Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shiloh Baptist Church in McLean, Virginia. Shiloh Baptist Church celebrated its 140th anniversary last week.

Shiloh Baptist Church was founded in 1873 by Rev. Cyrus Carter, a native of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The church's first services were held at Odrick's Public School in McLean. The

church's membership rapidly expanded and, today, worship is held at the Shiloh Baptist Church, 8310 Turning Leaf Lane in McLean.

Rev. Dr. Robert F. Cheeks, Jr. currently leads the congregation in worship and programming and, following the recent adoption of a new ministry strategy, Shiloh has successfully increased its outreach to the wider community and has grown stronger in its fellowship. I am pleased to join with them in celebrating this joyous occasion and recognizing 140 years of dedicated service to the McLean community and the greater Washington metropolitan area.

I wish Rev. Cheeks and the greater Shiloh Baptist Church family all the best as they continue to undertake the Lord's work, and thank them for 140 years of service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letter I sent to FBI Director James Comey today in response to troubling findings in a new report by the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) detailing repeated violations by FBI field offices with regard to the bureau's longstanding policy prohibiting non-investigative cooperation with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). I requested this investigation two years ago after learning of some of these violations.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2013.

Hon. James Comey,

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

Dear Director Comey: Two years ago, I wrote the Justice

Department's Office of the Inspector General requesting an

investigation into FBI field office compliance with the

bureau's 2008 policy prohibiting non-investigative

cooperation with the Council on American-Islamic Relations

(CAIR). I was deeply concerned to learn of multiple occasions

when several FBI field offices had continued to work with CAR

despite the clear policy issued by the bureau.

This policy was initially implemented after CAIR was

identified as an unindicted coconspirator in the trial of the

Holy Land Foundation which, according to a Justice Department

press release issued May 27, 2009, reported that ``U.S.

District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land

Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and five of its

leaders following their convictions by a federal jury in

November 2008 on charges of providing material support to

Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.'' The

sentences ranged from 15 years to 65 years in prison. The

release continued: ``From its inception, HLF existed to

support llamas. . . . The government's case included

testimony that in the early 1990's, Hamas' parent

organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a

network of organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant

Islamist message and raise money for llamas. . . . The

defendants sent HLF-raised funds to Hamas-controlled zakat

committees and charitable societies in the West Bank and

Gaza.''

Today, the department's inspector general, Michael

Horowitz, released his final report, Review of FBI

Interactions with the Council on American-Islamic Relations,

which confirms the blatant disregard of bureau policy as well

as multiple enacted Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations

reports with respect to interactions by the FBI with CAIR.

Despite repeated efforts to communicate the policy to the

field, this was undermined by conflicting guidance being

inexplicably offered by the bureau's Office of Public Affairs

as well as by outright violations from several field offices.

Specifically, the OIG report found that the former Special

Agents-in-Charge (SAC) of the Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles,

California, and New Haven, Connecticut field offices violated

the department's policy, despite numerous electronic

communications articulating the policy as well as a mandatory

meeting held in November 2008 with all SACs and Assistant

Directors-in-Charge to communicate the policy in person.

There should have been no confusion about this policy given

the bureau guidance, Congressional direction and media

coverage surrounding this directive.

Despite this direction, the OIG report makes clear that the

leadership of several field offices knowingly ignored or

selectively applied the policy to suit their interests. In

one case documented in the report, the SAC of the LA field

office wrote an e-mail to his staff explicitly noting:

``Please instruct your folks at this time that they are not

to abide by the [October 24, 2008, Electronic Communication

from the REDACTED], but that their direction in regards to

CAIR will come from the LA Field Office front office.'' This

is unacceptable and insubordinate behavior from a senior

leader of the FBI.

What concerns me even more is that the OIG only reviewed

five instances of reported violations of the policy, which

could represent only a fraction of the overall number of

violations that may have taken place at other field offices.

The findings in the report suggest that the FBI may have a

systemic problem with the violation of this important policy

and does not reflect well on the bureau's compliance with

other policies.

This documented failure to abide by FBI direction is

intolerable. I ask that you immediately take action to ensure

such a failure in policy coordination and management is not

repeated, and advise me what specific actions you are taking

to ensure FBI policy

with regard to interactions with CAIR is clear, unambiguous,

and complied with by all FBI components.

Additionally, I am asking you to immediately remove any FBI

agents or employees that knowingly violated this policy or

offered conflicting guidance that undermined the policy--

particularly the SACs of the Chicago, Philadelphia and New

Haven Field Offices who approved and carried out actions that

directly contravened established policy and law--and report

to the Congress on what disciplinary actions are being taken.

I would expect discipline to include, but not be limited to,

separation from the FBI.

Please provide me with an update on both of these actions,

including any disciplinary actions taken, by no later than

September 30.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce,

Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Royce for

swiftly moving the bill and for his comments today. I also thank the Republican leadership for recognizing that this simple but critical legislation is worthy of making it a priority by this Congress, even as there are other issues that face us at this time.

In January 2011, following a spate of attacks against Christians in Iraq and ongoing persecution in Egypt, I convened a Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing focusing on the plight of religious minorities in Egypt and Iraq. Among the witnesses was Representative Anna Eshoo, who ultimately became the lead Democrat on this bill for two consecutive Congresses.

During the hearing we heard sobering testimony about the challenges facing these communities. A resounding theme emerged: Chaldo-Assyrian Christians and Coptic Christians were being marginalized and targeted for violence. These realities were all the more troubling given the historic roots of the faith communities in these two countries-- amazingly, many Iraqi Christians today still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

Not only were these communities being threatened in the lands they had inhabited for centuries, their plight was largely unknown and seemingly unimportant within the broader foreign policy apparatus. Notably, at the time of the hearing, the post of the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom had been vacant for 2 years.

While the hearing predated the so-called ``Arab Spring,'' without question the dramatic changes in the region have only further jeopardized these communities. I was convinced then and remain convinced today that religious minorities in the Middle East and in key countries in South Central Asia, such as Pakistan--as the chairman mentioned--and Afghanistan need someone who can be their voice both within the halls of Foggy Bottom and abroad with foreign governments.

Last Congress, this legislation overwhelmingly passed the House only to stall in the Senate in the face of opposition by the State Department--the same State Department which to date has failed to designate any Countries of Particular Concern for egregious religious freedom violations since August of 2011.

The administration's opposition is shortsighted and, frankly, indefensible. As we debate this legislation, Coptic Christians are leaving Egypt in droves. As we debate this legislation, several Baha'i leaders languish unjustly in an Iranian prison, as does American citizen Saeed Abedini.

As we debate this legislation, Ahmadi Muslims, as the chairman said, in Pakistan are prohibited from voting and their graves are desecrated. As we debate this legislation, Syrian Christians fear they too will be caught in a crossfire like Iraqi Christians, or worse yet, like the Iraqi Jewish community. I am told only a single Jewish person remains in the country today where once a vibrant Jewish community flourished.

This legislation is supported by such diverse groups as faith-based organizations, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, United Methodist Church, The Ahmadi Muslim community, Southern Baptist Convention, and Christians United for Israel, among others, as well as a multitude of diaspora organizations which are directly linked with the very people the Special Envoy would serve.

Will a Special Envoy guarantee these communities' survival--and even flourishing? I do not know. But I am certain that to do nothing is not an option--lest on this administration's and this Congress' watch we witness a Middle East emptied of ancient faith communities, foremost among them the ``Sunday People.''

German Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, faced with the tyranny of and horror of Nazism, famously said: ``Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.''

I want to thank the chairman again, Mr. Royce, and urge my colleagues to join me in sending an undeniable message to persecuted people of faith the world over--and just as importantly to the forces that oppress them--that America, this shining city on the hill as envisioned by our Founders, will not be silent in the face of evil.

Please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 301.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Winchester, Virginia's oldest hardware store, Jno. S. Solenberger True Value Hardware. Solenberger's Hardware is celebrating its 125th anniversary this week.

Solenberger's was founded by John Solenberger and Daniel Stouffer in 1888 and can be found today at 832 Berryville Ave., where it sells a large variety of products at competitive prices.

