracts

to the witness or an organization they represent originating

from foreign governments received in the current and

preceding two calendar years, to the extent that such

information is relevant to the subject matter of, and the

witness' representational capacity at, that hearing.

While failure to comply fully with this requirement would

not give rise to a point of order against the witness

testifying, it could result in an objection to including the

witness's written testimony in the hearing record in the

absence of such disclosure.

Jurisdictional Changes. Subsection (a)(2) adds language to

the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional statement

with respect to the criminalization of conduct.

The Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction over criminal

penalties and criminal law enforcement would remain

unchanged. That is, the committee would maintain its existing

jurisdiction over measures that create or repeal a crime, and

over measures that alter criminal penalties with regard to

crimes already existing in law.

The rules change is intended to cover measures that alter

the elements of a crime so as to criminalize new conduct and,

in so doing, trigger an existing criminal penalty. This rules

change is not intended to cover measures that merely supply

the regulatory framework or address the regulatory

underpinnings of the overall enforcement scheme. Past

measures proposing merely to adjust the elements of such a

crime--as opposed to adjusting the penalty for commission of

the crime--have been out of the jurisdictional reach of the

Committee on the Judiciary. Even though such measures have

left the criminal penalty unchanged, they have nonetheless

subjected new conduct to that criminal penalty. In other

words, new conduct was criminalized. If the relatively rare

practice of criminalizing new conduct within the framework of

existing penalties is left unchecked, it calls into question

the efficacy of the Committee on the Judiciary's

jurisdictional statement in providing a comprehensive look at

criminal penalties and criminal law enforcement. Hence, a

rule X statement of ``criminalization'' is the most

appropriate way to address this circumstance.

The jurisdiction of other committees over the elements of a

crime--particularly in the context of a regulatory scheme and

outside of title 18, United States Code--would remain the

same, except that it potentially would be shared with the

Committee on the Judiciary in some instances. In that

respect, it is similar to the criminalization of new conduct

accompanied by a new criminal penalty; this change is to

ensure that it is the act of criminalizing conduct, and not

just the penalties themselves, that gives rise to a

jurisdictional interest by the Committee on the Judiciary.

This rules change is not intended to alter existing

jurisdiction over any enforcement scheme that falls outside

of the ambit of criminal law enforcement. Rather, it is to

confirm that the creation of a new crime subject to criminal

law enforcement is what gives rise to the Committee on the

Judiciary's interest, and not merely the establishment or

modification of the penalty.

For instance, the change is intended to address a situation

analogous to H.R. 2492 of the 112th Congress, which addressed

attendance at animal fighting events through amendments to

the Animal Welfare Act--compiled in title 7 of the United

States Code--and to title 18. That measure was referred to

both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the

Judiciary. Portions of that measure were later included in

H.R. 2642 of the 113th Congress and addressed a type of

animal fighting to be covered by the Animal Welfare Act, but

did not amend the existing criminal penalty in the Animal

Welfare Act and did not touch title 18. As a result, the

Committee on the Judiciary did not receive a referral of that

measure.

Committees with jurisdiction over a regulatory statute will

continue to exercise that jurisdiction, and the interest of

the Committee on the Judiciary will extend to the creation of

a new crime without a change to an existing penalty only to

the same extent it would to creation of a new crime with an

accompanying penalty prior to the 114th Congress.

The subsection adds language to the Committee on

Appropriations' jurisdictional statement with respect to

certain loan obligations and new loan guarantees with a

textual reference to section 504(b) of the Congressional

Budget Act.

Clarifying the Jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration. Subsection (a)(3) clarifies the Committee on

House Administration's jurisdiction over the Chief

Administrative Officer.

Committee Activity Reports. Subsection (a)(4) reduces the

frequency of committee activity reports from two times per

Congress to one time per Congress.

Dissenting Views. Subsection (a)(5) codifies current

practice by updating the rule regarding supplemental,

minority, or additional views to include ``dissenting''

views.

Consolidating Requirements for Written Rules. Subsection

(a)(6) requires committees to include in their written rules

pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule XI certain audio and

visual coverage rules described in clause 4(f) of rule XI and

formerly required by such clause.

Conforming Committee and House Broadcasting Standards.

Subsection (a)(7) conforms the language in clause 4(b) of

rule XI with clause 2(c) of rule V to ensure consistent

application of broadcasting standards.

Eliminating the Point of Order Against Considering

Appropriations Measures without Printed Hearings. Subsection

(a)(8) eliminates the point of order against the

consideration of appropriations measures without printed

hearings. This information is largely available through

archived broadcasts, testimony, and other documents available

on the Appropriations Committee's website and the public

hearings themselves.

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Subsection

(a)(9) increases the size of the committee to 22 members,

with not more than 13 from the same party.

Committee on Ethics. Subsection (a)(10) prohibits the

Committee on Ethics from taking action that would deny a

person any rights or protections provided under the

Constitution of the United States of America.

Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. Subsection (b) updates the

authorization for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to

conform to current practice and codifies a separate order of

the 113th Congress.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Incorporate

Macroeconomic Scoring. Subsection (c) requires the

Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation,

to the extent practicable, to incorporate the macroeconomic

effects of ``major legislation'' into the official cost

estimates used for enforcing the budget resolution and other

rules of the House. The subsection requires, to the extent

practicable, a qualitative assessment of the long-term

budgetary and macroeconomic effects of ``major legislation'',

which is defined to cover legislation that causes a gross

budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by the budget

resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of

the projected GDP for that year. This subsection also allows

the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in the case of

revenue legislation the House member serving as the Chair or

Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to designate

``major legislation'' for purposes of this rule.

This subsection also repeals the existing provision in

clause 3(h)(2) of rule XIII that requires a macroeconomic

impact analysis of revenue legislation, which is superseded

by the new rule.

Providing for Reconvening Authority for the House of

Representatives. Subsection (d) allows the Speaker, after

consultation with the Minority Leader, to reconvene the House

during an adjournment of three days or less, at a time

other than previously appointed. This codifies separate

orders from the 112th and 113th Congresses.

Providing Conference Committees with Time to Reach

Agreement. Subsection (e) modifies clause 7(c)(1) of rule

XXII by providing conference committees 45 calendar days and

25 legislative days after the formation of a conference to

reach agreements before additional motions to instruct

managers may be offered.

Contents of Committee Reports Showing Changes to Existing

Law. Subsection (f) requires that a Ramseyer print to show

the entire text of amended or repealed sections of a statute

along with the proposed changes.

Mandatory Ethics Training for New Members. Subsection (g)

requires that new Members of

the House, in addition to employees, complete ethics

training.

