colleagues that we make this stick on the manager's amendment bill itself that mr. sensenbrenner himself wrote. chair thanks the gentleman. the amendments to section 70 two made by the substitute reflect the bipartisan agreement carefully negotiated by myself, the sponsor of the act, mr. sensenbrenner, mr. scott and mr. forbes. this authority, designed to allow the government to target persons reasonably believed to be outside the united states, cannot be used to reverse target a u.s. person. in addition, the amendment reiterates congress's intent to

section 702 does not apply to holy domestic communications. wholly domestic communications. such information cannot be used. there have been careful come a detailed negotiations between members on both sides of the aisle, on the committee, to craft the substitute amendment. i opposed the amendment. occurs, on the amendment offered by the general moment of california. all those in favor, respond by . the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i have an amendment at the desk. report thek will

amendment. >> amendment to the amendment. page 17 after section 109, insert the following. >> what makes the committee in congress strong as when it gets to participate, gets to look for a little nuance that makes the bill better. inembering my freshman term 2005 in 2600 took up the renewal of the patriot act, we had a lot of discussions behind-the-scenes with administration officials,

justice department intelligence, people from the white house -- we talked to a lot of people. the question that i asked back at the time, though we were told repeatedly that this only pertains to getting information about someone or from someone who is either a foreign agent engaged in foreign intelligence a foreigntact with agent or a foreign government. in fact, we were so assured of that, that i made the statement in debate that if any of my democratic friends want to avoid their telephone data being gathered, all they have to do is make sure that any foreign terrorist does not call them on that phone. seemed to pretty much summarize what we were told.

you had to have that contact. i kept asking the question this allows him to get the production of tangible things for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a united states person. that gave us a lot of comfort. that is only for someone who is not a united states person. a second one, or to protect against international terrorism. i thought that's good. that supports just with the bush administration people were saying. you have to have a relationship with a foreign country, foreign terrorist -- but then there was this other clause after the orjunctive or, and that was

clandestine intelligence activities. i asked a question more than once in a private meetings. you said this only had to do with foreign contacts, foreign intelligence agencies. i was assured, international, foreign, and it is throughout the document. everyone knows this has to do with foreign contact. i was still troubled, was assured not to worry. well, i worry now because they have obtained data on american citizens who did not have contact with foreign terrorists or foreign governments, and they still got the data. we know from our history that robert kennedy, j gruver, authorize all kinds of ,urveillance -- j edgar hoover authorized all kinds of surveillance. need another time

where somebody under a vague term like clandestine intelligence at remedies, heaven help you if you look over a fence into government secured area, you just engage in clandestine intelligence activity. , youis so broad, so vague could drive a truck through this . for anyone wanting information on american citizens. 1840is also true in 18 usc two, where it says, to obtain foreign intelligence information . that makes me feel better. not concerning a united states person. or to protect against international terrorism. international, good. or, clandestine intelligence activities. -- my amendment makes clear what we were promised in 2005 in 2006.

is has to do with foreign intelligence, foreign terrorism. we have plenty of law enforcement to go after domestic terrorists, domestic criminals. we have all kinds of criminal laws to address that very that is why i would like to get rid of the vagaries your by making it specifically pertain to foreign entities. with that i yield back. support the gentleman's amendment. i believe it makes it clear. it reminded me as your speaking, we haven we had -- tried as a committee to get information from our intelligence agencies. the chairman had another thing he had to attend to. you are chairing the last classified briefing. obviously, you can't discuss what was said. i do recall we had specific questions. those questions were not answered. >> they were not very >> i would ask for an additional 30 seconds.

in fact, they promised to get back to us. i'm still waiting for the answer to the question was posed last year while you were chairing the classified briefing. i do think we have to be very precise here, because we are not provided information, whether it is in public or in the classified briefings. i thank the gentleman for his time. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this goes beyond the scope of the underlying bill and the subsequent amendment. to change a long-standing authority, for the government together toward that together intelligence for those people engage in clandestine intelligence activities. this is not to reform the underlying law. the word clandestine is one that is commonly and routinely used

and understood to mean spying. this term is used throughout fisa and is limited in each a the statutes by limiting clandestine intelligence of united states person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the constitution of the united states. sa was an act that authorized united states to protect itself against those who choose to engage inspiring our estimate -- -- or espionage against it. it gives power to those within the united states to meet the national security goal. thes around here during cleanup of the mess at the --intel pro fiasco occurred the co-intel pro fiasco occurred.

for those reasons, i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. i think chairman sensenbrenner and the bipartisan bipartisan manner which is has been brought to the committee. i, too, have been concerned about the lack of specificity in the legislation. i support the gentleman's amendment. i think we are here today because the government has interpreted this act in the most favorable way to seize any information they want. that is why we are here. must assume that is the way they will interpret all legislation, this amendment -- toit more specific

deal with foreign governments and foreign nationals. otherwise, to me, its too vague. the gentleman used the phrase of peeping over the fence. clandestine intelligence activities reminds me of the old soviet law that thou shalt not engage in anti-soviet activities. that means different things to different folks. it did under the soviet regime and i think this can also be interpreted to mean different things to different folks in our government heard make it specific, make it apply to foreign governments, foreign nationals. protect integrity of american citizens, and i would support the gentleman's amendment on getting rid of the vagueness, be specific, because the government operates under the presumption that they will interpret the law in whatever way to seize intelligence. that concerns me. >> a question on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from texas. >> i vote for a recorded vote. >> mr. smith of texas. shabot. mr. bacchus. mr. issa. mr. forbes. king.

mr. frank. t. mr. jordan. mr. poe. mr. marino. mr.chaffetz. mr. gaudi. mr. ferran fe farenthal. mr. collins.

mr. conyers. mr. nadler. mr. scott. ms. lofgren. ms. jackson lee. mr. cohen. mr. johnson. chu. mr. deutsch. mr. george foot snow. mr. gutierrez.

richmond. benne. been mr. garcia. jeffries ssolini ly votes aye. >> the gentleman from idaho? >> other members who have not voted who wish to vote?

aye. garcia votesay votes aye. leave votese ye.tes a of missouri

mr. chairman -- >> has every member voted who wishes to vote? votes aye. e mr. nadler votes no. mr. chairman, 14 members voted i aye, 11 members voted no.

>> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3361, authored by ms. lofgren of california. after the last section entitled three, add the following section. section 30 x, limiting the collection of u.s. persons communications to those that include the target of an authorized investigation. 50 usc 1881 av -- >> i ask -- >>ous consent that the recognized. >> mr. chairman, i believe that this amendment fixes a loophole saat was created by the fi court and its two thousand 11 decision is now in the public arena. the amendment clarifies that the government can only use

selectors to collect information to or from the target of an authorized investigation. aser the current law, blessed by the pfizer court, nsa is using 702 authority to collect communications that are to, from, or even about the board intelligence target, so long as these communications are believed not to be holy between u.s. persons. act did not freedom address his loophole. this is a court constructed doctrine, but it allows false positives and intentional use of vague about criteria which could be used to lead to massive collection of u.s. persons communication. this amendment would prevent

, by adverse outcome limiting the selectors to target and collect communications, only when one of the artist to the communication is the target of an authorized investigation. i know that all of us have worked in good faith on this bill. again, i want to give great credit to the chair and ranking of the subcommittees of jurisdiction, especially, as i've said earlier, to mr. sensenbrenner for his leadership. i do think that we don't want to end up in the same situation a few years from now, as we are today, finding out that we have failed to define terms and have allowed for the kind of unwarranted bulk collection that we are seeking to end today. i think my amendment if adopted would prevent that from occurring. with that, i would yield back. >> the chairman recognizes

himself for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. it ineve that the changes the minimization statute in was not in thech original bill, already deals with this issue. i don't think the amendment is necessary. i think it is harmful it -- to the bill as a whole. by -- i702 is amended think well against that. i think that should be sufficient to prevent this from happening. from thehe amendment gentlewoman of california, it limits the collection of u.s. persons communication to only those that include the target of the authorized investigation. ok, say there is a section 215 order. it is aimed at a target. on the to hops, and

second hop, there is a u.s. person who is not at the time of the second hop a target of an authorized investigation. for this amendment does is limits adding that person to a target of unauthorized investigation. going to hops from that, a lot of these conspiracies are more than to hops. but i don't think that if there is a reasonable suspicion that if it goes for more than to hops , we ought to preclude finding out who those people were talking to and the furtherance of the plot. here see reasons rejection of the amendment. i think the codification of the minimization procedures in section 02 deals with that subject. a yield back the balance of my time.

the amendment in an age of a substitute. those in favor will say aye. those opposed no. it appears the nose have it. >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number six. the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 336 one, offered by ms. lofgren of california. >> a john moment is the -- is recognized for five minutes. >> this deals with the problem of something we have recognized for many years. law, therent definition of foreign intelligence information is simply too broad.

it has an expansive definition that includes foreign affairs, buying andrious terrorism, and things that would do us harm. this is a similar issue to that raised by our colleague from texas. i think the use of foreign affairs invites abusive affairss, using foreign is an excuse to collect medications of u.s. persons. it furthermore encourages the to spy on authority friendly nations rather than focusing on foreign powers or agents that mean to do us harm. the original, unamended usa freedom act failed to address this loophole. this amendment would fix the definition of foreign intelligence information by removing foreign affairs from

the definition of foreign intelligence information to prevent such misuse and make sure that intelligence gathered is only for counterterrorism, for liberation of weapons of mass destruction with consent, or to protect the armed forces. is a necessary and useful amendment. i would urge its adoption. >> the chair recognizes himself opposition. both amendment would do is to fundamentally change all of f isa, not just that part that counterterrorism activities. this can have consequences for foreign intelligence surveillance across all spectrums. i think we would have a problem in dealing with excesses by the nsa relative to counterterrorism

activity, as particularly those are authorized by the patriot act i certainly would not want to hamper the ability of the government, i am not just talking about the nsa, but everybody in the government, to deal with non-terrorist spying that occurs, and to be able to survey those who are engaged in non-terrorists buying, whether it is for a foreign government, or elsewhere, but also to allow the course to define what is necessary to the national defense and security of the united states. i think you'd get a different definition from every judge that went before. who would be back here trying to figure out how to sort that out in a few years. for those reasons i would urge the rejection of the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. is, on agreeing

to the amendment of the gentleman from california, ms. lofgren, those in favor will say those opposed say no. the nose appear to have it. for what purposes the gentlewoman from california seek recognition. >> i have amendment at the desk, amendment number eight. this is the last one i will offer. >> is to chairman, i believe that this amendment fixes, at least i hope, an error that was created in the amendment that i can't believe was intended. we have specified that the content is not included

in business records. thatamendment clarifies business records to not include the content of communication. we specified that in a new section about call detail records, but the specification that content was not included somehow got dropped out of the business records section that was included in your original bill, but it did not make it into the manager's amendment. i think this amendment clarifies the ambiguity that could be i hope it was not intentional. i do hope that we can adopt what i think is more of a clerical and i would yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentlewoman. we have a series of votes in the house floor, pursuant to the earlier order of the committee. the chair will recess the committee until immediately after the votes on the house floor.

members should return to this markup posthaste without delay, and without carrying, either on the floor or elsewhere. without objection, the committee is recessed. recessed,e committee the memo and offered by the gentlewoman from california was under consideration. >> is my understanding, if i that since this is primarily a clerical error, that it could be fixed at a later time, and therefore if there is a commitment to try and work through the clerical error, i would like to withdraw. >> this is a new development for me.

if indeed it is, i'm happy to work with the gentlewoman to a, find out that is the case and the, to fix it. >> understand, i would want to , but themmitment issue, if i may, relates under the call section. it made clear that content was not included. that was part of mr. sensenbrenner's underlying bill, not specifying the content is not included for other business records might lead to ambiguity that in fact content was included in other business records. i can't believe that is the intent. on the other hand, i understand there was substantial negotiations between committees that are important. if we could work through this, i would withdraw the amendment. >> without objection, the gentlewoman subjection is withdrawn. i will work with you to determine the nature of that.