The store employs over 30 people from the Winchester community and has been proudly run by the Solenberger family since its inception, now spanning five generations. Currently, nine of John Solenberger's descendants work for the store and one, Cyndi Thwaite, still serves as president.

Solenberger's has been a constant for the community through the ups and downs of the last century and has proven itself a positive force for Winchester and its residents. I wish the Solenberger family the best of luck in continuing the family tradition.

I submit the following article from the Winchester Star on Solenberger's Hardware's unique place within the community.

[From the Winchester Star, Sept. 7, 2013]

(By Sally Voth)

Hardware Store Is a Family Affair

Winchester.--The city's oldest hardware store is throwing

itself a party today.

Solenberger's Hardware (Jno. S. Solenberger & Co.) is

marking its 125th anniversary this week, capping it with a

car show today from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The event will also feature a bounce house, bungee run,

food vendors and door prizes, said Patti Solenberger,

director of marketing and merchandising.

Her husband John Solenberger is the great-grandson of the

hardware store's founder, John S. Solenberger.

The store got its start in 1888 as Solenberger & Stouffer,

at Baker and Cameron streets. Solenberger's cousin Daniel

Stouffer was the co-founder.

After the original store was destroyed by a fire in 1908, a

new one was opened at 142 N. Loudoun St., dropping Stouffer

from the name, Patti Solenberger said.

The business would stay in that three-story building for

the next 85 years.

I. 1993, Solenberger's Hardware bought its current store at

832 Berryville Ave. The 50,000-square-foot building had

formerly been a Heck's and an L.A. Joe's, company Vice

President John Solenberger said. His father John T.

Solenberger died just before the store moved.

About 40,000 square feet of the space is used for the sale

of items ranging from tools to plumbing and electrical

supplies, lawn and gardening equipment, kitchenware, fans,

soaps, hats, candles, grills and even toys.

``We have to satisfy everybody,'' Patti Solenberger said.

Today, nine of John S. Solenberger's descendants work in

the store. Great-granddaughter Cyndi Thwaite is the store's

president.

``We've got a fifth generation now,'' John Solenberger

said.

But he didn't grow up assuming that he would one day help

to run the family business.

``I wanted to be a veterinarian when I was a kid,'' John

Solenberger said. ``The more I worked [here], the more I

enjoyed working with the people. Just the fact it's a family

business and being able to keep something going that's been

there generations.''

While Solenberger's has had industrial locations selling

transportation products and bearings, it now handles those

products from the back of the store, John Solenberger said.

Along with family members, about 30 other people are

employed at the store.

While working with relatives is mostly good, it has its

drawbacks, John Solenberger said. ``You never stop talking

about it,'' he said of hardware-store related conversations.

``I love working with him because he's a great guy,'' said

Patti Solenberger, who has worked at the store since 1993.

``I respect him so much. It's been a great 20 years. We all

for the most part get along.''

Thwaite has been company president for 20 years, although

she said she and her younger brother are more like co-

presidents.

``We're very, very proud,'' she said. ``It's something that

I guess when we were kids we never thought about. We never

thought about being here for 125 years.''

Like her brother, going into the family business wasn't

part of Thwaite's original plan either. She changed her mind

after doing some student-teaching.

``My dad and I worked very well together,'' Thwaite said.

The siblings have seen some changes in the hardware store

business over the decades.

``Back 30 years ago, we were one of the only ones in town,

and people had more of an allegiance,'' Thwaite said. ``And

you don't quite see that as much now as you did back then.

Same with employees. We've been very fortunate that we have

such long-term employees.''

In fact, two employees--Jack Shiley and Sam Riley--have

more than 55 years each under their tool belts at

Solenberger's.

While the arrival of Lowe's and The Home Depot in

Winchester concerned them at first, the Solenbergers said

their business hasn't really been hurt by either.

``I think people automatically assume we would have an

adversarial relationship ..., but they're so good to us, and

we're good to them,'' Patti Solenberger said.

Each carries items unavailable at the other, she said.

``I don't think there's a day go by we don't have somebody

coming from Lowe's, or we send somebody,'' John Solenberger

said.

The family is working on an ``antiquities corner'' at the

store to display some of its oldest items. These include a

gold-leaf store sign, an oak desk, a carriage lantern, a nail

bucket, a key machine, a radio and sled runners.

``These are just things we found when we cleaned the store

out downtown,'' Patti Solenberger said.

When Sam Riley, 74, started working at Solenberger's 55

years ago, customers had accounts, and would be billed. Sales

of more than $100 had to be approved by Solenberger.

Riley has been a part-time employee for a few years, but

plans to continue work if he remains healthy.

``I never got out of bed hating to to work for 50-some

years,'' he said. ``There was a lot of nice people. The

Solenbergers are very nice people to work for. I'm on the

fourth generation [of] Solenbergers. I worked under the

second generation of Solenbergers, and that was Hugh and

Herbert.''

``You've got to enjoy your work. I've enjoyed it for 55

years. It's been a good ride.''

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. King for the time. I am very grateful.

Madam Speaker, yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the deadly attacks on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, which took the lives of four Americans, and seriously wounded several others. One is still out at Walter Reed Hospital after one year.

Despite a year of investigations in five different House committees, most of the key questions about what happened in Benghazi and why no response was authorized by Washington remain unanswered. So far the Congress has failed.

That is why since last November I have been pushing for a House select committee to focus on this investigation, hold public hearings, issue subpoenas to key witnesses and survivors, and produce a final report that answers these important questions. One hundred seventy-four Republicans in the House have now cosponsored H. Res. 36 to establish a select committee--three-quarters of the majority--and six new cosponsors joined this week alone.

The select committee approach has been endorsed by family members of the Benghazi victims, the special operations community, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, among many other prominent individuals and organizations.

I was pleased to receive a copy of a letter sent to the Speaker earlier this

week calling for the creation of a select committee and signed by some of the most respected and distinguished national security and military leaders that have served our country.

These leaders include:

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who also served as judge in the trial of the Blind Sheikh, the first trial dealing with an attack against the World Trade Center;

Admiral James ``Ace'' Lyons, U.S. Navy, Retired, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific fleet;

General Frederick J. Kroesen, U.S. Army, Retired, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army;

Lieutenant General William ``Jerry'' Boykin, U.S. Army, Retired, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and commander in Mogadishu during the ``Black Hawk down'' incident;

Lieutenant General Harry Edward Soyster, U.S. Army, Retired, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency;

Ambassador Henry Cooper, former chief negotiator of the defense and space talks and the former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative;

Major General Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army, Retired, former deputy commander of the U.S. Army Forces, Pacific;

Honorable Tidal McCoy, former Secretary of the Air Force;

Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, U.S. Army, Retired, and former Member of Congress;

Honorable Joseph E. Schmitz, former inspector general of the Department of Defense;

Honorable Michelle Van Cleave, former National Counterintelligence Executive;

Vice Admiral Robert Monroe, U.S. Navy, Retired, former Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency; and

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.

It is good to have their support for this important effort, and I would like now to read the text of their letter.

They said:

Dear Mr. Speaker:

As former military, intelligence and national security

officials with extensive experience in security policy and

practice, we are concerned about the American people's

apparently serious loss of confidence in the institutions of

their government. One factor contributing to this alienation

has been the failure of those institutions to respond

appropriately to the murderous jihadist attacks in Benghazi

on September 11, 2012. They rightly expect, at an absolute

minimum, that Congress will ensure accountability of those

responsible.

As you are well aware, our country is nearing the first

anniversary of the assaults on the Special Mission Compound

and CIA Annex in Benghazi. To date, however, the five House

committees that share jurisdiction have held only a small

number of mostly less-than-illuminating hearings into the

policies that led to, and the events that occurred during and

after, the murder of four of our countrymen and the wounding

of many more.

We appreciate that the chairmen of these committees

produced four months ago a joint ``interim report.'' Yet, its

authors acknowledged that they did not have answers to many

crucial national security questions. In addition, no

timeframe has been publicly announced for going beyond the

interim report or holding additional hearings toward that

end. This is particularly troubling in light of press

accounts that the survivors of the Benghazi attack are being

intimidated and risk job action should they come forward with

their eyewitness account.

