Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 567) providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 attack on Benghazi was a tragedy that took the

lives of brave American public servants representing and serving our country. And Congress has an obligation here--both to the families of the victims and to the country--to try to prevent this from ever happening again. But that is not at all what we are doing here today.

The Senate has produced two bipartisan reports on the issue, and the State Department's Accountability Review Board has produced a constructive, unbiased report. There is a vast body of evidence already collected, and none of it demonstrates any sort of coverup or conspiracy.

The majority here has had 13 congressional hearings over four committees, 50 briefings, produced five reports and 25,000 pages of documentation, wasted countless millions of dollars, and has gotten absolutely nowhere. One more committee weighted in favor of the majority is not going to do any better. We have bottomed out on Benghazi.

Nonetheless, the majority has repeatedly demonstrated that rather than engaging in a serious, objective examination of the circumstances, they want to use the tragedy as an excuse to generate partisan talking points, and then has descended into the crass and the unbelievable.

Several press reports this week, including one from Politico, indicate that the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a fundraising email entitled ``You Can Become a Benghazi Watchdog Right Now,'' and that leads to a donation page where you have to pay to be a Benghazi watchdog. And even after their fundraising effort was exposed, Republicans are continuing to use this effort to raise money off of this tragedy. This morning's Politico says: ``Republicans stick with Benghazi cash grab.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit into the Record these two articles from Politico, May 8 and May 9. The first one, ``NRCC''--which stands for the National Republican Congressional Committee-- ``fundraising off Benghazi,'' and the second one this morning, ``Republicans stick with Benghazi cash grab.''

[From POLITICO, May 7, 2014]

NRCC Fundraising Off of Benghazi

(By Jake Sherman)

The House Republican campaign arm is rebuffing the chairman

of the Benghazi select committee and is raising money off the

GOP's investigation into the 2012 attack.

A post on the National Republican Congressional Committee

website dated May 6 is titled ``You Can Become a Benghazi

Watchdog Right Now.''

``House Republicans will make sure that no one will get

away from [Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee,'' the blog

post says. ``This is going to be a national effort for a

national investigation.''

Once a visitor to the site enters their name, email and ZIP

code, it asks for a donation to ``stop Democrats from

controlling all of Washington.''

But Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), whom Speaker John Boehner (R-

Ohio) tapped to chair the panel, said Wednesday morning on

MSNBC's ``Morning Joe'' he would ask Republicans to forgo

fundraising off the attacks.

``Yes, and I will cite myself as an example,'' Gowdy said.

``I have never sought to raise a single penny on the backs of

four murdered Americans.''

For right now, the NRCC doesn't appear to be backing down.

``The Obama administration has not been honest with the

American people with regards to the security failures in

Benghazi, which left four Americans dead,'' said NRCC

spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. ``Our goal is to hold Democrats in

Congress accountable who vote against creating the select

committee on Benghazi and who continue to try to sweep this

controversy under the rug.''

Additionally, reports today from a prominent journalist say that Mr. Boehner himself says that he will not try to stop the fundraising.

The majority is demonstrating without a shadow of a doubt that like the many, many votes we have taken trying to kill health care, this is a political move. That is the most crass and awful thing to do to the families of these four people who died. We keep over and over rubbing salt into that awful wound by bringing this up over and over. And how do you think they feel now knowing what this game is about in the House of Representatives?

I am appalled the majority would use these deaths for political gain and political money when what the families of the victims and Americans want to do is to ensure it never happens again. But we are doing nothing in the world to ensure that.

Not only is the majority disregarding the bipartisan findings, but their own process is so wrought with error, partisanship, and deception that leaders in their own party are calling foul.

The Oversight Committee has produced several witnesses of dubious quality, but the most recent one is a brigadier general, to testify about the minority, and the minority was only give his name and had no way--we didn't have any address or anything else--to even verify his credentials.

We are indebted to Congressman Buck McKeon, Armed Services Committee chairman, who discredited this witness by calling Brigadier General Robert Lovell an unreliable witness and criticized Lovell's assertion that the State Department was not quick to deploy troops to respond to the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya. Lovell testified Thursday before Issa's oversight panel.

Congressman McKeon stated:

Brigadier General Lovell did not serve in a capacity that

gave him reliable insight into operational options available

to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific

courses of action not taken.

McKeon added:

The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a

dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that

night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, emails,

and other documents. We have no evidence that State

Department officials delayed the decision to deploy what few

resources DOD had available to respond.

How tragic is that? How tacky is that? How beneath the dignity of the House of Representatives is that?