i know move that the committee reconsider the vote taken on the omert amendment. the motion to reconsider is adopted. amendment is pending. in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. the amendment is not agreed to. are there any further amendments thehe amendment? if not, question is on the sensenbrenner amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 3361. those in favor would respond by

. in the opinion of ayes have it.a those in favor respond by saying ye. >> mr. goodlatte. aye. sensenbrenner votes mr. smith of texas. chabot. bachus votes aye.

mr. issa. mr. forbes. researching. mr. franks. gomert. mr. jordan. e . po e. marino votes ay gowdy votes aye. aye. lding votes . . collins votes aye

.r. smith of missouri votes aye mr. conyers votes aye. mr. nadler votes aye. ms. lofgren votes aye. ohen. oe votes aye. otes aye. rez v richmond. ms. bass. e. lben

jeffrey. ies. ciciline votes aye. is the gentleman

from new york recorded? >> his vote is aye. [laughter] >> has every member voted who wishes to vote?

the clerk will report. the gentleman from new york. jeffries votes aye. >> mr. chairman, 30 members and zero members voted no. >> the gentlewoman from texas. jackson-lee votes aye. >> a gentleman from tennessee.

hen votes aye. >> your and other trouble we went through for you. [laughter] the ayes have it. the order is reported -- is recorded favorably to the house. without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment as a substitute. staff is authorized to make technical changes. >> may ask unanimous consent that the vote record the reopened so this member can add his vote? >> without objection, the vote record will open for the purpose of recognizing the gentleman from florida. >> mr. garcia votes yes. >> the clerk will report for the third time.

>> the ayes have it. everything i said earlier still stands. >[indiscernible]

>> today, a subcommittee looks at the federal role in tracking the 23,000 plus man-made objects orbiting around the earth. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. >> on the final day of his west coast trip, president obama will give a speech on energy efficiency. he will be at the walmart in mountain view california. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private

industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> last week, veterans affairs secretary eric should seki put the phoenix v.a.'s director and others on leave while allegations of employees destroying information about patient backlogs is investigated. house veterans affairs committee chair jeff miller called an emergency meeting thursday to formally issue the v8 department a subpoena over those e-mails and other correspondence. this is 10 minutes. [indiscernible]

>> good morning, everybody. i would like to take care of one item of business is morning by hearing a motion for the issuance of a subpoena to the department of veterans affairs to produce e-mails and other written correspondence related to investigation of the phoenix fee a medical center -- va medical center. it is unfortunate that we had to come to this decision, but we did so with a substantial amount of justification. stonewalling precipitated the need for the subpoena. our staff was briefed and informed on the existence of an waitlist, and how that list was subsequently destroyed. we made follow-up phone calls to .he aoc l.a. beginning on 28

on april 30, and spoke directly to assistant secretary john mahoney. still, we got no response. look, this failure to provide information led to my first letter, stating that the committee would pursue a sub tina if we were not provided with the information that this committee had requested. yesterday, may 7, i received a response from va that does not fully answer the very simple questions that i asked. therefore, the time for requests for this matter is over. today we will vote to issue a is a historic vote. vote area westoric worked with the va and we did

not deliver that subpoena, but we got the information we were asking for. i trust the v.a. will have the good sense to not further ignore the request that this committee has made. the subpoena will cover e-mails and written correspondence since the ninth of april of 2014 at 8:45 a.m.. , secretary eric should seki, dr. thomas lance, assistant secretary, mr. will gone, general counsel or any other representative of the office of general counsel. ms. joan mooney. dr. ron mauer, director of the congressional liaison service, and congressional relations officer, or mr. michael huff. the scope of this is subpoena

will encompass all e-mails and other written correspondence where these parties discussed the destruction of an alternate waitlist, regardless of what name it was given, and which form in which it was cap. pursuant to rule 11, clause two b of the house of representatives and rule three of clause g of this committee, we have a motion before us that is at the desk. i will ask that the clerk will read the motion. ranking member michelle moved to the committee authorized issuance of a subpoena. this address in whole or in part

the destruction and disappearance of an alternate or interim waitlist with regards to the carl t hayden veterans affairs medical center located in phoenix arizona, in which secretary should seki, robert , mr.l and thomas lynch will gone, general counsel, or any other representative of the , dr.e of general counsel ron mauer, can -- chairman of the congressional house leader. reference too a said e-mail or other written correspondence. >> members, you have for the motion. do i hear a second? >> motion has been moved and properly seconded. i will open the floor for the ranking member to make a statement. i would ask whether any other members would have a statement,

be very brief, because everybody has a very tight schedule this morning. i understood -- the ranking member is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think we can all agree that safe, accessible health care has always been a priority of this committee. i believe it is not changed today. over the past years, we have asked the v.a. for information that has not been forthcoming. frustrations remain high among committee members. the chairman sent a letter on may 1 2014 requesting the answer to two questions. the response we received yesterday from the v.a. was insufficient in my view. the subpoena we will authorize , and is limited in scope it narrowly is constructed in order not to interfere, or impedes the ongoing ig

investigation. at the end of the day, we're all waiting for the results of the investigation to be provided to us so that we can be in a position to take action, we need to fix a problem, not only in phoenix, but across the v.a. system. i was pleased to hear that veterans health administration will complete a nationwide access review to ensure that employees have a full understanding of v.a. policy, and that they will conduct a national face-to-face audit at all of the clinics in every v.a. medical center. i understand that ms. kurt hatcher, the ranking member of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation recently sent a letter calling for v.a. to undertake a similar action in light of the numerous problems of the system. i want to thank you very much, ms. kirkpatrick parried with that, i yield back the balance of my time. michaud for, mr.

your cooperation. like to ask if anyone else has a statement to make. the motion carries. i am now going to sign a subpoena for the production of e-mails and written and herebynce, directed to issuance forth with. this concludes our business meeting for today. this meeting is adjourned. >> the chairman of the senate veterans affairs committee bernie sanders and eric should

inseki are on capitol hill next thursday discussing the state of veterans health care. coming up on c-span today, house debate on creating a committee to investigate the 2012 benghazi attacks. at 7:00 a.m. eastern, washington journal examines federal highway funding and emergency unemployment insurance. at 9:00, the debate on the research and development tax credit bills, and it charter school bill. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go, with our c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three tv channels or c-span radio anytime. there's a schedule for each of our networks so you can tune in whenever you want, play podcasts of recent shows from our signature programs, like communicators,

and q&a. take c-span with you wherever you go. forload your free up online your iphone, android or blackberry. agreed to create a committee to investigate the terrorist attacks in benghazi. whatng the stage for political calls a contentious summer full of hearings about whether the white house bungles the response to the strike. 230 two-hundred 80 six, was split along party lines. dowdyjohn boehner tapped to head the committee. here is some of the debate before the vote.

