Providing for Consideration of H. Res. 567, Establishing Select Committee on Benghazi

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

That should be the goal of the legislation. Under this rule, we are not even allowed to discuss our proposals to ensure equal representation on this committee. We are not allowed to discuss our proposal to pay for the proceedings under this bill with a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with more than two-thirds.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source