If Congress does not afford them an opportunity to do so

without fear of retaliation by issuing subpoenas for their

testimony, it will be complicit in precluding their help in

seeing justice served--and in denying the American people the

full accounting to which they are entitled.

They go on to say:

We believe an ample chance has been afforded for the

regular order to operate in investigating Benghazi-gate. It

has failed to do so. Now is the time for a select committee

to be established with a mandate to draw upon the five

committees' existing investigative resources and results to

date and to complete--if possible by year's end--the

necessary, thorough and comprehensive inquiry. This approach

can alleviate concern about undue costs and further delay in

convening a select committee.

Mr. Speaker, they go on to say:

The survivors want to tell their stories and correct the

record. Two different books based on their stories are

reportedly in the works. If the American people learn what

happened from a published account rather than from those

charged with congressional oversight, the perception of a

coverup--or at least a serious dereliction of duty--is

inevitable.

Our Republic is predicated on the trust of the governed in

those they choose to represent them. We must not allow the

jihadists who have thus far paid no price for murdering

Ambassador Stevens, murdering three of his comrades and

afflicting the lives of so many others, to do violence as

well to our people's confidence in their constitutional form

of government.

For all these reasons, we call upon you to establish

without further delay a select committee to investigate the

Benghazi attacks.

I think they make a very, very powerful case. For the Congress to fail to do this, as they said, the Congress will be complicit in this. So I call on the Speaker of the House to do what these gentlemen, who have as much experience as any Member who serves in this Congress on either side, have asked us to do, and establish a select committee.

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

There were roughly 30 or 31 or so that waited on the tarmac after the fighting had ended to be picked up, and they were not picked up in an American plane; they were picked up in a Libyan plane. There were a number of wounded. One, Mr. David Ubben, who is currently out at Walter Reed, and another gentleman who was severely wounded, they were flown out separate from that other group, and they were flown out not in an American plane but in a Libyan plane, maybe even commandeered by those that rescued.

We also know that we lost four. Several were Navy SEALs. And we were also told by those who have been in touch with those on the ground that there was a call from the consulate to the annex saying, help us. They were told to stand down by the CIA station chief, not knowing if that came out of Washington or not. They did stand down. They got another call, and they were told to stand again, and they did stand down. They had another call and they finally said we're not standing down, and they went. Some believe that had they gone at the initial time, they could have saved the life of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.

No, it was not delivered by the administration, nor was it delivered by any committee up here. It was delivered by people who are connected to, related to people who were on the ground.

I think not, but I have not been in some of the closed doors. As you know, that is one of the problems. The Intelligence Committee has everything in closed doors. Quite frankly, if you're a Member of the House, you have very little opportunity to find out sometimes what even goes on in the Intelligence Committee. So they could have been sworn in. The people I have spoken to have not even been called. And I spoke last week, last Tuesday to a person who was on the scene at the time of the attack, and he has not been called.

I do not know. I do not serve on the Intelligence Committee.

There are all good people on it, and Mr. Rogers does a good job. I can't answer. They can better answer that. I don't know what the rules are with regard to that.

My committee that I chair, the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Justice Department and the FBI, we have never received an autopsy report. We have been told how the death of the Ambassador took place verbally, but we have never seen the autopsy report.

There may be. Perhaps the Intel Committee has it. I understand there are some timelines out there that do not quite, quite match; but I do not know the answer to that. That's why we need public hearings.

I thank the gentleman. Thank you for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a compilation of the questions I have asked about the Benghazi terrorist attack over the past three weeks. These questions remain unanswered despite nearly a year of investigations and that is why I continue to believe that a Select Committee is the only way to fully understand what happened in Benghazi that night and the response that followed. The Congress owes it to the families of the victims, the survivors of the attack and the American people to find these answers once and for all. It's time for a Select Committee.

Question of the Day #1 (Delivered on July 16, 2013)

1. Why has not one person who was in Benghazi the night of

the attack been subpoenaed to testify publicly before

Congress, and instead, some of the survivors will tell their

stories through multi-million dollar book deals?

2. Will any of the $3 million they are earning from the

book deal be shared with Ty Woods widow and child or the

parents of Glen Doherty?

3. Why has the Congress not asked, or subpoenaed, these

individuals to testify before House committees that have been

investigating over the past year?

Question of the Day #2 (Submitted for the record on July 17, 2013)

1. Was there an intelligence failure in vetting the true

loyalty of the Libyan security guards for the U.S. consulate?

Which agency was responsible for vetting the militias?

2. Who provided the terrorists with details of the

consulate property? Was it the security guards or someone in

the Libyan government who was notified about the ambassador's

visit?

3. Why did the guards in the car outside the consulate not

warn the U.S. staff of the gathering terrorists as they drove

away a minute before the assault began? Were they complicit

in the plot?

Question of the Day #3 (Delivered on July 18, 2013)

1. How many Benghazi survivors, including federal

employees, military personnel or contractors, have been asked

to sign additional Non-Disclosure Agreements by the different

agencies relating to what happened in Benghazi?

2. Do these NDAs apply only to those under cover, or have

non-covert State Department and Defense Department employees

been directed to sign them too?

Question of the Day #4 (Delivered on July 19, 2013)

1. Reports indicate that upwards of 100 terrorists may have

attacked the consulate and annex. After nearly a year of FBI

investigations, why has the U.S. not located, apprehended and

brought to justice a single terrorist responsible for killing

four Americans, including a sitting U.S. ambassador?

2. Why has the Obama Administration not taken any apparent

steps to apply pressure to countries that have refused to

allow the FBI access to terrorists responsible for the

Benghazi attacks? Has the FBI had access to any other

suspects, in any country, other than their brief interview

with Ali Harzi?

Question of the Day #5 (Delivered on July 22, 2013)

1. Why was the CIA's security team repeatedly ordered to

``stand down'' for more than 30 minutes after the attack

began?

2. Where did the order to stop the team from responding

originate? Was it directed by the CIA or someone else in

Washington?

3. If the team had been allowed to respond immediately,

could the lives of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith been

saved?

4. Has anyone been held accountable for obstructing the

security team for so long?

Question of the Day #6 (Delivered on July 23, 2013)

1. Doesn't it bother any of my colleagues that Gen.

[Carter] Ham can speak publicly about the military's response

at a forum in Aspen, Colorado--where tickets start at

$1,200--yet his testimony before Congress was behind closed

doors? (Gen. Ham, who was the head of U.S. forces in Africa

the night of attack, appeared at the Aspen Security Forum

last weekend and spoke openly about the U.S. response to the

Benghazi attack.)

2. If Gen. Ham's command required no additional authority

to respond to what he then believed to be a hostage rescue

situation, why did it take another seven hours before AFRICOM

ordered a C-17 aircraft in Germany to prepare to deploy to

Libya to evacuate Americans? Why did that plane not leave

Germany for another eight hours after that?

3. If the situation appeared to be deteriorating throughout

the night at the annex, why wasn't there any additional

effort to accelerate air support or even planes to evacuate

American personnel directly from Benghazi?

4. Given the betrayal by our supposed allied Libyan militia

forces when calls to defend the consulate went unheeded, why

would the Pentagon not move even faster to ensure there was a

reliable evacuation and hostage response force to assist the

Americans in Benghazi?

5. Given that no American plane arrived in Benghazi to

support the evacuation, just what planes were used to

evacuate the Americans the morning of Sept. 12?

6. The State Department's Accountability Review Board said

two planes were used the transport Americans from Benghazi to

Tripoli. We know that one was a Libyan Air Force C-130 that

brought back the bodies of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty

Wood and Glen Doherty, but the first to depart was a private,

``chartered'' jet. It took off at 7:40 a.m. with ``evacuees,

including all wounded personnel,'' according to the

unclassified version of the report.

7. Just who owned that jet?

8. Was it the same jet that brought in the seven-person

response team from Tripoli earlier that night?

9. Was it really chartered or was it commandeered?

10. How many wounded were evacuated on that jet?

11. Of the wounded, how many were State Department

employees, CIA employees or security contractors?