I have an amendment to this resolution based on a simple premise that, if this thing is going to be put together and funded, that it really does some kind of work bipartisanly, which would be really strange in this House, but the idea of having another committee to try to get different results from all of other committees and all of the other hearings with the results they have had really is a foolish waste of time.

Our amendment makes membership on the committee equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. We know already that is not going to happen.

It guarantees the minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions--no such luck.

It guarantees equal distribution of money, staffing, and other resources of the committee.

It requires the committee to establish written rules--that would be a good one--specifically including rules concerning how documents and other information may be obtained, used, or released.

It guarantees equal access to evidence and materials of the committee and perhaps can identify witnesses who are going to be coming before the committee.

It provides for transparency of the committee's expenditures and budgeting.

It ensures that a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence includes at least one minority member.

Finally, it ensures that the majority has a say in decisions about extended questioning and staff questioning of witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful what is happening here today. People, not just persons right now, but I believe that future historians looking at the setup of this committee will be appalled, as all of the rest of us are on our side, that to make use politically and financially of the tragedy of the loss of four brave Americans is beneath contempt.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Government Operations.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. CONNOLLY. We probably couldn't have done more than we

did.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all agree--I think all Americans agree, and we certainly understand from the Speaker that he agrees that the attack on Benghazi was a tragedy; but here we are, once again, riling up the community and the country and causing, again, grief to the families of the four people who died, in a pursuit of some kind of truth that they were unable to find in 2 years of hearings, over four committees, 13 congressional hearings, 50 briefings, five reports, 25,000 pages of documentation, and wasted millions of dollars, going nowhere, and that is just in the House.

The Senate has held hearings. The State Department did a thorough report; and yet, now, after all that, we want the truth.

What does it say about the House of Representatives that whatever that was going on over there did not get to the truth?

This is so reminiscent of what we have done in the House of Representatives by doing over and over and over again, like trying to repeal the health care, that we are just going to keep doing it until you reach whatever it is you want.

Well, we know what it is you want with this special committee. We understand that thoroughly. Earlier today--I want to make a comment, that one of my friends on the other side of the aisle--I deeply regret this--cited a report claiming that the Democrats were

fundraising off of the crass Republican fundraising off Benghazi.

Certainly, we looked into that because I was very concerned because I was the one making the charge about the fundraising. It is absolutely false that Democrats are doing that.

That report was from The Daily Caller, a conservative Web site, and all they found was that the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted a statement on his Web site condemning the Republican campaign committee for their attempt to capitalize and fundraise off the tragedy in Benghazi.

Let's stick to the facts here. You are going to continue. As I understand it, several reporters have asked the leadership do they intend to stop fundraising off these people's deaths; and the answer is, no, they don't.

So what we are doing here, again, is an awful waste of time, is looking for another answer to something that--unless you get some answer that you want, I guess we will go on even yet another year or so.

Now, one more committee that will be weighted in favor of the majority, as this one is expected to do, will do absolutely nothing to yield different results.

I had an amendment to this bill that was based on a simple premise, that the investigations and reports on the tragic attack in Benghazi produced by the House committees so far have been nothing but partisan and political.

My amendment would have made membership on the committee equally divided between the minority and the majority and would have guaranteed minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions and guaranteed equal distribution and money and staffing and other resources of the committee and certainly have ensured that the witnesses who come before that committee, unlike the other witnesses that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has had, who were totally ineligible to even speak on the subject--one of them, I gather, was giving all the details of what happened that night, but he happened to be in Germany at the time.

Had our amendment passed, we could have added some decorum to this process, and we could have worked to ensure the tragedy never happens again, but it is clear that this majority will not allow that.

So we have seen all the reports. We know what everybody thinks; and we know that, once again, we will be going into this because you are the majority, and you have the votes to do it.

I am appalled by this posturing. To use the tragedy of those four deaths for political and financial gain is shameful and contemptible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 20 seconds to just respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, I would be outraged, too, if anybody did the things that he accused us of doing, and I don't believe a word of it.

I am now pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Government Operations.

Mr. Speaker, for rebuttal, I am going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more requests for time?

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

I reserve the balance of my time as long as my colleague has speakers.

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

I think probably the best way that I can close would be with another quote from the man who is fast becoming my favorite Member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Buck McKeon, Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee.

He said to the Associated Press on April 10:

I think I pretty well have been satisfied that given where

the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how

quickly it dissipated, we probably could not have done more

than we did. At some point, we think we will have as much of

this story as we are going to get and move on.