Technical and Conforming Changes. Subsection (h)(1)

conforms the standing rules to reflect the name in statute of

the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Subsection (h)(2)

updates an outdated statutory citation and removes a

reference inadvertently left in place at the start of the

113th Congress, which is no longer necessary due to the

enactment of the STOCK Act.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Independent Payment Advisory Board. Subsection (a)

eliminates provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act

that limit the ability of the House to determine the method

of consideration for a recommendation from the Independent

Payment Advisory Board or to repeal the provision in its

entirety.

Staff Deposition Authority for Certain Committees.

Subsection (b) provides the Committees on Energy and

Commerce, Financial Services, Science, Space, and Technology,

and Ways and Means deposition authority to be conducted by a

member or committee counsel during the first session of the

114th Congress. Depositions taken under this authority shall

be subject to regulations issued by the chair of the

Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional Record.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (c) clarifies the procedures of the

House upon receipt of Article V memorials from the States by

directing the Clerk to make each memorial, designated by the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, electronically

available and organized by State of origin and year of

receipt.

In carrying out section 3(c) of House Resolution 5, it is

expected that the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will be solely charged with determining whether a memorial

purports to be an application of the legislature of a state

calling for a constitutional convention. The Clerk's role

will be entirely administrative. The chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary will only designate memorials from state

legislatures (and not petitions from individuals or other

parties) as it is only state legislatures that are

contemplated under Article V of the Constitution.

In submitting the memorials to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

with each memorial indicating it has been designated under

section 3(c) of House Resolution 5. The Clerk will make

publicly available the memorial and the transmission letter

from the chair. Ancillary documentation from the state or

other parties is not expected to be publicized.

The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary is also

permitted to designate memorials from earlier Congresses to

be made publicly available under the same procedure.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (d) carries forward the prohibition from the 112th

and 113th Congresses against consideration of a general

appropriation bill that does not include a ``spending

reduction'' account, the contents of which is a recitation of

the amount by which, through the amendment process, the House

has reduced spending in other portions of the bill and

indicated that such savings should be counted towards

spending reduction. It provides that other amendments that

propose to increase spending in accounts in a general

appropriations bill must include an offset of equal or

greater value.

Budget Matters. Subsection (e)(1) provides that titles III,

IV, and VI, of House Concurrent Resolution 25 (113th

Congress), as well as the allocations, aggregates, and

appropriate levels contained in the chair of the Committee on

the Budget's statement submitted in the Congressional Record

on April 29, 2014, as adjusted, will continue to have force

and effect until a budget resolution for fiscal year 2015 is

adopted. This subsection also provides that the chair of the

Committee on the Budget may revise allocations, aggregates,

and appropriate levels for measures maintaining the Highway

Trust Fund, provided such a measure does not increase the

deficit over the 11-year window and revise allocations,

aggregates, and appropriate levels to take into account

updated CBO baselines.

Subsection (e)(2) carries forward from the 113th Congress

the requirement that prevents the Committee of the Whole from

rising to report a bill to the House that exceeds an

applicable allocation of new budget authority under section

302(b) (Appropriations subcommittee allocations) as estimated

by the Budget Committee and creates a point of order.

Continuing Litigation Authorities. Subsection (1) addresses

continuing litigation in which the House is a party.

Paragraph (1) authorizes the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, through the House Office of General

Counsel, to continue litigation to enforce a subpoena against

the Attorney General related to the ``Fast and Furious''

investigation. This lawsuit was authorized by H. Res. 706

(112th Congress). It also authorizes the chair of the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (when

elected) to take certain actions necessary to continue the

litigation. Paragraph (2) authorizes the House to act as

the successor in interest with respect to ongoing civil

actions regarding the implementation of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit was

authorized by H. Res. 676 (113th Congress). The subsection

also carries forward the authorities provided by H. Res.

676 (113th Congress) to remain in effect in the 114th

Congress. Paragraph (3) authorizes Michael W. Sheehy to

provide testimony in an ongoing criminal action in

accordance with authorizations from the Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence in the 112th and 113th

Congresses.

Duplication of Federal Programs. Subsection (g) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the authorization of a

committee chair to request that the Government Accountability

Office perform a duplication analysis of any bill or joint

resolution referred to that committee. The subsection also

requires committee reports to include a statement on whether

any provision of the measure establishes or reauthorizes a

program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of

another Federal program. This order has been modified to

allow for a statement that no program is being established or

reauthorized for purposes of complying with the order.

Estimates of Direct Spending. Subsection (h) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the prohibition of

consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, or

any proposed amendment to or conference report thereon,

unless it includes specified information and estimates

related to direct spending, including means-tested direct

spending and nonmeans-tested direct spending. The subsection

also requires the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

publish a description in the Congressional Record of covered

programs

Disclosure of Directed Rulemakings. Subsection (i) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the requirement that

committee reports on bills or joint resolutions are to

include an estimate of the number of directed rule makings

required by the measure. The subsection defines ``directed

rule making'' to include those rule makings specifically

directed to be completed by a provision in the legislation,

but does not include a grant of discretionary rule making

authority.

Subcommittees. Subsection (j) waives clause 5(d) of rule X

to allow the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs

up to seven subcommittees and the Committees on

Transportation and Infrastructure and Agriculture up to six

subcommittees. Other than the inclusion of the Committee on

Agriculture, this is similar to provisions carried in the

rules package during the last several Congresses.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (k)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, former

Members, officers, and former officers of the House and their

spouses to any former member, former officer, or spouse who

is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of

1995.

Numbering of Bills. Subsection (1) reserves the first 10

numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) for assignment by

the Speaker and the second 10 numbers (H.R. 11 through H.R.

20) for assignment by the Minority Leader.

Inclusion of U.S. Code Citations. Subsection (m) adds, to

the maximum extent practicable, a requirement for parallel

citations for amendatory instructions to Public Laws and

Statutes at Large that are not classified in the U.S. Code.

Broadening Availability of Legislative Documents in Machine

Readable Formats. Subsection (n) instructs the appropriate

officers and committees to continue to advance government

transparency by taking further steps to publish documents of

the House in machine-readable formats.

Temporary Designation. Subsection (o) designates a

temporary location for documents to be made publicly

available pending the official designation by the Committee

on House Administration under clause 3 of rule XXIX.

Congressional Member Organization Transparency Reform.

Subsection (p) allows participating Members to enter into

agreements with eligible Congressional Member Organizations

for the purpose of payment of salaries and expenses. The

subsection requires the Committee on House Administration to

promulgate regulations, consistent with current law, to carry

out this subsection.