Question of the Day #7 (Delivered on July 24, 2013)

1. According to an excerpt of the new book Under Fire: The

Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi, which was published

in this month's Vanity Fair magazine, on the night of the

attack, Ambassador Stevens made several calls for help after

reaching what he believed was a safe room on the consulate

compound. Some of those calls were made to ``nearby

consulates.'' Assuming the authors are correct, the

government should have the phone records from that night.

Which foreign consulates did he call? How did those

consulates respond?

2. If Stevens was calling foreign consulates, did U.S.

officials in Tripoli or Washington call any allies with

assets in Libya to help respond to the attack?

3. Did the Pentagon contact any NATO allies with military

assets in the region that could have provided assistance that

night?

4. Given how close many of our European allies are to the

Mediterranean, wouldn't they have planes or response teams

stationed in locations in or nearby the region that

could have been mobilized upon request from Washington?

5. And speaking of force posture, what have we done to

ensure that if another incident were to happen this September

11 that we're prepared to respond?

Question of the Day #8 (Submitted for the record July 25, 2013)

1. A U.S. consulate is under attack. A U.S. Ambassador is

missing. A State Department Diplomatic Security Agent is

dead. Are the American people to believe the president is

briefed only once that entire night, at 5 p.m. Eastern

Standard Time?

2. Where was the president the rest of the night?

3. Did his national security team, including John Brennan,

Sec. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey, ever go back and brief the

president when the annex came under attack? If so, what steps

did he direct at that time?

4. Did the president ever step foot in the White House

Situation Room that night?

5. Did he ever see the footage from the unarmed drone

stationed over Benghazi monitoring the attacks?

6. Last evening, Fox News' Catherine Herridge reported how

Diplomatic Security Agent David Ubben is still recovering at

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center--more than 10

months after the attack--for injuries he sustained while

repeatedly risking his life to save others that night. Has

the president ever called or met with David Ubben to thank

him for his sacrifice? Has he ever called the others who were

seriously wounded that night, including the former Navy SEAL

on the security team who sustained significant injuries?

7. To Secretary of State John Kerry's credit, I know that

he has visited with Ubben at Walter Reed. But did former

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ever meet with him during

the six months she was still in office after the attack?

8. Did the president and his team ever even consider

cancelling his political fundraiser in Las Vegas the day

after the attack to monitor the situation in Benghazi?

9. That night, when the ambassador was considered a

potential hostage and nearly 30 Americans were under

sustained attacks at the CIA annex, did the president's staff

ever notify the campaign that he might not be leaving the

White House the next day?

10. When he boarded Air Force One for Las Vegas, did the

president know about the serious injuries that some of the

survivors had sustained? Did he know what hospitals they were

being taken to?

11. Is there a parallel in American history when the U.S.

was under attack, Americans were killed and a sitting U.S.

ambassador was considered a potential terrorist hostage, but

the president was not engaged with his national security

team?

Question of the Day #9 (Delivered on July 30, 2013)

1. Who are the anonymous senior administration officials

who admitted ``mistakes'' in their handling of the attack to

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and thank Robert Mueller for his service to our country. Mr. Mueller has served as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since September 4, 2001, and will be retiring before the Congress returns in September. I have had the privilege of working with Director Mueller as the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI and firmly believe he is the best director in the more than hundred-year history of the Bureau.

I want to also recognize his wife, Ann, and his two daughters, Melissa and Cynthia, for their sacrifice in countless nights and weekends their husband and father spent serving our country over the last twelve years.

Director Mueller deserves much credit for skillfully responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks after just a week on the job and leading the FBI's transformation into an intelligence-driven and threat-focused national security organization. The FBI today is a remarkably different agency than the one the director inherited in 2001. The changes made during his tenure have made our country safer and stronger, while also upholding and respecting our Constitution. He has always been honest and forthright with the Congress and the American people.

It is hard to quantify the many lives that have been saved thanks to FBI actions that disrupted terror plots and other threats against the American people. I want to recognize the

thousands of hard working and vigilant men and women of the bureau, including the agents, analysts and support staff who serve our country. Under the director's leadership, the men and women of the FBI have effectively prevented many attacks against our country.

Bob Mueller's service to our country began long before he was sworn in as FBI Director. He has had a long career of distinguished service to our country. He served as an officer in the Marine Corps, leading a rifle platoon in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Bronze Star, two Navy Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He later served in several U.S. Attorneys' offices and in private practice before being appointed as the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco in 1998.

I wish the director and his family all the best in his next endeavors and thank him again for his service and sacrifice. He is a true patriot and a model public servant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a letter I sent today to President Obama regarding Sudan as well as a copy of my Darfur trip report which I issued in July 2004 after having been a part of the first Congressional delegation to the region. Just months later then- Secretary of State Colin Powell described what was happening as genocide--a descriptor that President Obama himself used as recently as 2009.

And yet, the Sudan Special Envoy position remains vacant after nearly five months. Violence, displacement and atrocities continue in Darfur and the Nuba Mountains. And Sudanese President Bashir continues to travel the globe with virtual impunity.

What is this administration's policy in Sudan?

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 2, 2013.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: I have written you on more than one

occasion about the persistent vacancy of the Sudan Special

Envoy post, which has been unfilled for nearly five months.

This is indefensible given the current state of affairs in

Sudan.

I enclose for your reference a recent piece that Sudan

expert and advocate Professor Eric Reeves authored for the

Washington Post. He paints a grim picture about the situation

in Darfur, lamenting that this genocide, which once captured

our collective national outrage, now seems to have

disappeared from public view leaving us with the

misperception that the violence has subsided and the crisis

resolved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reeves writes ``. . . the slaughter has continued in

Darfur: Some 500,000 people have died in the past 10 years

from war-related causes. In 2009, as president, Obama again

declared that `genocide' was occurring in Darfur, yet little

followed from this.'' He continued, ``But the people of

Darfur have been left defenseless largely because of an

unforgivable lack of attention and leadership by the United

States. The policies of Obama's administration have hardly

matched his rhetoric. Indeed, in a bizarre reprise of

policies for which Obama had sharply criticized the Bush

administration, on Nov. 8, 2010, senior administration

officials explicitly `decoupled' Darfur from the largest

bilateral issue between Washington and Khartoum: the latter's

place on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.''

While Reeves' focus in the enclosed editorial is on

Darfur--that region is far from being the only humanitarian

and human rights catastrophe in Sudan. Last year I visited

Yida refugee camp in South Sudan. I heard harrowing stories

from a growing refugee population that had fled the Nuba

Mountains, including indiscriminate aerial bombardments aimed

at civilian populations, the use of food as a weapon of war,

people driven from their homes and targeted for killing

because of the color of their skin. In short I heard echoes

of my time spent in Darfur as the first member of the House

of Representatives to visit in July 2004.

Last year I offered an amendment to the State and Foreign

Operations Appropriations bill which would have cut non-

humanitarian foreign assistance to any nation that allowed

Sudanese President Omar Bashir, an internationally indicted

war criminal, into their country without arresting him. The

amendment was adopted with bipartisan support by voice vote.

The amendment I proposed would have effectively isolated

Bashir and made him an international pariah as is befitting a

man with blood on his hands. It is noteworthy that the

amendment garnered the support of 70 prominent Holocaust and

genocide scholars. Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman

Institute, which initiated a letter of support to the

administration from these scholars, said: ``Halting aid to

those who host Bashir would be the first concrete step the

U.S. has taken to isolate the Butcher of Darfur and pave the

way for his arrest. If the Obama administration is serious

about punishing perpetrators of genocide, it should support

the Wolf Amendment.''

Sadly that support never materialized. In fact your

administration actively sought to remove this language from

the final bill. Meanwhile, Bashir remains free to travel

where he pleases, and the people of Sudan see no end in sight

to their suffering and U.S. policy is in tatters.

The FY 2014 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations

bill, which just last week passed out of the full committee,

included language consistent with the amendment I offered

last year. In seeking to isolate Bashir, our options are

limited but far from nonexistent.

Will your administration support this effort? Will Bashir

be made to face some modicum of consequence for his actions?

Will the special envoy position be filled before the fall?