>> mr. speaker, i believe all house and the american people deserve to know how i came to the decision that brings us here today. on september 11, 2012, a terrorist attack on a consulate in libya last four of our countrymen dead. including our ambassador. since that time, for committees of the house have been investigating these events. those committees have done exemplary work. chairman isaiah, chairman mikita , chairman rogers and chairman royce, and all the members of their respective committees deserve our gratitude. , the line was crossed in two places. first, it came to life at the white house did more to obscure what happened and why than what we were led to believe. second, we now know that the

administration defied a formal congressional subpoena. our committee saw that the full truth. the administration tried to make sure that they wouldn't find it. a try to prevent the american people from finding the truth as well. in my view, these discoveries compel the house to respond as one institution and establish one select committee. they committee with robust authority, a committee that will do its work while the house continues to focus on the people's priorities. i have asked mr. gowdy of south carolina to chair this panel. he is a well-respected member of this body, and he has my complete confidence. i will convey to you what i conveyed to him. this doesn't need to be, be adn't be, and will not

partisan process. four americans died at the hands of terrorists and he will coordinate assault. we will not take any shortcuts to the truth, accountability or justice. we will not allow any sideshows that distract us from those goals. our system of government depends on transparency and accountability. or we we do this well face the terrifying prospect of our people having less knowledge and less power over their own government. we owe it to future generations .o make the right choice i asked all the members of this party to reflect on this matter and ask you to support this resolution. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> a gentleman reserves.

>> the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you, mr. speaker. . yield i think all americans agree and we are certainly in agreement that the attack on benghazi was a tragedy. here we are, once again, 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 two years of hearings over for committees, 13 congressional hearings, 50 briefings, five reports, 25,000 pages of documentation and a waste of millions of dollars, god knows where, that is just the house. the senate has held hearings, the state department is done reports, and now, after all that, we want the truth.

i mean, 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 health care, that we just couldn't keep doing it until you reach whatever it is you want. we know what it is you want with a special committee. we understand that thoroughly. thater today, i wanted, one of my friends and give assent of the aisle, and i deeply regret this, cited a report that said to democrats and dash offoff of of benghazi. i was the one making the charge about the fundraising. it is actually false of democrats doing that. the chairman of the democratic

national campaign committee hised a statement on website condemning the republican committee for attempting to capitalize and fund raise up the tragedy in benghazi. so let's stick to the facts here. you're going to continue, as i understand it, so reporters have asked for leadership. two they intend to stop fundraising off of these people's deaths. the answer is no, they don't. what we are doing here again in an awful waste of time, is looking for another answer to something that unless he gets some answer that you want, i guess we will go on even yet another year or so. to bene more committee eighted in favor of the majority will do absolutely nothing to favor your resolve. that reportstion

on the tragic attacks in benghazi have been nothing but partisan and political. my membership on the committee has been equally divided between the money -- the minority and majority. certainly have ensured that the witnesses who come before the committee, unlike the other witnesses that the government oversight committee has had, who were totally knowledgeable to even speak on the subject, one of them, i gather was given all the details of what happened that night. he happened to be in germany at the time. we could've have added some decorum to this process, but it is clear that this majority will not allow that. so, we have seen all the reports, we know 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.

. am appalled by this posturing to use the tragedy of those four deaths for political and financial gain is shameful and contemptible. i reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader of the house of representatives, the gentleman, mr. cantor. >> a gentleman from virginia. speaker, i rise today in strong support of this resolution. to proceed with the select committee to find out what to american consulate in benghazi, libya. it has been almost two years since a terror attack claimed the lives of four brave americans in benghazi.

ambassador j christopher stevens, u.s. foreign service information management officer , former navy seal glenn doherty, and former navy seal and bronze star recipient tyrone woods. and over the past two years, our the house have aggressively investigated what happened that night in benghazi, and the obama administration's preparedness and response to those terror attacks. unfortunately, the white house is engaged in a pattern of obstruction consistently ignoring subpoenas, redacting relevant information and stonewalling investigators. this obstruction gives cause to

the grave concerns expressed by countless americans across the country. mr. speaker, what's worse, as the white house refuses to turn over documents, they go in front of the american people and claim to be transparent. those in the administration claim to be cooperating. they claim to be focused on bringing the perpetrators of this attack to justice. attacks in the benghazi for the first time an american ambassador was killed in the line of duty since the 1970's. and to this day, not a single perpetrator of the attacks has been arrested or brought to justice. we should be using every tool necessary to find those responsible and bring them to

justice. after ignoring for nearly a year a lawful congressional subpoena, the white house, under court der, finally released emails showing that administration officials deliberately and did he accepttively misled americans claiming that the attack in benghazi was the result of an offensive internet video rather than a failed policy that allowed islamic terrorists to flourish in post-gaddafi libya. this object fuse occasion and refusal to come clean to congress have left us and the people of this country wondering what else is the white house hiding. my colleagues on the other side

of the aisle want americans to believe that this investigation is motivated by politics. no. this investigation would not be necessary had the obama administration come clean. this investigation would not be necessary had the obama administration complied with congressional subpoenas. this investigation would not be necessary had the obama administration not misled the congress, the american people and the media about what happened in benghazi. the american people deserve the truth. and most importantly, the families of those four brave men deserve the truth. this committee will build upon the excellent oversight work conducted to this date and ask questions and demand answers.