Social Security Solvency. Subsection (q) creates a point of

order against legislation that would reduce the actuarial

balance of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust

Fund, but provides an exemption to the point of order if a

measure improves the overall financial health of the combined

Social Security Trust Funds. This subsection would protect

the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund from

diversion of its funds to finance a broken Disability

Insurance system.

Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices.

Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Subsection (a) carries forward

the select committee as authorized by H. Res. 567 (113th

Congress) as it existed at the end of the 113th Congress.

Additionally, the subsection provides the select committee

authority to adopt a rule or motion allowing for a ten-minute

rule for the questioning of witnesses.

House Democracy Partnership. Subsection (b) reauthorizes

the House Democracy Assistance Commission, now known as the

House Democracy Partnership.

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Subsection (c)

reauthorizes the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

Office of Congressional Ethics. Subsection (d) reauthorizes

the Office of Congressional

Ethics (OCE) for the 114th Congress and clarifies that term

limits do not apply to members of the OCE. The subsection

reaffirms that a person subject to a review by the Office of

Congressional Ethics has a right to be represented by

counsel, and establishes that invoking such right is not to

be held as a presumption of guilt. The subsection also

prohibits the Office of Congressional Ethics from taking

action that would deny a person any rights or protections

provided under the Constitution of the United States of

America.

Section 5. Additional Order of Business.

Reading of the Constitution. This section allows the

Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the

Constitution on any legislative day through January 16, 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I, too, want to welcome the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, as we begin another session in this new year. I am delighted to know that the Rules Committee will be ready and available to handle the pieces of legislation that the gentlewoman spoke of in terms of helping the American people to understand what Congress' role is in working with the President to help with policies that will get this country back to work.

Mr. Speaker, just a year ago, we recognized as we came back to Washington that we were at a GDP growth of a negative GDP. We had to fight out of these terrible, terrible tax increases and the things that are occurring to our economy.

The American people found new footing this year because it was the Republican majority who gave new meaning and life to ``we are going to make this place, meaning Washington, D.C., and government, smaller and make things bigger and better for people back home.''

We have now lived through what has become a reality with Republican policies on energy, for a competitive marketplace for there to be alternative fuels that are available that have dominated the marketplaces and put other countries on their heels and have given an advantage to American drivers who are here, families who are trying to make a go of it. The price of gasoline at the pump has dropped.

We still have much to do. As we know of the first year that President Obama was in office, food prices began doubling, energy prices began doubling. Republicans now are giving the American people a sense that we can manage our country better, so that they cannot only have a job and keep a job, but that they can take care of their families.

We are going to aim this year on a lot of things; but today, we are here for the rules package that will enable the opportunities for all of our Members to know what the rules are and to become engaged.

Four years ago, Mr. Speaker, we pledged to the American people that Speaker Boehner, through the rules of this House and our package that we would have, would allow Members from both sides of the aisle to engage in robust debate under an open process.

I am proud to announce that in following through with that promise, which is what we have done, we now have a new, larger group of Republicans because of the hard work we have done and have sold to the American people about effectively managing their affairs in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, more tax increases, bigger government, the Democrat party. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 722 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The rule is a structured rule which provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution keeping the government funded until December 11, 2014.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the adoption of a technical amendment by Chairman Rogers and makes in order an amendment by Chairman McKeon. That amendment provides the authority for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals.

For this amendment, the rule provides 6 hours of debate equally divided between Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule corrects a technical error and puts in place the base rules of the House regarding media access to the hearings and meetings of the Benghazi Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Chairman Rogers for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the House. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is frustrating that we are forced into acting on a short-term continuing resolution when we spent much of this year, both in committee and on the floor, updating congressional funding priorities for fiscal year 2015.

This House has done its work. I wish I could say the same for the other body. While the Senate has chosen not to pass even one appropriations bill on the floor, this House has passed seven.

While the Senate Appropriations Committee has passed eight of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee, the House Appropriations Committee has approved all but one. If the Senate would work with us, I believe we could pass all of our bills on time.

The CR we are considering today is a clean bill continuing the funding of government operations at last year's levels. It includes only 36 so-called anomalies all within the total level of funding.

These changes are necessary to address current immediate needs like addressing the Ebola crisis, funding programs to counter regional aggression toward Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries, and funding to ensure appropriate treatment of veterans and continued oversight of the VA.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015. I know some of my friends will disagree with me; however, I believe the Export-Import Bank provides a vital service. In an era when foreign governments are directly subsidizing industries, our companies are in need of a level playing field. I believe the Export-Import Bank does that.

In my home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, financing provided by the Export-Import Bank has supported over $1.1 billion in sales by U.S. companies that would not have existed otherwise; in addition, the Export-Import Bank has returned over $2.6 billion to the United States Treasury since 2008.

Finally, and most significantly, the McKeon amendment would provide the President with the authority he has requested to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The amendment ensures congressional oversight by requiring detailed progress reports on a plan, a vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end use of provided training and equipment. It would also require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy.

Mr. Speaker, when we look back on what brought us to this point, there are at least three significant failures that we can point to: first, former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was given the opportunity to create a multiethnic, multisectarian, inclusive State of Iraq, but, instead, he squandered it; secondly, President Obama didn't insist forcefully enough to keep a residual American presence in Iraq; and, third, Mr. Speaker, when ISIL expanded out of Syria and into Iraq, both Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Obama were slow to respond.

When Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIL, their indecisive leadership allowed and encouraged this terrorist organization to assert itself in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the salient discussion is not about the past and how we got here but about the future and what we must do now.

I agree with the President that ISIL represents a clear and present danger

that must be dealt with, confronted, and destroyed. I am willing to give the President the authority and the funds needed to accomplish this mission. This amendment gives the President what he has requested while maintaining an appropriate role for Congress, but I do disagree with the President on several important issues.

I don't believe that he has the inherent authority to use military force in Syria, and nothing in this amendment authorizes him to do so.

I believe that going to war on the authorizations that were passed in 2001 and 2002, which dealt with very different times, places, and peoples, is shaky, at best. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of my colleagues, including myself, were not even here in Congress when those authorizations were approved.

When we return in November, I hope that we repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations and replace them with ones that reflect the views of this Congress not the Congress of the last decade.

Additionally, I disagree with the President's choice of tactics. Regardless of whether he intends to use them or not, I believe the President was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he, in fact, may need later. War is the most unpredictable of all human enterprises. History shows that it is vital for a commander to maintain as much flexibility as possible.