Professor Reeves' piece featured this quote from you: ``We

can't say `never again' and then allow it to happen again,

and as a president of the United States, I don't intend to

abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.'' I wish,

and more importantly the suffering people of Sudan wish, we

had seen an ounce of that moral clarity and conviction since

you took office. Sudan has historically been a bipartisan

issue. We may be from different parties but I had thought,

based on your campaign rhetoric, that this might be an area

of common cause.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for the time. I am very grateful. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last evening, CNN reported startling new revelations about efforts by the CIA to prevent agency employees and contractors from speaking to the press and Congress about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi last September.

According to CNN:

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's

missions in Libya have been subjected to frequent, even

monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with

deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings. The goal of

the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if

anyone is talking to the media or talking to Congress.

This report confirms what I have been saying for months: survivors of the attack are being silenced. By failing to have public hearings over the last year, the Congress has empowered the government to silence the eyewitnesses from the attack. This is unacceptable.

The CIA says that the agency ``employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want.'' However, the reported monthly polygraphs clearly contradict these assertions.

Just listen to the following comments reported by CNN. ``You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well,'' one CIA source told CNN.

``You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation,'' another said.

According to a separate report by Fox News this morning, ``At least five CIA employees were forced to sign additional nondisclosure agreements this past spring in the wake of the Benghazi attack,'' confirming what I said on the House floor on July 18.

Four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on two U.S. facilities. Seven Americans were wounded, some severely. Another two- dozen could have been killed that night, but for the sacrifices made by Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Dave Ubben and untold others who deserve to be recognized for their heroic acts.

Why are these heroes being told not to talk?

What is the administration afraid of?

What is it protecting?

Nearly 6 months ago, I wrote Secretary Kerry, asking for the names and contact information of the State Department employees who were in Benghazi last September. The Department refused to provide this information, or even confirm the number of those wounded and the nature of their injuries.

I again made this request to Secretary Kerry earlier this month and, once again, the Department refused. During a July 24 State Department press briefing, the Department spokesman again made excuses for not providing this information to Congress and, once again, used the FBI as an excuse not to cooperate, stating, ``we have serious concerns about the survivors' welfare and want to be careful not to interfere with the FBI's investigation of the attack.''

And then asserting, ``There are no Department employees who want to tell their story that are being obstructed from doing so by the leadership of the State Department.''

How can the Congress know the survivors don't want to speak with Congress if they can't learn who they are and ask them?

Are we really to take the administration's word for it?

Nearly every day, for the past 3 weeks, I've come to the floor to ask questions that should be answered by now. These have ranged from whether there was an intelligence failure that night to who was responsible for the U.S. response--the State Department, Defense Department, or the CIA, to just why we had such a large CIA presence operating in Benghazi in the first place.

The failure to provide answers to the American people, despite nearly a year of investigations, makes clear the need for a new approach. I believe the best path forward is a dedicated, bipartisan House select committee with full subpoena authority to hold public hearings and issue a public final report.

One hundred sixty two of our colleagues, nearly three-quarters of the majority, agree, and that is why they have cosponsored H. Res. 36, to create a bipartisan select committee.

This effort has been supported by the family members of the Benghazi victims, the special operations community, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represents the diplomatic security officers that were in Benghazi, as well as the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

With such a broad range of support, it begs the question, why not?

What are we afraid of from a full investigation and public hearings?

The House ``interim progress report'' on Benghazi was released on April 23. When will the final report be released?

H. Res. 36 would mandate a final report within 90 days. It would also have full subpoena authority to compel sworn testimony from all witnesses. It would bring together the best investigators from all the committees in the House, and it would use existing resources.

It would not duplicate effort. It would build on the work that's already been done over the past year. Iron sharpens iron.

When we return from August recess there will only be 2 days, 2 days until the 1-year anniversary of the Benghazi attacks. Can any Member here confidently say they know what happened that night?

Can any Member honestly say, with reports like the one CNN did yesterday, that this Congress has done everything it can to allow the survivors to come forward and tell their story?

Witnesses need to be subpoenaed. I'm talking about friendly subpoenas to the survivors and those career Federal employees in theater and in Washington who witnessed the response or lack thereof that night.

Some have argued we shouldn't issue subpoenas until we know what a witness will say. That won't work, especially given the nondisclosure agreements and polygraphs being deployed to silence them. And they need to speak publicly, because speaking behind closed doors offers them no protection.

My congressional district includes the CIA and a number of other intelligence agencies. Throughout my career, I have talked to and worked with countless career Federal employees and contractors working for intelligence agencies. I know the pressure they're under to stay silent, even if they have information that the Congress and the American people need to hear.

They need the protection of a subpoena. There is no other way.

Until we hear in public from these witnesses what happened that night, we'll never be able to answer the many unanswered questions I have raised daily on the House floor over the past 3 weeks, which I'm submitting together today for the Record.

September 11 is fast approaching. Will we continue on our current path and learn from forthcoming books written by survivors and sanitized by the CIA?

Or will we create a select committee to subpoena witnesses to testify under oath at public hearings?

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit a letter I sent earlier this week to Attorney

General Eric Holder once again urging that the Department of Justice prioritize the issue of human trafficking and specifically go after Web sites like Backpage.com which serve as a conduit for the buying and selling of human beings.

In multiple letters to the Department over the last year I've implored the Attorney General to tell Congress if federal law enforcement does not have the necessary tools to take legal action against such web sites--sites which time and again feature prominently in horrific stories of abuse and exploitation of the most vulnerable among us.

These requests have gone unanswered. The exploitation persists. Attorney General Holder is failing.

Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Attorney General, Department of Justice,

Washington DC.

Dear Attorney General Holder: Many Americans were

undoubtedly heartened to learn yesterday that authorities

rescued 105 children from 76 different cities across this

nation who had been forced into prostitution, and arrested

150 pimps who were intimately involved in the exploitation of

these minors--children ranging in age from 13 to 17. But I

suspect that just as many Americans were shocked to learn of

the scope and reach of human trafficking in our own back

yard. For under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act any

minor used in a commercial sex act is a victim of human

trafficking.

I applaud the impressive work of the FBI; its local, state,

and federal law enforcement partners, including the Fairfax

County Police Department and the Loudoun County Sheriff's

Office, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children (NCMEC). As you know, I have long supported efforts

locally and in the annual Commerce-Justice-Science

(CJS) appropriations bill to elevate this issue as a law

enforcement priority. In fact in the CJS bill which recently

passed the House Appropriations Committee included language

instructing U.S. Attorneys to maintain their human

trafficking task forces and undertake proactive

investigations of persons or entities facilitating

trafficking in persons through the use of classified

advertising on the Internet. The bill also directs the U.S.

Attorney General to submit a comprehensive report on all DOJ

anti-trafficking activities, including legislative proposals

that may advance any efforts, no later than 60 days after the

bill is signed into law.

While the details of this campaign, Operation Cross

Country, are still emerging, not unsurprising, Backpage.com

featured prominently in the announcement of the crackdown. In

fact, a CNN story this morning cited the assistant director

of the FBI's criminal investigative division, as saying,

``This seventh iteration of Operation Cross Country also was

the most successful, with a 30% to 40% increase in

`identifying both victims and pimps' compared with previous

operations.'' The story continued, ``He credited the success

in part to an expansion of the probe to websites such as

www.backpage.com, which he called a forum 'where pimps and

exploiters gather.'

An NBC news story following the raid reported, ``Search for

`Backpage.com' on the FBI's main website and up pops eight

whole pages of press releases and public announcements naming

the classified advertising site as a tool for sex criminals,

particularly those selling children, sex and prostitution.''

Case after case shows that as long as web sites like

Backpage.com operate with impunity, impervious to public

shame, law enforcement will simply be playing catch up.

In that vein, just last week, an overwhelming majority of

state and territorial attorneys general sent a letter to the

chair and ranking members of the U.S. Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation and House Committee on

Energy and Commerce. The letter indicated that ``Federal

enforcement alone has proven insufficient to stem the growth

of internet-facilitated child sex trafficking,'' and pleaded

that, ``Those on the front lines of the battle against the

sexual exploitation of children--state and local law

enforcement--must be granted the authority to investigate and

prosecute those who facilitate these horrible crimes.''