constitutional check and balances were intended to ensure that each branch of government conduct itself with the utmost integrity and do so within the law. that is our duty. and we will solemnly and jishously carry this out. today we have the opportunity to stand together and take another step closer to accomplishing that goal, to finding the truth and i urge my colleagues in the house to support this resolution. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. sessions: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida will control the time. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from maryland, my good friend and member of the oversight and government reform committee as its ranking member, five minutes

to mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. cummings: i rise in strong opposition to this resolution. benghazi was a tragedy. we lost four brave americans that night. and i extend my deepest sympathies to their families. in my opinion, we honor their memories best by bringing the killers to justice and by working in a bipartisan way to strengthen security for all u.s. personnel overseas. as family members of ambassador stevens has stated, and i quote, what chris never would have accepted was the idea that his death would have been used for political purposes, end of quote. unfortunately, that is what house republicans have been doing for the last year and a

half. n april 23, 2013, republican five n of dive -- different house committees issued a staff report with no consultation or input from a single democratic member of the united states house of representatives. their report included a reckless accusation that secretary clinton authorized security reductions in benghazi. chairman issa then went on national television and said secretary clinton, and i quote, outright denied security in her signature in a cable, end of quote. when we located the cable, however, we discovered that the republican report distorted the facts. the cable had only a printed stamp of secretary clinton's name, the same stamp that appears on hundreds of thousands

of cables sent from the state department every year. this report was issued under the direction of the speaker. it was posted on his web site. and it was prepared only for members of the house republican conference. how is this a bipartisan search for the truth? house republicans have also excluded democratic members from fact-finding delegations to libya in violation of the rules issued by the speaker. democratic members have been denied access to witnesses and republicans have cherry picked transcripts of excerpts without any official consideration. somehow that bipartisan? republicans have also been doing something worse. they have been using the deaths

of these four americans for political campaign fundraising. i call on the speaker of the house to end that process right now. for example, on february 17, chairman issa traveled to new ampshire to attend a political fundraiser where he spoke about benghazi he suggested during his speech that our military's response on the night of the attacks was deficient because secretary clinton ordered defense secretary panetta to, quote, stand down, end of quote. that was a shocking accusation and he had absolutely no evidence, none, support it. in my opinion, his statements were reprehensible, not only to the secretary of state but to our brave men and women in uniform. and so today, we are here to consider a resolution to create

another partisan committee to investigate what the speaker and his five chairmen have already been investigating. with all due respect, if the republicans want to fix the problems with their partisan investigation, they need more than just a new chairman. i have tremendous respect for mr. gowdy and i'm glad he said that the fundraising should not be done on the deaths of these four people and i hope that the republican conference will finally agree with that. we are better than that. one that is truly bipartisan and one that seeks the facts before drawing conclusions, rather than the other way around. and so, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: today is a historic day. 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, lib yarks the united states house of representatives is left with no option except to select -- 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 taos this point to explain how the newly formed select committee will operate on their behalf. immediately following the attacks on benghazi on september 11, 2012, that took the lives of four brave americans, including then-u.s. ambassador to libya jay christopher stevens, four

house committees began investigations into the events prior to the attack, those that occurred during the attack, and the administration's response afterwards. i want to thank our house chairman 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 and the foreign affairs committee. and chairman mike rogers and the intelligence committee for their excellent work that has advanced this issue and brought up new facts without their dill -- 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 in an open and i believe transparent way addressing the issue equally themselves, they have placed us where we are today. it comes as a result of their -- of -- of their being an unwilling partner. it comes as a result of many, turns, the administration has put up roadblocks to the congressional incarery -- inquiry. whether it's not meeting with congress, delaying the delivery of important document, heavily redacting critical information and retroactively classifying previously unclassified files, this administration earned exactly the title that has been placed on them 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's not just mismanagement at the top but bad decision this is a they should and will be embarrassed to have uncovered by the select .ommittee the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's reserves. the gentleman from florida has 20 minutes remain, the gentleman

from texas has 24 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i yield myself one minute before yielding to the gentleman from missouri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: last night in the rules committee, ms. slaughter offered an amendment supported by the democrats on the committee. it would have allowed that membership on the committee be equally divided between republicans and democrats. it would guarantee minority signoffs on subpoenas and depositions. it would guarantee equal disposition of money, staffing and other resources of the committee. it would require the committee to establish written rules, specifically including rules about how documents and other information may be obtained, used , or released and i'll offer a caveat there about the intelligence you're about to get into with this committee. guarantees equal access, provides for transpatientcy of the committee's expenditures and budgeting and it would ensure

quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence includes at least one minority member and finally it would ensure that the minority has a say in decisions about extended questioning and staff questioning of witnesses. that would produce a bipartisan result that would be credible. i'm very pleased at this time to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from missouri, my good friend a member of the committee on oversight and government reform, mr. clay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. clay: i thank my friend from florida for yielding and i rise today to oppose this misguided, highly partisan, select committee that seeks to exploit the tragedy of the attack on our consulate in benghazi for purely political purposes. here have already been eight reviews of that terrible

incident. there were legitimate oversight questions about benghazi. and we explored them in exhaustive detail. more than 25,000 documents have been produced and dozens of witnesses have been interviewed. millions of tax dollars have already been spent responding to repetitive and partisan congressional requests. the majority has alleged multiple conspiracy theories, each of which has been dispeled by the facts. -- dispeled by the facts. ambassador chris stephens, tyrone woods and glen dougherty are american hero who gave their lives in brave service to our nation but instead of honoring their memory, even before it convene this is sham select committee, it's already being used for blatantly political

purposes. evidence of that comes directly from the congressional republican campaign committee which created an online fundraising solicitation esterday and it reads in part, you're now a benghazi watchdog. let's go after obama and hillary clinton, help us fight them now. so this is not about discovering new facts about benghazi. this is about creating a partisan vehicle to exploit this tragedy to raise money. and to prvide the majority's ex-- and to provide the majority's echo chamber on cable tv and talk radio with read red meat. i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, on september 11, 2012, terrorists stormed the american consulate in benghazi. four americans were murdered. 19 months later, the killers are still running loose. one killer was even interviewed on cnn but this country cannot capture him and his fellow outlaws? why? what's been the problem? today there are more questions than answers. americans are still not really sure what happened that night and the days following the attack. several house committees launched investigations were -- but were stonewalled. subpoenas were issued but ignored. last week a white house email was disclosed that indicated there may have been coordination to purposely deceive congress about what really happened.