I also do not believe that the authority and resources the President has requested will be nearly enough to achieve the mission he has outlined. It is going to take far more from our country, our allies, and our friends on the ground to destroy ISIL than envisioned in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the President can succeed in the effort to destroy ISIL without bipartisan, popular support, and I hope he will take this opportunity to build on that. We are not Republicans or Democrats in war, but Americans first. The Commander in Chief has asked for our support in the underlying legislation. He should get it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I am going to disagree with my friend about who has and who hasn't done their job and who has been open and who hasn't been open in terms of how they have operated on the floor.

The reality is this House majority has repeatedly brought appropriations bills to the floor and moved them across the floor. Unfortunately, our counterparts and the Democratic majority in the Senate have not been able to do that for whatever reason. It's a little hard to have an appropriations process when the United States Senate will not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor largely because the majority on that side is evidently afraid of voting on any sort of amendments to an appropriations bill.

Now, if you actually look at the record in terms of who has been open and who hasn't, I remind my friends that the Democrats' 2006 manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' states:

Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

The fact remains that when Democrats took control of the House they did just the opposite. Throughout the 111th Congress, in the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process.

On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriation bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, 189 of which were offered by our Democratic colleagues. Contrast that to the United States Senate, where that process has not happened at all.

When you compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show Republicans are running a much more open, transparent House of Representatives.

Let me also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, turn to the issue of the Benghazi Select Committee. I know that has caused considerable concern, I think, largely based on misunderstanding.

Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, which applies to all standing committees and the select committees, mandates that the meetings of the select committee be open to the public, including the press, unless there is a vote conducted in open session to close such a meeting. The rule today only ensures that the logistics for media covering the hearing follow the standing rules of the House. There is no change to the rules governing public access to the meetings of the select committee.

Might I, just for the Record, Mr. Speaker, actually read the relevant portion of the rules here--``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 4 of Rule XI shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee as though pursuant to such clause''--essentially applying to the select committee our own rules. That is the only thing that is being done here. It is a technical amendment, certainly no effort to short-circuit the process or make it less transparent.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to respectfully, once again, disagree with my friend from New York on the appropriations process. The reality is we have brought bill after bill to this floor. Every Member has had the opportunity to offer any amendment on seven different bills and to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on their final disposition. The Senate hasn't brought any. And, frankly, at some point the Senate's failure to do its job begins to impact our ability to do ours, because it is very difficult to get time on the floor and use it knowing there is not anything going on on the other side. And that is just the reality of it.

So, if my friends can talk the Senate into beginning to move, I think they would actually find the House, which is already far ahead of them, would continue to work with them and we would actually begin to pass bills. But until the Senate will bring a bill to the floor of any kind for an appropriation, very difficult for us to get our work done over here.

Now I want to address myself, if I may, to my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. There is much in what he says that I agree with. Frankly, I think he is correct when he says that we need at some point a full authorization, a full debate, full discussion. He is absolutely right, and I want to commend him for the action he took in his amendment on Iraq in July that we voted on. I was very happy to vote it. So I think, in substance, I find very little to disagree with in what my friend has to say. I do point out a couple of things, though.

First, and I think my friend is aware of it, the Speaker has actually taken the position that we need a full authorization debate and discussion. And I am told that he conveyed that to the President and actually said he thought this institution, our country, which I know is what we care about supremely, and the President himself would be better off under such discussion. That is a viewpoint that I agree with, and I think many Members on both sides of the aisle and with both points of view on the issue also hold that opinion. So this is actually a decision that has been largely made, in a sense, by the President.

We are trying to respond in a short period of time to what the President has asked us to do, and I think that is an important point to remember in this. This is not a fight on this floor between Democrats and Republicans or even for proponents. I think it is, at another level, a difference in perception about what authority the President has, his view versus probably Congress' view on a bipartisan basis.

I think it is a challenge in terms of timing. It is extremely difficult for the leaders of either Chamber to look like they are undercutting the President at a time of danger and when he has come with this request. We have set 6 hours of debate aside for a reason. If you will remember, the President's original request was simply to drop this measure in the continuing resolution and have no vote and no discussion at all. It was actually our side and your side that insisted that it be pulled out and that a vote and discussion occur. When we come back--again, I share my friend's opinion--I would be prepared to do it before the election. I see no particular need in waiting, but I don't get to make that decision.

At the end of the day, we are giving the Commander in Chief what he is asking for. I think we are trying to be both responsible and helpful. We have actually curtailed considerably what the President asked for. We noted specifically that this does not authorize the use of military force in Syria. We have required reviews. I suspect we will be revisiting this issue again--I certainly would hope so--and I look forward to working with my friend to make sure that we do.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend.

In reclaiming my time, if I may, I don't presume to speak for the Speaker. I know that we have this vote largely because the Speaker wanted to make sure that we had a vote, and I know the request that he made of the President. Look, I am not condemning the President on this either. I understand all Executives try to tell you they have the authority to do everything they want. Ours do when we have a Republican, and Democrats do.

All I can say is, at the end of the day, I think we have a robust debate, and we have an opportunity to register opinion. But I want to continue to work with my friend and make sure that we have precisely the kind of debate and discussion and vote that his own amendment in July actually envisioned, because I think my friend is correct. I think this is an issue of constitutional propriety, and I think it is an issue, ultimately, of war and peace, and I think we ought to all vote on it. I would be happy if we did it before the election, but I will work with my friend to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee and a fellow subcommittee chairman.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just wanted to quickly note that I actually agree with a very good deal of what my friend from Texas has to say.

I do want to correct him on one item. The amendment we are talking about is not like the authorizations of 2001 and 2002, mostly because it is very finely tailored to limit the executive branch.

It actually runs out on December 11 or earlier if we actually pass a National Defense Authorization Act and deal with the Syrian issue in that context; so it is very limited in terms of time, very limited in terms of scope. It explicitly states that it does not authorize military action in Syria.

With all due respect, I would suggest that most of my friend's disagreements are with this administration. They are largely disagreements with the President. The Speaker is doing what he can to provide an opportunity for us to debate and express that in the continuing resolution, and I will work with my friend from Texas to make sure that we have a fuller, more robust debate because I think the country deserves that, and I think my friend is right to demand it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my friend from Washington for his kind words. I couldn't agree more with him about the Export-Import Bank. I think it is a very important institution that ought to be reauthorized, and I intend to work with my friend to make sure that happens when the time comes.

I don't think, as a rule, reauthorization in a continuing resolution is a good idea. I think it is much more appropriate, particularly for a matter this controversial and this serious--and, again, I agree with the substance of what my friend says--that we go through a normal committee process and that we come to the floor and have a full debate. I don't think this is the appropriate vehicle for that.

While I look forward to working with my friend on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, I doubt that it is going to happen in this particular vehicle so, hopefully, in the new Congress, as we make persuasive arguments, as my friend has advanced, we will find that we get the broad bipartisan support we need to do that reauthorization.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I do want to revisit, in closing, this issue of appropriations and openness, and I want to remind my friends on the other side of some recent history.