I couldn't agree more, which is why in April 2012, well

over a year ago, I wrote you a letter making clear that

classified Internet advertising was the latest front in the

battle against sexual exploitation and trafficking of minors.

Specifically I wrote, ``...if DOJ is of the mind that there

are insufficient laws on the books to prosecute this

activity, I respectfully request a broader legal analysis and

recommendations to Congress of legislative initiatives that

may be undertaken to fully equip law enforcement to tackle

this problem.'' This was the first of several letters I've

written on the topic.

On June 8 2012, I wrote, ``...I continue to believe that

unless there is the very real prospect of criminal liability

that Backpage.com will fail to change...I recognize that

these are complex legal questions but surely we can agree

that this is not a complex issue. Children ought not to be

bought and sold online. Those who facilitate and enable this

practice should have to face consequences. I welcome the best

legal analysis the Department can provide in how to ensure

that this happens.''

And again, on March 27, 2013 I wrote you, this time

including a series of recommendations provided by NCMEC that

Backpage.com and similar Web sites used for trafficking could

voluntarily adopt to reduce the sexual exploitation of

children online. I urged you, as the nation's chief law

enforcement officer, to press Backpage.com to immediately

adopt these practices and said that if they fail to do so you

should ``...take legal action against Backpage.com.''

These last two letters have gone unanswered. The legal

analysis has never been provided and the exploitation of

innocents continues.

Human trafficking has rightly been deemed the slavery issue

of our time. It isn't simply an international tragedy, it's a

national and local outrage. For years, the back of my office

door featured a giant picture of William Wilberforce--the

remarkable abolitionist, and man of faith, who labored

tirelessly for decades to ban the slave trade in the British

Empire. Wilberforce was part of a broader transatlantic

abolition movement dating back to the 1700s. He served as an

inspiration for the abolitionist cause on our own shores,

laying the foundation for the likes of Frederick Douglas,

Harriet Beecher Stowe and even Abraham Lincoln, who 150 years

ago this year issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Wilberforce, famously said, ``Having heard all this, you

may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say

that you do not know.'' We know that our nation's children

are at risk of horrific exploitation that almost defies

imagination. We know how pimps and johns use specific Web

sites to profit from and prey on their vulnerability. Will

you continue to look the other way?

Best wishes.

Think of all the women and children that could be helped. You could make a difference if you act.

Mr. Speaker, I've been asking a series of questions over the last 3 weeks about what happened in Benghazi last September. After a year of investigation, none of the questions have been answered publicly, not one.

Tomorrow is the last day before Congress departs for its August recess, and I plan to resubmit all the questions that I've asked so they are listed in the Congressional Record for history to see--and history will determine whether the American people ever learned the truth.

Yesterday, I focused my questions on the other U.S. facility that was attacked that night, the CIA annex. Today, I have only one question: Who in the White House knew what was going on in the annex? That's it. One question: Who knew? The Chief of Staff? Then-Deputy National Security Advisor and current CIA Director John Brennan?

Something is just not right.

It is time to honor both those who were killed and the survivors by creating a House select committee and, in the words of the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, let Benghazi's chips fall.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 weeks, I raised a series of questions focusing on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, as well as Washington's response, or lack thereof.

To date, little is known why Ambassador Stevens was in the U.S. consulate in the days leading up to the anniversary of 9/11. Even less known is about the other American facility in Benghazi: the CIA annex. When was the annex established? How many people worked at the annex? Of these, how many were direct agency employees and how many were contractors? What was the ratio of CIA staff to security contractors? Why was there a facility operated by the CIA in Benghazi? Perhaps it was established to assist in U.S. efforts to secure weapons in the wake of the Libyan revolution.

As early as 2011, National Journal reported:

The U.S. is also planning to ramp up spending to help

Libya's interim government secure and destroy the shoulder-

fired surface-to-air missiles and weapons looted from

Qadhafi's stockpiles. A senior State Department official said

Clinton will tell Libyan leaders that the U.S. contribution

to these efforts will go up to $40 million.

The same article noted:

The U.S. has already spent nearly $6 million on its

conventional weapons disposal efforts, sending a quick

reaction force of weapons experts to Libya by October 2011.

If, indeed, the facility in Benghazi was involved in the collection of these weapons, where are they? The $40 million promised by Secretary Clinton would buy a very large quantity of weapons. Were they shipped out of Benghazi? Are they in warehouses on U.S. soil? Are they in other allied countries? Or did they end up elsewhere?

There has been speculation that some of these weapons may have ended up in Syria.

It is particularly noteworthy that during the same time period that the U.S. engaged in collecting weapons in Libya, respected national security reporter Mark Hosenball wrote on August 1, 2012:

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order

authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian

President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources

familiar with the matter said. Obama's order, approved

earlier this year and known as an intelligence ``finding,''

broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide

support that could help the rebels oust Assad.

The article continued:

The White House is for now apparently stopping short of

giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do

just that, and precisely when Obama signed the secret

intelligence authorization, an action not previously

reported, could not be determined.

However, Hosenball also reported this important information:

A U.S. Government source acknowledged that under provisions

of the Presidential finding, the United States was

collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey

and its allies, and NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles,

also known as MANPADS, had been delivered to the rebels via

Turkey.

Is it possible that the President's intelligence finding included an authorization for the weapons collected in Libya to be transferred to Syrian rebels? Was the CIA annex being used to facilitate these transfers? If so, how did the weapons physically move from Libya to Syria? By plane? By ship?

And, again, I ask, if these weapons were not being transferred to other countries like Syria, where exactly did they end up? Was the CIA annex being used as a logistics center to track and transfer these weapons? Was Ambassador Stevens' visit to the CIA annex on September 10 associated with these operations? And if these activities were taking place, was this consistent with the President's intelligence finding? Was the Congress notified?

Mr. Speaker, I raise these questions knowing that CIA operations anywhere are sensitive and there is an appropriate time and place for the discussions. However, I don't think the American people will ever learn the truth about what happened that night and why--including the questionable U.S. response--unless they understand what exactly was taking place at the annex.

That is why I continue to believe that a House select committee is the most appropriate path forward to investigate this and many other unanswered questions about Benghazi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of Handley Regional Library in Winchester, Virginia.

The original Handley Library building has long been an important architectural and historical site in Winchester. It first opened in 1913 and was designed by architects J. Stewart Barney and Henry Otis Chapman.

The growth and change the library has gone through over the past 100 years has been extraordinary. In 1915, the library's annual attendance was 52,902. Today, more than 357,000 guests visit the facility each year. The collection of books and periodicals has expanded significantly as well. The library's collection totaled 6,000 in 1915; today, the collection contains over 302,000 books, magazines and digital materials, including audio books, e-books, CDs and DVDs.

The library's growth over the years is due in part to the growth in the Shenandoah Valley region. Today, the population served by the library is 120,000, an increase of nearly 100,000 since 1915.

Additionally, Handley Library is unique because it is one of three libraries in the regional system. It became regional when Frederick County joined the system in 1979 and Clarke County joined in 1981. Regional systems ensure the libraries can all provide excellent services without duplicating administrative costs. This has saved taxpayers money, which is crucial during these economically challenging times.

Handley Regional Library is a treasure for the northern Shenandoah Valley community. From computer literacy programs, to youth and adult programs, to the vast collection of regional history and genealogy located in its outstanding archives section, the library provides exceptional facilities and services for area residents.

The success of the library today is due to director Trish Ridgeway and the entire library staff, as well as the generous support of the Friends of Handley Library and its many volunteers.

I would like to particularly recognize the efforts of Trish Ridgeway, who during her 20 years as its director has overseen several of the regional library system's construction projects, including the major renovation of the original library building in Winchester. As she prepares to retire at the end of September, I want to thank Trish for her leadership and wish her all the best for retirement.

There will be a gala celebration in honor of the 100th anniversary at Handley Library on August 24, 2013. Congratulations to the library, its staff and the volunteers as they celebrate this very important milestone.

Mr. Speaker, this week the U.S. and China will hold its annual human rights dialogue--a dialogue that began after the brutal Tiananmen Square crackdown 24 years ago.