did the administration deceive america? if so, why? let's find out. we have no choice but to establish this select committee, ensure that the full story is told even if the evidence reveals an inconvenient truth. shine light on what happened when americans overseas were murdered in the darkness of the night. and those that oppose this bill, i ask the question, mr. speaker, why don't they want to know all the facts? let's find the truth. the good, the bad, and the ugly truth. justice demands it and justice is what we do in this country. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady from new york will control the remaining time for the minority. the gentlelady is recognize. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, a member of the committee for government and oversight reform, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: 30 years ago, america

suffered an incredible tragedy. 241 marines in beirut lost their lives when terrorists bombed the barracks in which they were living. at that time we had a president whose name was ronald reagan, we had a speaker of the house named tip o'neill. different parties. that was an enormous tragedy. an investigation needed to be done and it was dobe of. it was done on a bipartisan basis. one investigation was done. and there was a presumption that no matter how tragic this was and no matter how important it was to hold people accountable and that was done, that everybody involved had the best intentions for america's future strength. and there seems to be a premise, at least to me, that this president of the united states has any less commitment to protecting the lives and safe i have to the american people than any other president. i'll tell you, i was an opponent of the war in iraq.

and i was critical of the policy and the decisions of our then-president george bush. but never once did i question that his motivations were anything less than what he thought was best for america. e're going off the rails here. this is a tragedy, but there's a real question, at least on the part of many us and i think many americans as to whether we're doing this right. how is it that there's such glee that the decision is made to go forward after seven other committees, 25,000 documents, more work could be done but how sit that there was such glee on one side where they turned it into a fundraising opportunity? who would do that? and mr. gowdy won't do it, he's a good man, but you know what if we're going to proceed it's got to be on the level. we've got a 7-5 committee that's being organized, it's not evenhanded. you can't have these tough

decisions that not only have to be made right, they have to be made so that there's credibility with the american people that they're on the level and not political where you don't have a bipartisan approach. you don't have everybody weighing in on subpoenas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. there are lots of questions, the first is why didn't the military come help these men when they were in need over this fire fight for several hours. we'll just start there. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton, a member of the foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two nutes. mr. cotton: couple lessons i learned is you moved at the sound of gunfire and supervise the execution of the orders. when americans were fighting for their lives in benghazi, barack obama did neither. he sent no quick reaction force

and didn't stay in the situation room to see the execution of his orders. we expect more from the lieutenants in the army than our president gave us that night. for two years he has stonewalled. not anymore. we will now get to the truth. what did our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say? hey express great outrage at politicizing this manner. men and women that were being shot up by al qaeda, where was the outrage as they fundraised. where was the outraged as they viciously attacked our commanders and outrage when they said soldiers were war criminals and where is the outrage when they said only high school dropouts join the army. forgive me if i don't join my democratic colleagues in their fake outrage. ur america cons lost their

lives. they deserve justice and the american people deserve the truth. one lesson i learned in the army, we will not leave these four men behind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 20 seconds. i would be be outraged do any of the things he has accused of us doing and i don't believe a word of it. and i yield to mr. schiff 2 1/2 minutes. mr. schiff: i come to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote against the creation of this select committee because this is not a select committee to investigate what happened in benghazi, which has been done many times already. it is not a select committee to investigate what we can do to better protect our embassies and consulates and diplomatic corps. it is not even a select committee to hunt for those

responsible, which involves classified information and done in close sessions. no, this is a proposal to create a select committee on talking points. i have been involved with the investigation into benghazi from day one as a member of the intelligence committee, because like every other american, i wanted to know what happened, why it happened and keep it from happening again and i want to bring to justice those who perpetrated this horrible attack. after 18 months later and reports from house and senate committees and the questions that this select committee purports to investigate have been asked and answered time and time and time again. there is no question that this select committee on talking points will waste potentially millions of taxpayer dollars in a purely partisan exercise and serve as little more than a fundraising vehicle for republicans. the speaker of the house resisted the call from his base

for yet another wasteful committee. here's what he said a month ago. there are four committees that are investigating benghazi, i see no reason to break up the work that has been done and take months and months and months to create some select committee. i agree with the speaker's previous assessment. democrats made a proposal to structure the committee so that equal numbers of members of each party so it required cooperation on subpoenas and depositions and material collected by the committee. in each case, we were rejected. if this isn't a fair investigation and select committee, there is no reason for democrats to vote for it or participate in it. let's end the political circus and focus on efforts to prevent another benghazi and accelerating the hunt for the murderers of four americans including ambassador stevens. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i yield three minutes to the gentleman, member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. fortenberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. fortenberry: when pressed last week by a reporter about the tragic events on september 11, 2012 in benghazi, the former spokesperson said, dude this was like two years ago. this juvenile and unprofessional response has only added to the concern that we still do not have a full understanding of what occurred that night. what we do know is that our ambassador, chris stevens and three other americans are dead. several from the congressional committees have looked into this question and concluded different things and there are many lingering questions still unanswered. they reached different conclusions. but the lingering questions are made worse by the fact that we

now know that emails from the administration may have been withheld from congress. this is the reason that we need a select committee. to probe deeply and get clear answers with a singular goal in mind, to restore the public trust. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, ranking member of the oversight and government committee, subcommittee on government operations, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. we don't need a select committee because a particular chairman who is subpoena happy can't draft a subpoena to capture the emails in question. i rise in strong opposition to house resolution 567 which represents another unfortunate chapter in the majority's commitment to wasting taxpayer dollars after round after round

of benghazi political theater. there is a reason that state slogan is diplomacy in action, to effectively represent our nation, american personnel and families make sacrifices. ambassador stevens' family issued this. chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would strut around in fortified come pounds. he walked the streets with the lightest of escorts, chatting with people. there was a risk to being accessible. he knew it. and he accepted it. what he would never have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes. there were security shortcomings, no doubt, both internal and outside investigations have identified and publicly disclosed them. steps are being taken to repair them. chris would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. he knew and accepted that he was