In 2010, when my Democratic colleagues controlled the House, they only considered two appropriations bills. At that time, by the way, they also had control of the Senate. I presume it would have been easier for them to have cooperated with a Democratic Senate than for us, but perhaps not because they only got two appropriations bills done the last year they were in the majority.

My colleagues deviated from the longstanding practice of open rules for appropriations bills by making in order only 40 amendments that year. You heard that correctly. Democrats considered two of 12 bills, with only 40 amendments made in order.

This year, Republicans have considered seven of 12 bills, considering 404 amendments, 189 of them which were offered by my Democratic colleagues. I will let the American people decide who has the better record on actually bringing appropriations bills to the floor and opening them up for full consideration by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who spoke today for the sincerity and the thoughtfulness of the debate. I particularly know that we probably find ourselves on common ground in wanting to make sure the government doesn't shut down, pass a continuing resolution.

It is interesting to me that that was not the subject of a great deal of contention; so I would hope that is something that brings us together. It is something that, certainly, the Speaker wants to accomplish, but the President and the majority leader want to accomplish that as well. Surely, we can find a bipartisan amendment for that.

Obviously, the great issue of the day and this week is going to be this discussion over the Syrian matter, and, again, I want to congratulate my colleagues for the seriousness with which they are approaching this.

I think we have all learned some very hard lessons in the last 13 years, and I am pleased that the amendment that would bring to the floor--an amendment, by the way, the President didn't particularly want.

I would recall for the Record that the President wanted this authorization for active title 10 authority for him to train Syrians to simply be dropped into the continuing resolution. It was the Speaker with the support of the Democratic leadership as well that wanted to make sure that we had a separate vote and discussion on this issue. I think that is a very good thing.

Now, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I would prefer a much more robust and fuller discussion, and I hope we reach that point. I think that is exactly the course that the Speaker recommended to the President.

He said:

I think the institution that I preside over will be better

served, I think you will be better served, and I think the

country will be better served if we have that debate.

I know the Speaker made every effort to get to that point. Others have a different point of view. I respect the President. Like most Chief Executives, he has had to take some very expansive views of his authority under the Constitution.

I recognize some people, frankly, are concerned about having this vote ahead of an election. Personally, I would prefer to do it ahead of an election, but I don't get to make those decisions, and I think the Speaker has done the best that he can do in reconciling all the conflicting opinions between the Senate, the House, and the executive branch and has managed to bring us at least something that is a serious debate and will be taken seriously by the country; moreover, I am particularly pleased that my chairman, Mr. Sessions, on the Rules Committee made sure that we will have not a cursory debate but 6 hours of debate.

If any Member wants to voice their opinion, 6 hours is an awful lot of time. I suspect they are going to have the opportunity to come down here and do that, and I hope they will.

I think what we are going to see is probably a bipartisan opposition to the amendment and bipartisan support. Frankly, in issues of war and peace, that is probably the better way for us to proceed; so I think it is a challenging situation. I think all concerned are trying to work together and do the right thing and to present clarity.

I just want to go on record once again, personally, as hoping that as soon as possible that we come back--the President asked for broad authority--that we repeal the '01 and '02 resolution, something the President has asked us to do himself before, and work together and present a more precisely defined and limited resolution that gives him the authority to act robustly in the defense of our country, to punish people who commit the barbarous acts that we have seen in recent weeks, and to do the things that are necessary with the full bipartisan support of Congress to secure the security of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution upholds the primary responsibility the American people have sent us here to do, ensuring the continued funding of the government. While not my first choice, passage of a continuing resolution is better than any of the alternatives; additionally, it provides the President the additional authority he has requested to degrade and destroy ISIL.

I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are considering a rule that combines two bills together under one single rule. That rule provides an open rule for the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, or T-HUD, and a structured rule for the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act.

T-HUD is an appropriate acronym, Mr. Speaker, because that is how we can describe this House's action on the bill last year. The Appropriations Committee tried to come up with a bill that funds our Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs, but it was so woefully inadequate that it never made it to the House floor.

Although the T-HUD bill may be $1.2 billion above last year's enacted levels, due to a reduction in offsets caused by a decline in Federal Housing Administration receipts, the program level in this bill is actually $1.8 billion below last year's level.

On the transportation side, this bill provides no funding for high- speed rail, and it cuts $200 million from Amtrak's capital funding. And if that weren't bad enough, I want to highlight one particularly egregious rider in the T-HUD bill, a rider that would exempt Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Idaho from Federal truck weight limits on their interstates.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no reviews by highway safety experts or cost-benefit analysis on the effect of increased size and weight limits on these roads and bridges, yet the majority decided to go forward with these extraneous riders anyway.

I would remind my colleagues that in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill, Congressman Lou Barletta offered an amendment that required DOT to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of increasing truck size and weight on road safety and infrastructure costs. It passed with strong bipartisan support, and the Department of Transportation is currently in the process of completing the study, which should be finished by the fall of this year.

Mr. Barletta sent a letter to the Rules Committee before last night's meeting requesting that a point of order against this rider be made available. I support Mr. Barletta's request, and I wish the Rules Committee would not have protected this provision. We should not be raising truck size and weights in a State-by-State patchwork approach before DOT even has a chance to finish its study, especially when the highway trust fund is expected to run out of money this summer and our roads and our bridges are already in horrible disrepair.

I will insert letters from AAA, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, law enforcement officers, first responders, and road safety groups all opposing this rider.

American

Automobile Association,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2014.

Hon. Harold Rogers,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nita Lowey,

Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: AAA opposes

Section 125 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban

Development (THUD) Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015

that would increase the current federal truck size and weight

limits. This section carves out special interest exemptions

from federal truck size and weight regulations for Idaho,

Mississippi and Wisconsin. We urge you to remove Section 125

from the bill.

Study after study has shown that increasing truck size or

weight increases wear and tear on roads and dramatically

impacts bridges. At a time when the federal Highway Trust

Fund and many state budgets across the country are nearly

tapped out, we cannot afford to allow bigger trucks to run up

the cost of maintaining infrastructure.

We also are concerned with the safety impact of allowing

heavier trucks on the nation's roadways. According to NHTSA,

fatalities in crashes involving large trucks increased four

percent from 3,781 in 2011 to 3,921 in 2012. Of these

fatalities in 2012, 73 percent were occupants of other

vehicles, 10 percent were non-occupants, and 18 percent were

occupants of large trucks.

