Unanimous Consent Requests--S. RES. 225 and S. 1386
Floor Speech
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, 8 months ago yesterday I requested unanimous consent for S. Res. 225 calling for a joint select committee of Congress to investigate the terrorist attack on our facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, which resulted in the murder of four brave Americans: Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was our first Ambassador murdered while serving since Adolph Dubs in 1979.
At the time my colleague, the junior the Senator from California, objected on the grounds that the administration was trying ``to address Benghazi,'' and that President Obama would ``not rest until the perpetrators were caught.''
Here we are, 8 months later, and the perpetrators still have not been caught, and the confusion about what occurred on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi has only gotten worse. In recent weeks, what happened on that terrible night has gotten more and more obscure.
On April 2 of this year, Mike Morell, the Deputy Director of the CIA during the Benghazi attacks, testified regarding the CIA talking points that he ``took out the word `Islamic' in front of `extremists' '' because he thought there were other kinds of extremists in Libya and that he did not use the word ``terrorist'' because ``we see extremists and terrorists as the same thing.''
On April 29 of this year, in response to a FOIA request by Judicial Watch, the White House released emails related to Benghazi, including a September 14, 2012, email from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes that had as its stated goal ``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not in a broader failure of policy.''
I would note that is a stated political goal from the White House, in writing, days after the attack--not to get to the truth but to further that political goal.
Then, on May 1, 2014, Gen. Robert Lovell, Deputy Director of Intelligence of U.S. AFRICOM during the Benghazi attacks, became the first former military officer to question the administration's insistence that a rescue attempt was not possible, arguing ``the discussion is not in the `could or could not' in relation to time, space, and capability, the point is we should have tried.''
It is hard to disagree with the good general that we should have tried to save those four Americans who were murdered that tragic night.
We are left once again with persistent questions on Benghazi to which we still don't know the answers. Here are 10:
No. 1. Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi in the summer of 2012?
No. 2. Do President Obama's daily intelligence briefings in the runup to September 11, 2012, support the assertion that there was no credible threat of a coordinated terrorist attack on Benghazi during the time, and do the daily intelligence briefings following that date support the claim the administration made that the cause was an Internet video? Why hasn't the White House declassified and released those briefings, as President George W. Bush did with his pre-September 11, 2001, briefings?
No. 3. Why did we not anticipate the need to have military assets at the ready in the region on the anniversary of September 11--of all dates?
No. 4. Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton? Neither has answered that very simple question: Were they awake or asleep while Americans were under fire? When was President Obama told about the murder of our Ambassador?
No. 5. If the Secretary of Defense thought there was ``no question that this was a coordinated terrorist attack,'' why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a spontaneous demonstration about an Internet video? None has squarely answered that question.
No. 6. Why did former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell edit the intelligence community talking points to delete the references to Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda?
No. 7. Why did the FBI not release pictures of the militants taken the day of the attack until 8 months after the fact--why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?
No. 8. Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report? If all the relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, as our friends on the other side of the aisle often like to say, why did the State Department's own inspector general's office open a probe into the methods of that very report?
No. 9. Why have none of the terrorists who attacked in Benghazi been captured or killed?
No. 10. What additional evidence that the White House engaged in a partisan political campaign to blame the Benghazi attack on the Internet video is contained in the additional emails requested by Judicial Watch but withheld by the White House on the grounds that it would put a ``chill'' on internal deliberations?
I would suggest to my colleagues that what is truly chilling is that 20 months after the Benghazi attack, we have four dead Americans and no dead terrorists. It is chilling to think our President may have had better things to do than personally attend to an ongoing terrorist attack on our people. It is chilling to imagine that we could have mounted a rescue attempt of our own people but that we didn't even bother to try. It is chilling to think our Secretary of State would not insist on giving an interview for the ARB report. It is chilling to think we have an administration that is reluctant to utter the words ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' let alone fight effectively against it. It is chilling to have former administration officials respond to questions in response to Benghazi with, ``Dude, this was like two years ago.''