working under dangerous circumstances and did so just as so many of our professionals do every day, because he believed the work was vitally important. that's the statement of chris stevens', deceased murdered ambassador to libya -- his family. i deeply understand the demands we place on our foreign service and i know the stakes are high. as a member of the senate foreign relations committee staff from 1979 to 1989 i advicebly recall shortly after i returned home from a visit to the u.s. bar racks in beirut a truck bomb was detonated killing 241 u.s. members of the marine corps. our embassy was blown up twice in beirut. the democrats didn't pile on. the democrats didn't call for a select committee to investigate ronald reagan and his administration for incompetence. we didn't darkly hint there was

a conspiracy by the reagan administration to hide the facts to deny terrorism had occurred. we were patriots and came together and mourned our losses and worked with a republican president to make it better. that's the spirit in which we should approach this issue. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill is absolutely necessary when we look at the facts as we know them currently and we look at the information that we are uncertain about. number one, we have lost four people in an attack that we now know is a terrorist attack. now know that some things could have been done, but for some reason, to save these people, but they weren't done.

now beirut has been raised a couple of times showing the ooperation between speaker tip o'neill and ronald reagan when we lost those soldiers. i remember it vividly. the difference is how the leadership between then and now reacted. so the leadership at the white house responded to this attack by developing a false narrative, probably we don't know why they came up with this fake story ad gone imprompt tue bad. we talked about in beirut, as my friends from the other side of the aisle had mentioned about all of the documents that were

received in the beirut investigation. well, that's because they were cooperative. the documents we received, despite from the gentleman from virginia just said that they were subpoenaed incorrectly. the documents we received were heavily redacted and purposely not providing that information. it was redacted. now, why was that redacted? why was it we had to find out some of the truth about the cover-up that occurred on that narrative about a protest gone bad by an outside group that provided the unredacted. so now what we have before us is an email that was redacted from the white house and another one that was obtained through an outside source, provided us the same but unredacted that says now that the white house was

telling us something different. when you have a white house that has gone out of their way to over up the truth, it is incumbent on both sides of the aisle to fight for the truth, so that the four people that lost their lives, one of which an ambassador for god's sake, they are the ones that deserve justice by this select committee. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: for rebuttal, i'm going to yield two minutes to the the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: it's amazing that he claims the white house is covering up when the white house gave an unredacted version to the judicial watch. i'm rebutting what i just heard. mr. terry: you are proving -- mr. connolly: mr. speaker. the gentleman says this is about

getting at the truth. really? because there have been so many falsehoods propounded on this subject by the other side of the aisle. there was a standdown order. there was no such thing. we could have mobilized the military to intervene and the military did what it could but not enough time frame to intervene in the tragedy unfolding in benghazi. the secretary of state knew and deliberately covered up. there were talking points that avoided the word terrorism even though the president of the united states did use terrorism. the islamic video had nothing to do with happened in benghazi. mr. terry: would the gentleman yield, because that's absolutely wrong, and you know it. mr. connolly: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. let me remind the other side,

the gentleman controls the time. he has been unwilling to yield. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker for returning us to regular order. these are falsehoods used to justify a needless taxpayer's dollars to beat to death for political purposes the tragedy that occurred in benghazi. and the invocation of the name of the deceased ambassador, chris stevens, even though his own family pleaded that he not be used as a political pawn in a political partisan game is something that is beneath contempt. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, the eason why judicial watch received the information they did in an unredacted basis is because there are criminal penalties associated with that act. those criminal penalties do not exist in the 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're taking advantage of the structure which has been established in the relationship of trying to have the three co-exist.f government . that's where the speaker said enough is enough. when we recognize that the documents we're getting which are heavily redacted did not could he inside or agree -- coincide or agree with because they 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 might security and we not ever know the difference. we're not stupid. 've been deliberate, we've been cautious, we've stayed after it, but redax after redax -- redaction after redaction and trying to lead us down a path is exactly where this administration has been and they deserve what they're getting. they are the ones that brought this to congress. we are simply properly carefully responding. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from the foreign affairs committee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr.

smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for bringing this important legislation forward. and also to congressman frank wolf which has been tenacious in insisting there is a select committee. there are serious gaps, we all know it and the people who lost their lives, who died unnecessarily, their loved ones and the american people deserve to know the truth about benghazi. you know, when secretary clinton came before the foreign affairs committee, i asked her point blank, you have said, madam secretary, that you take full responsibility, so i asked her, how do you define full responsibility? she defines it from the day of d all that preceded benghazi is precluded in that definition. despite the fact there was one cable after another suggesting there was serious gaps in security, all of that seemed to have not made its way to either her or her senior staff, that is a very, very much of a lack of attention to detail and that needs to be -- light needs to

be brought to that. i asked the two -- two of the people who headed up the a.r.b., the accountability review board, why they did not interview secretary clinton. they had no good answer. i asked them twice, no good answer. back in 1998 when we got hit in nairobi, i chaired the hearings of the accountability review board and we looked painstakingly at all the gaps that existed and i wrote the secure embassy construction of 1999. there was lessons learned. those lessons were not applied the way they should have been to benghazi. again, requests were made for help. we still don't know the truth. the new select committee will leave no stone unturned. it will get answered. again, those who died, their loved ones and the american people deserve to know the truth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, may i inquire if my colleague has nor requests for time? mr. sessions: in fact i do.