Congress has recognized the importance of a stronger

national freight program and work is underway to establish a

robust national freight strategy. Considering changes to

truck size and weight limits outside the context of this

national discussion, and the two-year truck size and weight

study required by MAP-21, is premature.

Thank you for consideration of AAA's views on this

important safety issue.

Sincerely,

Avery Ash,

Director, Federal Relations.

Mr. Speaker, this rule, as I noted earlier, also covers debate on H.R. 4681, the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act.

The intelligence authorization bill is one of the many important pieces of legislation that comes before the House every year--or nearly every year. Last year, for fiscal year 2014, the bill was marked up in committee, but the majority never seemed to be able to find the time to bring it to the House floor, which is why today we are dealing with a 2-year authorization for both the current fiscal year, FY 2014, and the coming fiscal year, FY 2015.

Now, a great deal has happened since the fiscal year 2013 intelligence bill was approved in December of 2012--everything from Edward Snowden to the sequester, from extreme weather events to drone strikes that also killed innocent civilians, from new technologies and cyber sabotage to protecting our human assets on the ground in dangerous regions. While the underlying bill attempts to deal with these and other issues in a bipartisan manner, some of the choices it makes weaken rather than strengthen our ability to accurately assess potential and real threats to our security.

One particularly troubling example is the bill's failure to strengthen the intelligence community's ability to analyze and assess how climate change affects our national security. Over a decade ago, the National Intelligence Estimate--or NIE--noted with grave concern how extreme weather and environmental changes were adversely affecting global food security, as well as increased refugee and IDP populations due to droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events.

The NIE described how such events contribute or can even drive social and political instability, which might threaten our national security interests. Given the acceleration of extreme weather and climate change over the last decade or so, I would think that we would want to encourage our intelligence agencies to analyze the national security implications of climate change, whether that is how storm surges and rising sea levels and temperatures might affect our Navy, or how competition over resources might affect the opening of the Arctic or water wars in the Middle East and northern Africa--but no.

Instead, this bill continues the Republican foolishness of pretending that climate change does not exist. Some of my Republicans colleagues would rather stick their heads in the stand. That is not the way to run a government, Mr. Speaker.

Over 30 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and I wish that all of them were made in order under this rule. It doesn't take long to debate 30-something amendments. I believe that the House is fully capable of handling such a debate.

After all, we should be pretty rested after a 5\1/2\-day break at the beginning of this week and a 9-day recess starting tomorrow. Surely, we could use the 2\1/2\ days when we are in Washington to actually debate the intelligence bill.

Several of these amendments dealt with highly controversial aspects of drone strikes, many of which have killed or wounded innocent civilians. I was glad to see that the U.S. did not carry out any drone strikes for the past month in Pakistan, where our use of drones has contributed to tensions between our two nations.

Our colleague and a member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), submitted an amendment to ban so-called signature strikes against unknown targets.

Her amendment modestly calls for the U.S. Government to know, with near-certainty, that at least one individual who is a known target will be present before the strike is launched. I am outraged that her amendment was not made in order under this rule.

Other amendments, including bipartisan amendments, dealt with increasing the transparency of decisionmaking and reporting from drone strikes; others would have simply banned their use.

The U.S. is increasingly dependent on the use of unmanned weaponized aerial vehicles to deliver deadly force against individuals and groups residing or operating in other countries.

As we wind down the war in Afghanistan, we need to take a hard look at how we should pursue the so-called global war on terror, especially the use of drone strikes and operations outside the boundaries of international law enforcement.

I regret that all of the amendments brought before the Rules Committee dealing with drone strikes were not made in order, as each dealt with a different facet of the policy and each deserved to be debated by this House.

I would also like to say a word about the McCollum amendment, which was also denied by the Rules Committee. Our intelligence agencies should never ever use humanitarian work or workers as a cover for covert operations or a means to gather intelligence.

Whether we are talking about a vaccination campaign to protect children from polio or the delivery of food to desperate refugees, leave such plots and machinations to the movies. Keep them out of U.S. policy and covert operations.

They endanger all humanitarian workers and place obstacles in the way of carrying out urgent and essential global health and humanitarian work in places where too many dangers already exist.

Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I also want to point out that this rule contains a provision which makes a change in the procedures for the special Select Committee on Benghazi, which was established by the House just a few weeks ago. The new provision allows the chairman of the new select committee to authorize foreign travel as part of the investigation.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress has already conducted seven investigations of the Benghazi matter--seven. Many of us have argued that an additional eighth inquiry is not necessary, but since the House insists on proceeding, we would like to make sure that some of the partisan abuses that marked the previous inquiries will not be repeated by the new select committee, particularly with regard to foreign travel.

Mr. Cummings has often protested the partisan abuses of foreign travel at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I insert in the Record a letter from Mr. Cummings to Mr. Issa, asking him to delay a Republican-only delegation to Libya, so that Democrats could join the delegation as well.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2013.

Hon. Darrell E. Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request that you

immediately postpone your upcoming delegation to Libya and

several other countries until you come into compliance with

your own Committee directives, stop your partisan efforts to

deliberately exclude Democrats from this trip, and provide

adequate notice to allow Democratic Members to join this

delegation at a later date.

On April 6, 2011, upon becoming Chairman of the Committee,

you issued a memorandum to all Committee Members entitled

``Rules for Committee-Authorized Foreign Travel.'' According

to that memorandum, ``All delegations must be bipartisan.''

Earlier today, however, I obtained a copy of an itinerary

for a trip you apparently have been planning to Libya and

several other countries next week, presumably as part of the

Committee's ongoing investigation into the attack in Benghazi

in 2012. The only congressional travelers on this itinerary

are you and your Republican staffer. No Democratic Members

are listed on the itinerary, and you have not contacted me or

my staff about this trip. According to this itinerary, you

are planning to leave this Sunday, which means Democratic

participation at this late date is impossible.

Your 2011 memo also says that the ``purpose must be very

specific for each country.'' Yet, your itinerary states only

that the Libya portion of the trip is ``TBD,'' although it

may include a ``visit'' to the embassy and a ``working

lunch.'' Your itinerary does not identify a single U.S.

government official, Libyan official, or other individual the

Committee plans to interview or speak with during this

delegation.

Your 2011 memo also says that the only exception to

conducting bipartisan international delegations is ``in rare

circumstances and at the sole discretion of the Chairman.''

However, you have not identified any such circumstances in

this case that would justify excluding Democratic Members.

Moreover, I have obtained other documents showing that you

have been planning this delegation for more than a week, so

there are no exigencies that would have prohibited you from

consulting with Democrats.

Although you claim that your investigation of the Benghazi

attacks is bipartisan, your efforts to secretly plan an

official trip to Libya--and then deliberately exclude

Democrats from joining--is part of an unfortunate pattern of

partisanship that undermines the credibility of this

investigation.