Nearly a quarter of a century later the Chinese government remains frightened by the spirit that animated that protest. A June 23 Washington Post article reported that, ``In the 2\1/2\ decades since the protests' violent end, China's government has largely scrubbed Tiananmen from history.''

Try as they might the Chinese government's ``Orwellian'' efforts to erase this unpleasant event from its history books are incomplete. There are those still living with the scars of that day--both emotional and physical. In 1991, Congressman Chris Smith and I traveled to China. We visited Beijing Prison Number One, which at the time housed approximately 40 Tiananmen Square protesters. While our request to visit the demonstrators was denied, we left with a pair of socks, made by the prisoners, for export to the West.

The abuses of Tiananmen are not simply the stuff of history. The State Department's most recent human rights report found that, ``Repression and coercion, particularly against organizations and individuals involved in rights advocacy and public interest issues, were routine. Individuals and groups seen as politically sensitive by authorities continued to face tight restrictions on their freedom to assemble, practice religion, and travel. Efforts to silence and intimidate political activists and public interest lawyers continued to increase. Authorities resorted to extralegal measures such as enforced disappearance, `soft detention,' and strict house arrest, including house arrest of family members, to prevent the public voicing of independent opinions.''

In the face of these and other abuses, it is striking that the human rights dialogue with the Chinese government rarely produces real results or changes. The content of these discussions is cloaked in secrecy, even with other policy makers, including Congress, and the broader human rights community. We are assured that behind closed doors the administration gave an impassioned defense of basic freedoms and human dignity. We are told that, privately, specific cases were raised. This approach has, time and again, failed to produce meaningful results. The imprisoned Catholic bishop, the detained blogger and the beleaguered human rights lawyer deserve far more than this administration has given them.

Human Rights Watch summed it up this way in a press release issued before last year's human rights dialogue: ``Many of the United States' and other governments' past human rights dialogues with China have been largely a rhetorical shell, lacking in accountability, transparency, and clear benchmarks for progress. The Chinese government often points to these dialogues as a human rights `deliverable,' an end in itself, or insists that human rights issues can only be discussed in the context of a dialogue. None of the governments that pursue these dialogues with the Chinese government have established benchmarks to ensure meaningful progress.''

Will the same hold true this week? Will we find simply another rhetorical shell and no discernible progress on the part of one of the world's worse human rights abusers?

If history is to be our guide, I fear the answer is yes.

Early in her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, during a visit to Asia, famously said that U.S concern with human rights issues in China ``can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.'' Her statement garnered shock and dismay from human rights activists at home, and I would venture, abroad--the very people who historically have looked to America to champion their cause, rather than relegate it to the backburner. Further, it effectively showed this administration's hand to everyone, including Beijing. Any mention of human rights was just that--an obligatory mention. Human rights were an interference to be managed, a pesky deterrent to bilateral collaboration on more pressing issues.

This notion has been born out in reality. Only when events literally force a response from the U.S. government do human rights garner the attention they rightly deserve.

In April 2012, Chinese activist and legal advocate Chen Guangcheng sought refuge in the U.S. embassy. All of a sudden human rights were sure to ``interfere'' with the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which was bringing secretaries Clinton and Geithner to Beijing for high level talks the following week.

Several months earlier, in February 2012 I was one of several Members of Congress--including Rep. Chris Smith, who for years championed Chen's case--who wrote a letter to President Obama on the eve of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping's visit to the U.S. We encouraged President Obama to follow the time-tested model of President Ronald Reagan during the height of the Cold War, when Reagan spoke out on behalf of specific dissidents by name, linking human rights and religious freedom to every other facet of U.S.-Soviet relations rather than sidelining the very principles that make this country unique. Chen Guangcheng was among the cases we featured and pressed him to raise.

But it was only with Chen's heroic escape from house arrest that he guaranteed that he was a diplomatic priority.

Too often, it seems that this administration's posture vis-a-vis human rights is one of caution to the point of silence.

Silence in the face of China's abysmal human rights record is indefensible.

The government is an equal opportunity oppressor of people of faith-- Catholic bishops, Protestant house church leaders, Tibetan monks and nuns, Uyghur Muslims and Falun Gong practitioners to name a few. Harassments, intimidation and imprisonment are the order of the day.

According to the Congressional Executive Commission on China, at least 40 Roman Catholic bishops remain imprisoned or detained, or were forcibly disappeared including the elderly Bishop Su Zhimin, whose current whereabouts are unknown and who had been under strict surveillance since the 1970s.

Protestant house church pastors are routinely intimidated, imprisoned and tortured. Writing in Christianity Today on February 27, 2013, ChinaAid's Bob Fu declared, ``. . . the number of incidents of `persecution' increased in 2012 from the previous years, including a number of arrest, sentencing to labor camps, short term detentions, rape and torture in police custody, destruction and confiscation of property, beatings, fines, the loss of jobs or business licenses, and police intimidation.''

Over the last two years, a growing number of peace-loving Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns have set themselves aflame in desperation at the abuses suffered by their people. Human Rights Watch reports that, ``The Chinese government, under the rationale of a campaign to improve rural living standards, has sent more than 20,000 officials and communist party cadres to Tibetan villages to undertake intrusive surveillance of people, carry out widespread political re-education, and establish partisan security units . . .''

Uyghur Muslims are unable to freely associate and have been subject to forced confessions and persecution. I repeatedly requested, to no avail, that Secretary Clinton meet with Uyghur human rights activist Rebiya Kadeer who has long been at the forefront of this issue having suffered in prison for five years, including two years of solitary confinement, before she was exiled to the U.S in 2005. In addition to being a leading human rights activist she is a mother. Her own children have been harassed and wrongly imprisoned as a direct result of her advocacy efforts.

The annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) found that, ``poor religious freedom conditions in China have deteriorated significantly, particularly for Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims. To stem the growth of independent Catholic and Protestant groups, the government has detained and arrested leaders, forcibly closed churches, and selected Catholic bishops without the approval of the Vatican. The Falun Gong and other groups deemed `evil cults' face long-term imprisonments, forced renunciations of faith, and torture in detention.''

In November 2009 I wrote a series of high-ranking Obama Administration officials, including U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, urging that when they have the opportunity to travel to China, that they take time to attend a service at one of China's underground house churches.

I noted that it is not uncommon for U.S. government officials to attend one of the state-sanctioned Three-Self Patriotic Movement churches but that officials rarely if ever visit any of China's house churches which constitute a significant segment of China's faith community and consistently face persecution and repression at the hands of their own government.

I further noted that, perhaps counter-intuitively, many house churches welcome visits by high-profile government officials from the West. Not only do such visits give decision-makers a clearer sense of the repression that the church in China faces but in some cases it actually affords them protection from future harassment and lends credibility to the church themselves. Few administration officials bothered to respond to my letter and, to my knowledge, not a single one has attended a service since the request was made a year and a half ago. In several meetings I personally raised the issue with Mr. Kirk. He seemed to view the request as bothersome--a distraction from more important things.

In its annual report, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) pointed to the administration's so-called ``Asia Pivot,'' and observed that the ``security and economic pillars of the Asia Pivot remain more developed, and no new democracy, human rights, or humanitarian policy proposals have been offered.'' The commission further noted that human rights are not an integrated part of U.S.-China bilateral relations.

The Chinese government maintains a brutal system of slave labor camps on the order of the Soviet gulags. Common criminals languish behind bars with Nobel laureates who dare to question the regime's authority.

China has a thriving business of harvesting and selling for transplant kidneys, corneas and other human organs from executed prisoners, including political prisoners.

Earlier this month, just weeks before the human rights dialogue, the New York Times reported that ``The police in Beijing have detained one of China's most prominent rights advocates, the latest in a series of arrests that critics said showed the Communist Party's determination to silence campaigners who have challenged the party to act on its vows to expose official corruption and respect rule of law.'' The advocate's name is Xu Zhiyong.