ms. slaughter: you do. then i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. if i could inquire back to the gentlewoman, are you through with your speakers? you expect to close? ms. slaughter: i am. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to one of the newest members of congress, the tampa bay, om florida, the gentleman, congressman jolly, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this resolution, a resolution necessitated today by a crisis and trust, a crisis in trust between this congress and this administration. this body has the article 1 constitutional authority to provide oversight over the administration, an authority that has been repeatedly ignored by this administration. and ignored with an audacity rarely seen in modern politics. today with this resolution, we confront that audacity. here are the facts, mr. speaker. we have a president that rules by pen and a phone. we have an attorney general that selectively enforces laws when he wishes to and which

states he wishes to. we have a veterans affairs administration who is withholding documents about the death of veterans. we have agencies that legislate by regulation and we have an i.r.s. that has targeted organizations and refuses to testify about it. so is it any surprise that last week additional information comes to light about benghazi? no, it is not. this administration has kept information from this congress, and they have refused to recognize the gravity of this obstructionism. they've done so in the context of a loss of american lives and a loss of life that is personal for a family in my district. that family deserves answers. so, yes, we have a crisis in trust between this congress and this administration, but this is not political theater. this has not been brought upon this house by this side of the aisle. this has been brought upon this house by the stone walling of the administration. it is a rightful execution and proper execution of the article 1 oversight authority of this congress. i urge my colleagues to support

this resolution. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the government and oversight committee, the gentleman from florida, chairman mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. mica: mr. speaker and my colleagues, i'm going to ask a couple questions. first of all, i have to give a disclaimer that i was one of the members on this side of the aisle that did not favor a select committee. i actually took my name off of the request from mr. wolf and i thought we could handle this manner in regular order. four committees proceeded to investigate the matter. i'm the senior member of the -- chief investigative panel of congress. i've been through many investigations. i've never in my life seen the stone walling -- stonewalling,

i've never seen the contempt for congress displayed by this administration and then last week to make a mockery of the entire system we saw from an outside party getting information that four committees of congress had never received and requested. i have never seen anything like this. why are we doing this? the other side has brought this. the administration has brought this upon themselves. let me ask a fundamental question. what difference does it make? what difference does it make? i want you to tell that to the state department employees who every day go to work, sometimes put their life at risk. four american officials were killed, murdered and no one's

been held accountable. no one's been brought to justice, and to have an official come before committee of congress and say, what difference does it make, ask that to the families of the state department, people who work for the american people. what difference does it make? ask the military. oh, there's no evidence of order to stand down, but we know our military had the ability to save those americans . we know that the state department had the ability to keep those americans safe, and no one acted. what difference does it make? what difference does it make to those four families? what difference does it make? we don't have to investigate anything. we don't have to hold anyone accountable. no one died in watergate. four american officials lost

their lives, and under our systems, individuals, whether it's the secretary of the state or the president of the united states or any official at any level needs to be and must be held accountable and responsible under our system. otherwise, we make a mockery of this whole business of a government of and for and by the people. mr. sessions: i give the gentleman one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. mica: what difference does it make? people were asleep at the switch. they need to be held accountable, again, regardless of rank. this is the united states of america. this is the congress. people sent us here. they are out there trying to make a living, provide for their families, pay their taxes . they sent us here to keep this government responsible,

accountable. what difference does it make? it makes a great deal of difference, not only to the men and women of the state department, our united states military, the families of those slain, but it makes a big difference to the people of the united states who sent us here to keep this a responsible government and accountable no matter who must be held responsible or accountable. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady from new york continue to reserve? ms. slaughter: i do as long as my colleague has speakers. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. we are now through with our speakers. i'll close so the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. slaughter: i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for the balance of the time which is 9 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: how much? the speaker pro tempore: 9 1/2 minutes. ms. slaughter: i think probably the best way for me to close is

another vote from a 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 last month, quote, i think i've pretty well been satisfied that given where the troops were how quickly the thing all happened and how we kly it dissipated, probably could not have done more than we did. at some point we think we'll have as much of the story we're 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, and i've heard it before. and the eloquence which they talked about him. remember, he had been there in

benghazi, basically been there for the day. and everybody said and all the things i read, he was the kind of man, he spoke the language, he wanted to be out with the people. he would not want to be behind the walls of compound. and he knew what he was doing and he made his choices. but the thing that rang so strongly with me was the one thing they said he would not have wanted was to become a political pawn. and that's exactly what we're 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, people who oved them most, grievous hardship to try to deal with all this again and it's being done for politics, it's being done to raise money. and so i want to close to

paraphrase 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized for the balance of his time, seven minutes. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and 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've intervened in this process because the administration and these

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. and this administration has gone out of their way. they've lawyered up to make sure that they could, i think, mislead congress to where they would make sure we really couldn't ever get involved in anything but a goo ball and then they would try to explain them self 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's a witch somewhere, and i don't have any clue what that answer is but what i will tell you is this, is we must get to

the bottom of this without it being a political witch-hunt. . . so yesterday i went through with the committee an understanding and i stated three important parts of what this resolution is about. the 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 and 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's 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 the 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 ames 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. but 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. and 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 to have been have been things that have been transparent and 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. but in accepting full responsibility, we have not learned enough about what those mistakes were if they're willing to accept the responsibility. this is not going to be wished away, mr. speaker.

our young chairman gowdy will not whitewash this investigation. our committee is not empowered just to go off and twitter away the time. there will be serious members of this body. i look forward to finding out -- former speaker pelosi and appoints to the committee i will be intensely interested to see who speaker boehner apoints and i think they will represent the very best from this body, that they will be young men and young men -- women who have been part of an understanding of 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. and 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. and i i will predict today that those people that former speaker pelosi brings to the people and we bring to the table will be prepared to do exactly that. with that, mr. sp >> the house foreign affairs committee takes up several policy bills today.

legislation includes combating sex trafficking with children and speaking about the abduction of nigerian girls by bocko haram. live coverage on c-span3. science-house subcommittee looks at the federal role in tracking the 23,000 plus man-made objects orbiting the earth. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> c-span's newest book "sundays at eight," a collection of interviews with some of the top storytellers will stop >> this country was built by people who immigrated to this country, some of them legally, some of them you legally. in my case i came in with no documentation and no ability to get a job or an education, so when i first came in to the united states in the late 1980's

and i crossed the border between mexico and the united states, ended up coming into the san joaquin valley to work as a migrant farm worker. it was no challenge to find a job. there were not thousands of people try to get the jobs of pulling weeds with the very same hands that are not doing brain surgery. i was pulling the weeds. >> dr. alfredo quinones-hinojosa unique voices from >> coming up on c-span this morning, "washington journal" is live with your calls and tweets.

at 8:20, presented present of charles dent of pennsylvania explains his growth act. host: this week in congress the xl pipeline was debated in the senate. a benghazi special committee was head ericd, andva shinseki was subpoenaed. this morning on "the washington journal" we want to get your views and what is happened in