Last October, Rep. Jason Chaffetz undertook exactly the

same partisan maneuver when he traveled to Libya--at your

direction--and excluded Democratic Members from that trip. At

that time, my staff obtained a last-minute copy of his

itinerary that listed the Committee activity in Libya as

``TBD'' and failed to identify any officials to be

interviewed. We now know that Rep. Chaffetz met personally

with General Carter Ham, the Commander of AFRICOM, as well as

Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission, who was then

called before the Committee to testify.

The problem with these actions is that they effectively

deny Democratic Members the ability to effectively

investigate this incident. Since your secret delegation

appears to violate your own directive to the Committee, I

request that you postpone it until such time as Democratic

Members are given an adequate opportunity to join.

Sincerely,

Elijah E. Cummings,

Ranking Member.

In October of 2012, Oversight Committee Republicans went on a delegation to Libya, but they did not inform Democratic members until 24 hours before they departed.

In September 2013, Oversight Committee Republicans planned a second delegation to Libya without contacting Democratic members at all. Ranking Member Cummings requested that the trip be postponed to allow Democrats to join, but his request was denied.

This is no way to conduct a serious investigation, and this is one of the reasons why so many people on our side of the aisle have called foul over the way the House Republican leadership is dealing with this important issue.

So before the House grants any new authorities to the select committee, I would be grateful for some assurance from my chairman that this new authority will not be misused in the highly partisan manner demonstrated by Chairman Issa at the Oversight Committee.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for his answer and for his reassurances, and we will certainly be watching. In our opinion, fairness means consultation with the Democrats and not leaving us out of the loop.

Again, I would point out to my colleagues that the inquiries into the Benghazi situation thus far have been highly partisan, and the Oversight Committee, in particular, I think, has been run in an inappropriate manner.

So I appreciate the gentleman's assurances, and we will watch and hope that what the gentleman just said will actually occur.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

May I inquire of the gentleman if he has any additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for all of the reasons I stated earlier, but, Mr. Speaker, I want to close with one final thought: this intelligence bill includes several provisions regarding the use of contractors, security clearance reform, strengthening investigations by the inspector general, and so on.

We need to recognize that these reforms were not initiated by us. They are a result of the massive release of leaked information that brought very serious matters about actual and potential abuses by our intelligence agencies on how they monitor and maintain data on ordinary law-abiding citizens.

This leaked information caused alarm throughout our society, by our constituents, by our press, and by Members of Congress--and rightfully so. It caused alarm among some of our closest international allies--and rightfully so.

So while we may hold different views about the individual who confiscated and leaked the information, let us all recognize that none of the NSA and FISA reforms recently passed by this House--and none of the reforms included in this bill--would have happened if that information had not been leaked because we would not have known about the abuses being carried on in our name by various intelligence agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I respect those men and women who serve our Nation in our intelligence agencies, but I don't respect a culture that intentionally keeps the American people and the Congress in the dark about the extent and nature of our intelligence operations.

More reforms are still needed; more transparency is still needed. I believe we can be safe and protect the American people without sacrificing the liberties that we all treasure.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 575 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 575, which provides for a closed rule for consideration of H. Res. 567.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 20 months since terrorists attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans, including then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens.

Since that time, the House Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have all conducted investigations related to the events surrounding the attack and the administration's response. And I want to commend each of these committees and their chairmen and their members for work that has been done that is exemplary, that has aimed exactly on the questions that needed to be asked, and for those who have dedicated time and effort to make sure that these important issues are not only discussed but understood and resolved so that each of these committees, as they work with their particular agencies in the Federal Government, come to a clear and a clean understanding about what happened, what our responses might and should have been, and what they would be in the future.

We are here today because this administration has chosen not to fully participate, to block our efforts to know the truth, and to provide the necessary people in a forthright manner who could be a part of answering these questions. This blockage has included a timed delivery that has not been timely but the time interval for requesting information, for the redacting of information that has not been properly done, and, perhaps most importantly, for the remarks that have been made by the administration, including the President of the United States, the former Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, and other highly public officials who serve at the pleasure of the American people who have tried to thwart, who have tried to misdirect, and who have tried to--what I believe is--badger Republicans into believing that what they did was aboveboard and correct when, in fact, an evaluation and a proper lessons learned lesson being available not only for them, for the United States Congress, but also accountability to the American Government.

We are here specifically today because in the last few weeks an outside group, Judicial Watch, through the Freedom of Information Act, obtained information and received that information through the judicial system of the United States whereby they received emails that were not redacted, that were not doctored or altered, and that came to them and did not match up with the information that had been provided to official committees of the

United States House of Representatives for official business.

At a time when an administration decides that they are going to take advantage of the structure of the United States House of Representatives under official business, then that means that it is time for the United States House of Representatives to then learn that they are being duped, that they are being taken advantage of, and that our open system was being used, I believe, in a political way.

That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. We are here today not for political reasons but because the official business of the United States House of Representatives, article I, is to make sure that we understand and have oversight over those that are in article II and work with people who are in article III.

We work together in a careful balance to make sure that what we do is in the best interest of the people--the American people, who need to have faith and confidence in the work that is done on their behalf--but also be accountable to the American people when great things happen and when mistakes happen also.

To sweep something under the rug, to try and move people in another direction and try and fool them, to not be forthright about the actions that were taken or understood, I believe is a dereliction of duty. Most importantly, I think that what the investigation up to now has revealed is a lack of desire by this administration to fess up to what I believe might be failures or weaknesses in a system that we need to work on together.

Four Americans' lives were not only at stake, but the reputation of the United States of America was on the line. Terrible things happened. Worse things could have happened, also. And for the United States Congress to have oversight to work on these issues is, I believe, an important national security objective.

We are here today because President Barack Obama and his administration are not forthright or interested in working with official Members of the United States House of Representatives to clear the issue, and to understand what happened so that we may move forward with great confidence; that as our men and women who are in the State Department are engaged in the sensitive work, the work that is done on behalf of this great Nation, that we can understand that relationship with the United States military, with intelligence, with the money that we spend and the mission that the President of the United States decides that these men and women will be engaged in.

We are here today to gain answers, to gain knowledge, and to gain corrective action. And that is why I believe last night in the Rules Committee, the Rules Committee moved forward on an original jurisdiction hearing whereby the Rules Committee would make and take the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we understood that we would be taking the time of the House of Representatives, that we would be taking, in essence, jurisdiction and putting that to a select committee, a select committee which would have the authority and the responsibility to ensure that the things which I have spoken of this morning were achieved.