The clock is ticking. Memories are fading. It is beyond time to get the full resources of both Houses of Congress behind this investigation. The President should release his daily intelligence briefings in the times surrounding the Benghazi attack, as President George W. Bush did concerning 9/11. This body should join with the House of Representatives, with a joint select committee to get to the bottom of what happened. Why didn't we protect Americans? Why didn't we stop this attack? Why haven't we captured the terrorists who killed four Americans including our Ambassador?
Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the rules and administration committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 225. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, my friend, the senior Senator from New Jersey, suggests that this is a request on the eve of a midterm election. The only reason for that of course is 8 months ago, when I made the exact same request, the Democrats objected and blocked a joint select committee looking into Benghazi at that time. The Senator from New Jersey also suggested this was some kind of distraction from ObamaCare. I promise the Senator, there is no one in this Chamber less interested in distracting from ObamaCare than I.
I would encourage the senior Senator from New Jersey, if he believes what he says, to go and campaign for his Democratic colleagues who are up for election this year with the simple message that he said on the floor of this
Senate, which is Senator so-and-so is the critical 60th vote to passing ObamaCare, and if you like it you can keep your Senator. I feel quite confident that the Democratic Senators up for election this year are running as rapidly away from the point suggested by the senior Senator from New Jersey as possible.
But secondly, I would note, in his entire speech, the senior Senator from New Jersey said there is no need for any further inquiry because we had lots of hearings and there is no need to know anything, but let me point out, the senior Senator from New Jersey did not answer even a single question that I asked. I outlined 10 questions that have not been answered. He is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Yet he either could not or did not answer even a single question--two simple ones--which are ``yes'' or ``no'' questions.
No. 1. Did President Obama sleep on the night of September 11, 2012? The senior Senator from New Jersey chose not to answer, I suspect, because none of us knows because the White House has never answered that question.
No. 2. Do the President's daily intelligence briefings reflect the political spin from the White House on Benghazi? Likewise, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee did not answer that question. Again, I suspect it is because he does not know because the White House has not released that information.
There are far too many questions remaining, but the senior Senator from New Jersey, my learned colleague, proposed a counter unanimous consent request to improve embassy security.
I would ask unanimous consent to engage in a very brief colloquy with my colleague and ask him specifically one question about the unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. The question I would ask my colleague from New Jersey is, If I were to consent to the unanimous consent that the Senator has proffered, and if this side of the aisle would request, would he likewise consent to the unanimous consent request that I put forward for a joint select committee composed of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. So why is it--I am curious--the senior Senator from New Jersey believes an inquiry to ascertain the truth about what happened is necessarily a partisan endeavor? Is there no partisan interest on that side of the aisle in finding out what happened, how it could have been prevented, and why we didn't save those four Americans?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. I would thank my friend from New Jersey for a colloquy in support of this joint select committee on Benghazi because the Democratic Senator from New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, just told this body he has no idea if President Obama was even told that four Americans were under terrorist attack. He has no idea. He doesn't know what, if anything, the President could have done to save them.
I would suggest that is exactly the reason we need this committee. If the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 2 years later cannot answer that question, it makes abundantly clear that the response of the administration, sadly, and the response of the Senate Democrats has been partisan stonewalling rather than getting to the truth. In the immortal lines of Jack Nicholson, it makes one think perhaps they cannot handle it or at least they don't want to know.
I would finally say I am more than prepared to consent to the request from the senior Senator of New Jersey if he would only show the same reciprocal courtesy of agreeing to the same request; a bipartisan committee, in which he would no doubt participate, to answer the question--the senior Senator from New Jersey just told this body he doesn't know if the President knew. He doesn't know what the President could have done. Apparently, the premise of the statement is he doesn't think the American people care.
I suggest that the American people care a great deal as to what the President knew about national security. They would want to know if he was not engaged or if he didn't act to stop it. That is a matter worthy of inquiry by this body.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRUZ. Since my friend from New Jersey has made it plain that he will not consent to this request, I will note that this is an open offer that anytime my friend from New Jersey will simply stop blocking a fair, bipartisan, joint inquiry as to what occurred in Benghazi--the terrorist attack that tragically took the lives of four Americans--I am happy to consent.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source