The Times continued, ``supporters said that his case was likely to attract wider attention as a test of China's beleaguered `rights defense' movement, which he helped build. That loose network of lawyers, scholars and advocates has sought to use litigation, publicity and petitions to secure political and social rights.'' The Christian Science Monitor reported that, ``Xu is renowned for his public interest legal work on behalf of victims of official injustice, such as children sickened by melamine-tainted formula, and for the care he takes not to demand more than the Chinese Constitution provides for.''

All of these examples are symptomatic of a broken system in China. A system infused with corruption and threatened by dissent.

Despite explosive economic growth, China remains a ``closed society'' when it comes to

information. The Chinese government recognizes that ideas have consequence and they go to great lengths to restrict Chinese citizens' access to information through the ``Great Firewall'' which censors so- called ``offensive'' speech.

It is estimated that China employs between 30,000 and 50,000 special Internet police. These police were notably active in the aftermath of the ``Arab Spring'' as the government blocked Internet search requests for key words like ``Egypt'' and ``Jasmine.''

As far back as 2008, Amnesty International rightly noted that ``In China the Internet has become a new frontier in the fight for human rights.''

And yet the Obama Administration has paid mere lip-service to Internet freedom boasting in speeches of the priority it places on the issue when in fact nearly all of the money they've spent on Internet circumvention has been as a result of congressionally-mandated funding targeting closed societies and the State Department has actually sought to redirect the funding toward less threatening research initiatives as opposed to actual hard-hitting circumvention which poses a real threat to authoritarian regimes.

This is not surprising given that this administration seems less concerned with bringing about reform and change on the part of the Chinese government than it does with embracing the current leadership.

On January 19, 2011, I spoke at a Capitol Hill press conference regarding the visit of then-Chinese president Hu Jintao to the U.S. in which I strongly criticized the administration for granting the Chinese president the distinction of an official state dinner--something which had not happened for 13 years--given that the regime had done nothing to deserve such an honor.

We were joined at the press conference by the wife of Gao Zhisheng. Gao is one of the most respected human rights lawyers in China. He has defended activists and religious minorities and documented human rights abuses in China, including a number of high-profile human rights cases, involving Christians in Xinjiang and Falun Gong practitioners. He has been disbarred and subjected to forced disappearance, torture, illegal house arrest and detention as a result of his work. Currently he is imprisoned in Shaya County Prison in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in northwest China, after being incarcerated in December 2011 for allegedly violating the conditions of his suspended three-year sentence. Prior to this, his whereabouts had been unknown for almost 20 months. He has been tortured repeatedly since 2006 and continues to be at high risk of further torture. Nearly eight months ago his older brother was able to visit him in prison. Prior to that it had been nine months since anyone had had confirmation he was even alive. He has not been seen or heard from since.

I have ``adopted'' Gao as part of a recently launched initiative, the Defending Freedoms Project, led by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission which seeks to draw attention to the plight of persecuted prisoners of conscience and I am committed to pressing for his release and ultimately his freedom.

Gao is but one of many high profile dissidents presently languishing in prison. In December 2009, the government sentenced human rights and democracy activist Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison due to his involvement in drafting Charter '08, a historic manifesto advocating for democracy and a greater respect for human rights in China. Liu's courage was recognized by the Norwegian Nobel Committee when they awarded him the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. However, the award ceremony was held with an empty chair as a solemn reminder that the 2010 Nobel Laureate remains behind bars.

Many have predicted that the 21st century will be the Chinese century, but absent dramatic reform at the heart of the Chinese government, such Chinese ascendancy is deeply problematic and America must be clear-eyed about its implications.

This administration has been anything but.

Last year, Chinese dissident Yu Jie wrote an unsettling piece in the Washington Post where he stated, ``China is a far greater threat than the former Soviet Union ever was,'' and ``unfortunately, the West lacks visionary politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, to stand up to this threat.''

While this administration and this president lack vision, the Chinese people do not.

Before President Obama's recent meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, I joined a leading group of human rights organizations and activists in pressing him to raise the fate of a group of Chinese prisoners of conscience dubbed the ``China 16,'' and to call for their immediate and unconditional release. Each has suffered for courageously challenging ``the status quo at great cost and peril to themselves and their families.''

As is characteristic, their names were never publicly uttered by the president. And we can only guess what happened privately.

Are their names being raised this week in Kunming, China? Are they being quietly whispered in closed door meetings? Will a single person's life change for the better as a result of the human rights dialogue?

Today, in China, there are men and women whose names we do not yet know but who stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Sharansky and Solzhenitsyn and other famed dissidents throughout history who have dared to question the tyranny which enslaved them.

Does the Obama Administration stand with them?

Mr. Speaker, there are only 3 more days until the August recess. Given that no new public hearings are scheduled on Benghazi, it's apparent that the questions I've been asking for the past two weeks--and the American people have been asking for more than 10 months--will not be answered by the 1-year anniversary of the Benghazi attack, if ever.

After a year of investigations in five different committees, we still do not know what happened and no one's been held responsible. The House and the Senate have failed. Is it any wonder that the American people are losing confidence in their government?

This is even more remarkable given that over 2 months ago, senior administration officials admitted to the media that they failed to properly respond to the attack in Benghazi; yet the Congress never pressed the matter further.

In a little-noticed article published on Friday, May 17, CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson reported that:

Obama administration officials who were in key positions on

September 11, 2012, acknowledge that a range of mistakes were

made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in

Benghazi.

Attkisson continued:

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials

involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include

standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support

Team and failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security

Group, among others.

One of the key revelations from anonymous senior administration officials is the admission that it refused to deploy the Foreign Emergency Support Team, FEST. According to the article:

The FEST's own mission statement describes a seasoned team

of counterterrorism professionals who can respond ``quickly

and effectively to terror attacks, providing the fastest

assistance possible'' including ``hostage negotiating

expertise'' and ``time-sensitive information and

intelligence.'' In fact, FEST leader Mark Thompson says

Benghazi was precisely the sort of crisis to which his team

is trained to respond.

The article continued:

As soon as word of the Benghazi attack reached Washington,

FEST members ``instinctively started packing,'' said an

official involved in the response. ``They were told they were

not deploying by Patrick Kennedy's front office. In

hindsight, I probably would've pushed the button.''

It's particularly notable that administration sources pin the decision not just on the State Department leadership, but also on the White House.

While it was the State Department that's said to have taken FEST off the table, the team is directed by the White House National Security Council.

Speaking of the White House role in directing the response, Attkisson reported that the National Security Council also failed to convene the interagency Counterterrorism Security Group, CSG, that evening.

The article noted:

According to a public military document, it's part of a

plan to ``synchronize the efforts of all the government

agencies that have a role to play in the global war on

terrorism.'' But on September 11, 2012, the Obama

administration did not convene this body of terrorism expert

advisers.

Given the number of agencies involved in the response, including the State Department, CIA, and Defense Department, it's hard to understand why the NSC's interagency terrorism response group wouldn't be convened.

As Attkisson noted, because the CSG wasn't assembled:

There's evidence that some high-level decision-makers were

unaware of all available resources. In October, on a phone

call that included then-Deputy National Security Adviser

Dennis McDonough, now White House Chief of Staff, NSC

spokesman Tommy Vietor initially told CBS News: ``I don't

know what FEST is. It sounds antiquated.''

Who are the anonymous senior administration officials who admitted these mistakes to CBS? Why haven't they testified to Congress about these mistakes? Why wasn't the FEST team deployed immediately?

Last week, General Ham admitted that he believed Ambassador Stevens may have been taken hostage by terrorists. Given the FEST's team terrorism and hostage negotiation expertise, who made the decision not to deploy them? Why didn't the White House convene the CSG that night to coordinate the interagency response to the attack? And if that group wasn't responsible for coordination, who was?

Which agency was leading the response that night? Was the State Department directing the Pentagon not to deploy its planes or response teams, while also not sending the FEST team?

Mr. Speaker, I conclude with an important quote in the CBS article from NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor:

From the moment President Obama was briefed on the Benghazi

attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior

national security officials in government.

The mistakes these anonymous senior officials admit to mattered. Lives were on the line, and ultimately, lives were lost. The Congress must compel these ``most senior national security officials'' responsible for the response team that night to testify publicly.

We need a bipartisan select committee. If we do not do it, the Congress and the House will have failed.