Providing for Consideration of H. Res.567, Establishing Select Committee on Benghazi
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
There is an old saying that the closer to the target you get, the more flak comes up. While that is probably a naval or an Air Force term whereby pilots who are on their duty know when they are getting close to the real target. Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the real target.
The facts of the case are really pretty simple. There is no gag order involved here. We spoke last night and yesterday in a very open, probably several-hour meeting on original jurisdiction at the Rules Committee. I was very open with the members of the committee. I told them, which has not been expressed today, that the last day of the 113th Congress this investigation, if it is still going on, would have to be reauthorized by the next Congress. It is not like there is a never-ending date. As a matter of fact, we say in the original jurisdiction that 30 days after the completion of their report this select committee would go away.
Secondly, we spoke very openly about not having new money available, but rather the money that was originally given to the House of Representatives for the purposes of running the House. The Speaker of the House would have to make sure that this committee operates within what we had originally asked for. There are not unlimited amounts of money. And to suggest as has been done on the floor, up to $200 million to run this investigation, that simply would not be truthful.
Mr. Speaker, the closer to the target we have gotten, we have found that the Obama administration is trying to do everything they can to keep the United States House of Representatives and the committees from doing their job to try and misdirect us, to try and trick us, to try and fool us, to try and redact information that did not fall under a national security title but rather was to politically save them from what might be an embarrassment.
What are some of those embarrassments? Well, some of the embarrassments would be: Why didn't the State Department understand on September 11 of any year why you probably do not conduct official operations, especially in a dangerous area? That might be one question.
Another question might be: Who is it that said no?
We have heard that there are serious flaws in the State Department. We already knew that. The former Secretary of State has numerous investigations that have revealed inadequacy all the way to the top of the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
But what we are about here is to get to the bottom of it, to effectively get this done, to report to the American people, and they, Mr. Speaker, will see exactly why this was done, because the oversight responsibilities of the House of Representatives were done at the highest levels of this House. And by the way, we will read the bills before we pass them, we will understand the facts of the case and be able to explain them, and, more importantly, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will be in support of the American people knowing the truth.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the Rules Committee to bring forth its rule today to talk about this important, not just intelligence operation and national security and State Department and military operations, but to be able to say that the confidence that the American people have in the brave men and women who represent America--that we will never leave them on the battlefield alone in hours of firefights without a backup position of knowing that the next sound you hear will be the United States Navy or the United States Air Force coming to aid the men and women who are in harm's way. That is the bottom line to this: an apology, not just stating a mismanagement, based upon the facts of the case.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. I believe what we are doing today is an honorable day for the American people, and I am proud to be here as an American, as a Member of Congress, saying we will get to the bottom of this, it will be done quickly, and it will be done efficiently, and the American people can then make their decisions and us move on, knowing that we will support the men and women who wear the uniform.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 575 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
Strike ``except'' and all that follows and insert the following:
``except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) the amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative Slaughter of New York or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.''
At the end of the resolution, add the following new section:
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section is as follow:
Page 1, lines 9 and 10, strike ``after consultation with'' and insert ``on the recommendation of''.
Page 4, strike lines 15 and 16 and redesignate accordingly.
Page 4, line 22, after ``Select Committee'', insert ``, including one of the members who was appointed to the Select Committee after consultation with the minority leader under section 2(a),''
Page 5, line 3, strike ``chair of the''.
Page 5, line 7, before the period, insert ``, only upon an affirmative vote of the majority of its members or with the concurrence of the ranking minority member''.
Page 5, lines 8 and 9, strike ``upon consultation with'' and insert ``with the concurrence of''.
Page 5, line 16, before the period, insert ``, and shall be taken only upon concurrence of the ranking minority member''.
Page 5, line 18, strike ``after consultation with'' and insert ``with the concurrence of''.
Page 6, after line 3, add the following new subsections:
(d) All Members of the Select Committee shall have equitable and timely access to all evidence and other material received by the Select Committee.
(e) The Select Committee shall adopt written procedures governing how documents and other information may be obtained, used, or released by the committee or any members or staff of the committee.
Page 7, after line 11, add the following new subsections:
(d) The chair and ranking minority member of the Select Committee shall receive equal allotments of resources for the expenses and staff necessary to carry out this resolution.
(e) A complete report of the expenditures of the Select Committee shall be made available to the public on a monthly basis.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule....... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source