Mr. McKeon, it is long past time for us to move on.

I really appreciate so much hearing from Mr. Connolly, the statement from Ambassador Stevens' family--I had not heard it before--and the eloquence with which they talked about him. Remember, he had only been there in Benghazi--was basically there for the day, and everybody said--and all of the things that I have read, he was that kind of man.

He spoke the language, and he wanted to be out with the people. He would not have wanted to be behind the walls of a compound, and he knew what he was doing, and he made his choices.

The thing that rang so strong with me was the one thing that they said that he would not have wanted was to become a political pawn, and that is exactly what we are making of Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans who died in that tragic event.

Without any question, we are also causing, once again, to those four families of people who loved them most grievous hardship to deal with all this again, and it is being done for politics. It is being done to raise money.

So I want to close by paraphrasing another great American at another time and ask the majority: Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) just talked about how we have proposed that this be a balanced committee like the Ethics Committee. That was done with regard to another special committee, in fact, the bill that was sponsored by current Speaker, then-minority leader, John Boehner in the 110th Congress.

They set up a special committee with regard to voting irregularities. They had an equal balance between Democrats and Republicans to remove any taint of partisanship from the proceedings. That would be a welcomed change, but again, that was not even allowed to be discussed under this rule.

Another language of concern in the underlying bill which we tried to address in the Rules Committee but unfortunately were voted down is that this bill allows for such funds that are needed to be appropriated for this purpose. We were not even presented with any cost estimates for this committee.

On the committee, it was noted that Kenneth Starr's investigation of then-President Clinton cost in excess of $80 million. We simply don't know if this is a $1 million, a $10 million, a $50 million, or a $200 million endeavor; nor were we allowed to even allow for a vote our very simple bipartisan proposal to pay for this bill, which would have been to allow a vote on H.R. 15.

H.R. 15, which is a bill that has bipartisan support, has already passed the Senate by more than two-thirds, would pass as a pay-for if brought to the floor of the House, actually generates over $200 billion. Even if this select committee were to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if we were able to include immigration reform as a way of paying for it, it would still reduce the deficit by $199 billion or more.

We weren't even allowed an up-or-down vote on that topic. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I offered to support the establishment of the select committee if we could establish immigration reform as the way of paying for this. Unfortunately, despite support from both sides of the aisle in committee, we were, nevertheless, voted down.

I want to be clear that the issue of immigration reform will not go away. We will continue to offer it as a way of paying for various bills. I hope that a discussion is allowed about how to pay for this committee, and that is why I oppose the rule.

I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers on his side.

Then I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

As we have seen time and time again, sadly the Republicans are taking an unspeakable tragedy--the death of four brave American citizens--and turning it into a partisan talking to the point of selling membership to become Benghazi investigators on a partisan Web site rather than engaging in a bipartisan process to get to the root of the matter.

The families of those who died deserve more than that. They deserve that Democrats and Republicans work together rather than use their pain for political or financial gain for either party.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order our amendment to ensure that the select committee has a chance to succeed where four previous House investigations have not to ensure that we have a full, accurate, and objective accounting for the American people of the events in Benghazi. By ensuring equal representation, equal resources, and equal say over the use of subpoenas and depositions, we can fulfill our obligations to our Nation and to our institution to ensure that we get to the bottom of this matter for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we and my colleagues on the Rules Committee have tried to make this process work. We tried to propose a bipartisan way of paying for these efforts, we tried to propose a balanced way for this committee to go about its business. But at every turn we were shot down. That is why I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care about honoring those who lost their lives, who care about getting to the bottom of the events, join me in opposing this rule and defeating the previous question so that we may begin a process that has the confidence of the American people rather than just speaks to one partisan base or the other.

The American people deserve this institution acting at its best with regard to this matter, Democrats and Republicans acting in concert, both enjoying the power of subpoena, the ability to schedule witnesses, equal resources on the committee, so we can have a full, objective, and hopefully unanimous account of the events.

That should be the goal of the legislation. Under this rule, we are not even

allowed to discuss our proposals to ensure equal representation on this committee. We are not allowed to discuss our proposal to pay for the proceedings under this bill with a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with more than two-thirds.

This is a closed process that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, risks losing the faith of the American people in the outcome of this process. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the outcome of this process, if it moves forward, will fall on deaf ears of the American people because they will know that there was not an institutional commitment to being objective, there was not an effort to reach out in a bipartisan manner to find the truth, there was not a bipartisan effort to even pay for the costs of this investigation or this bill or contain or estimate those costs in any way.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can get this process right. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.