This is not political. This is public policy at its most important level. It is national security that is being discussed not only today but discussed in private among Members of Congress with this administration to ensure that the events that occurred on that day were well understood and reflective to the Members of Congress who provide money, resources, and oversight relating to those events.

Unfortunately, it became apparent to me and others, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable John Boehner, that these committees are struggling with an unwanted partner: the administration. And this administration, by refusing to completely comply with congressional subpoenas, by delaying the delivery of important documents, by heavily redacting critical information--not sensitive or information that might be considered national security-- and by retroactively classifying previously unclassified files, the Obama administration has thrown roadblocks at every turn of the road.

The most recent example of this was the deliberate subversion of the investigation which occurred on April 17, less than a month ago. This is why the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, who has been very deliberative and most involved but careful to let each committee operate to the level of its jurisdiction, to make sure that each committee had not just the resources but the ability to make sure that they were on a process for the delivery of the things which I have talked about, up to and including the truth, Mr. Speaker, the truth behind the events, the truth behind how we would describe this event so that lessons would be learned, and evince how we would effectively and capably understand the new and current threats against the United States and what occurred on that day and on a moving-forward basis. If you refuse to participate with the United States Congress, if you subvert the process and take advantage of our structure, the Honorable John Boehner will then respond with that which is given to him and to the United States House of Representatives, and that is to honorably pivot based upon something that happened less than a month ago, April 17.

This administration chose to deliberately mislead the United States Congress, and we responded therein. On that day, the administration delivered 276 documents consisting of 779 pages. They gave these to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, many of which continued to be heavily redacted. The same day, the State Department complied under a Freedom of Information Act requested by Judicial Watch. I believe that the timing of these two productions is not a coincidence as to whether or not Congress would have received these documents absent Judicial Watch's FOIA request. The two sets of documents are incredibly similar, and, shockingly, some of the documents received by the committee are more redacted than those received by Judicial Watch.

Well, I get that. That is because under FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, there is a criminal statute attached to that which those lawyers preparing these documents knew they could be criminally held liable.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of this is this administration has not respected the United States Congress, did not respect the committees that were asking for this information, and there, too, made sure that they made their job even more difficult. These roadblocks, I believe, serve as two important points for us to remember: that the Speaker of the House of Representatives did not choose to be where we are today but, rather, it was this administration through its deliberate attempt to place us exactly where we are.

So, first, the committee will have questions that it has to ask, and they are going to this administration to make sure that we have complete documentation. Every Member of this select committee will have the opportunity--and should have on a bipartisan basis--to see the documents. The select committee will consolidate itself into a centralized location in order to make sure that they work together. We are going to streamline congressional efforts when we find out the things which we could have and should have known but know now to avoid in the future.

And lastly, we are going to come with an answer to the American people that we believe is what they are due, and that is: what happened; how could we have avoided it; and what do we look for in the future.

Our representative government is founded on the assumption of a transparent government. Our President, Barack Obama, stated when he was elected that this would be the most open and transparent government. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to take the President at his word. The question is: Will the President live up to his word and expect this administration to join with the House of Representatives in this new era, this new way of trying to go about getting an answer for the American public?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is the committee that meets upstairs. We decide what legislation will come to the floor. In this case, the House Rules Committee has original jurisdiction over this bill, but the Rules Committee is made up of specialists, of experts across this Congress, not only on the Republican and Democrat side, but people who represent people back home who hear from and want to know about the effects that Congress does and about the daily impact.

One of those Members comes with vast experience and comes to us as former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is a person who is well respected and thoughtful.

More importantly, she was on duty as the chairwoman at the time Benghazi occurred, and we are delighted she is on the Rules Committee. She has brought incredible integrity and insight into this matter.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Members of Congress who attend hearings and heard the testimony yesterday should not mislead the American people by their statements on the floor as the gentlewoman from Texas did.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In fact, I do not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is an old saying that the closer to the target you get, the more flak comes up. While that is probably a naval or an Air Force term whereby pilots who are on their duty know when they are getting close to the real target. Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the real target.

The facts of the case are really pretty simple. There is no gag order involved here. We spoke last night and yesterday in a very open, probably several-hour meeting on original jurisdiction at the Rules Committee. I was very open with the members of the committee. I told them, which has not been expressed today, that the last day of the 113th Congress this investigation, if it is still going on, would have to be reauthorized by the next Congress. It is not like there is a never-ending date. As a matter of fact, we say in the original jurisdiction that 30 days after the completion of their report this select committee would go away.

Secondly, we spoke very openly about not having new money available, but rather the money that was originally given to the House of Representatives for the purposes of running the House. The Speaker of the House would have to make sure that this committee operates within what we had originally asked for. There are not unlimited amounts of money. And to suggest as has been done on the floor, up to $200 million to run this investigation, that simply would not be truthful.

Mr. Speaker, the closer to the target we have gotten, we have found that the Obama administration is trying to do everything they can to keep the United States House of Representatives and the committees from doing their job to try and misdirect us, to try and trick us, to try and fool us, to try and redact information that did not fall under a national security title but rather was to politically save them from what might be an embarrassment.

What are some of those embarrassments? Well, some of the embarrassments would be: Why didn't the State Department understand on September 11 of any year why you probably do not conduct official operations, especially in a dangerous area? That might be one question.

Another question might be: Who is it that said no? We have heard that there are serious flaws in the State Department. We already knew that. The former Secretary of State has numerous investigations that have revealed inadequacy all the way to the top of the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

But what we are about here is to get to the bottom of it, to effectively get this done, to report to the American people, and they, Mr. Speaker, will see exactly why this was done, because the oversight responsibilities of the House of Representatives were done at the highest levels of this House. And by the way, we will read the bills before we pass them, we will understand the facts of the case and be able to explain them, and, more importantly, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will be in support of the American people knowing the truth.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the Rules Committee to bring forth its rule today to talk about this important, not just intelligence operation and national security and State Department and military operations, but to be able to say that the confidence that the American people have in the brave men and women who represent America-- that we will never leave them on the battlefield alone in hours of firefights without a backup position of knowing that the next sound you hear will be the United States Navy or the United States Air Force coming to aid the men and women who are in harm's way. That is the bottom line to this: an apology, not just stating a mismanagement, based upon the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. I believe what we are doing today is an honorable day for the American people, and I am proud to be here as an American, as a Member of Congress, saying we will get to the bottom of this, it will be done quickly, and it will be done efficiently, and the American people can then make their decisions and us move on, knowing that we will support the men and women who wear the uniform.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

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. 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. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

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. 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. 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. 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.

In fact, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tampa, Florida (Mr. Jolly).

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.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

We are now through with our speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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.

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