The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H6856-H6858 on Oct. 7, 2015.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Whereas the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, took the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty;
Whereas the events leading up to and in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi were rightfully and thoroughly examined to honor the memory of the victims and to improve the safety of the men and women serving our country overseas;
Whereas the independent Accountability Review Board convened by the U.S. State Department investigated the events in Benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing;
Whereas five committees in the U.S. House of Representatives investigated the events in Benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing;
Whereas four committees in the U.S. Senate investigated the events in Benghazi and found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing;
Whereas in each fiscal year, more than $4 billion is appropriated to run the Congress, with untold amounts of this taxpayer money expended by nine Congressional committees to investigate the events in Benghazi, none of which produced any evidence of deliberate wrongdoing;
Whereas after the exhaustive, thorough, and costly investigations by nine Congressional committees and the independent Accountability Review Board found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, Republican leaders in the House insisted on using taxpayer dollars to fund a new, duplicative
``Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi,'' (hereafter the Select Committee) to re-examine the matter;
Whereas this taxpayer-funded committee was given broad powers to pursue its investigations, including an unlimited, taxpayer-funded budget and granting the Chairman the legal authority to subpoena documents and compel testimony without any debate or a vote;
Whereas the ongoing Republican-led investigation into the events in Benghazi is now one of the longest running and least productive investigations in Congressional history;
Whereas a widely-quoted statement made on September 29th, 2015 by Representative Kevin McCarthy, the Republican Leader of the House of Representatives, has called into question the integrity of the proceedings of the Select Committee and the House of Representatives as a whole;
Whereas this statement by Representative McCarthy demonstrates that the Select Committee established by Republican leaders in the House of Representatives was created to influence public opinion of a presidential candidate;
Whereas the Select Committee has been in existence for 17 months but has held only three hearings;
Whereas the Select Committee abandoned its plans to obtain public testimony from Defense Department and Intelligence Community leaders;
Whereas the Select Committee excluded Democratic Members from interviews of witnesses who provided exculpatory information related to its investigation;
Whereas information obtained by the Select Committee has been selectively and inaccurately leaked to influence the electoral standing of a candidate for public office;
Whereas such actions represent an abuse of power that demonstrates the partisan nature of the Select Committee;
Whereas the Select Committee has spent more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds to date to advance its partisan efforts;
Whereas this amount does not include the costs of the independent Accountability Review Board; the hearings and reports by nine Congressional committees; the time, money, and resources consumed by Federal agencies to comply with Select Committee requests; or the opportunity cost of not spending this money elsewhere, such as improving security for our diplomatic officers abroad;
Whereas it is an outrage that more than $4.5 million in taxpayer funds have been used by Republicans in the House of Representatives, not to run the government, but to interfere inappropriately with an election for president of the United States;
Whereas the use of taxpayer dollars by the House of Representatives for campaign purposes is a violation of the Rules of the House and Federal law;
Resolved, That:
1) this misuse of the official resources of the House of Representatives for political purposes undermines the integrity of the proceedings of the House and brings discredit to the House;
2) the integrity of the proceedings of the House can be fully restored only by the dissolution of the Select Committee; and
3) the Select Committee shall be dismantled and is hereby directed to make public within thirty days transcripts of all unclassified interviews and depositions it has conducted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would entertain argument on whether the resolution qualifies as a question of the privileges of the House.
Does any Member seek recognition?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The gentlewoman from New York seeks to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX. The resolution alleges that a select committee established by order of the House has misused House resources for a political purpose and proposes to dismantle the select committee.
In evaluating the resolution under rule IX, the Chair must determine whether the resolution affects ``the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' In addition, Cannon's Precedents, volume 6, section 395 cites the precedent of September 24, 1917, for the proposition that ``the presence of unprivileged matter destroys the privilege of a resolution otherwise privileged.'' That ruling is the foundation for the principle that either the entire resolution is privileged, or none of it is.
Section 706 of the House Rules and Manual documents several precedents holding that a resolution alleging a question of the privileges of the House may not collaterally challenge a rule of the House.
One such precedent occurred on January 23, 1984. On that date, Speaker O'Neill ruled that a resolution directing a change in political ratios of committee membership did not qualify as a question of privilege because that issue could be otherwise presented to the House in a privileged manner. The Speaker noted that the resolution itself did not constitute a change in the rules of the House, but nevertheless held that the resolution did not qualify because it presented a collateral challenge to an adopted rule of the House.
The Chair would also note the events of January 31, 1996, when a resolution directing the Speaker to withdraw an invitation for a foreign head of state to address a joint meeting of Congress was held not to present a question of privilege because it proposed a collateral change in a previous order of the House.
In each of these cases, the crucial question was whether the resolution presented a collateral challenge to an existing rule or order of the House.
The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from New York proposes to dismantle the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, which was established in the 114th Congress by section 4(a) of House Resolution 5, adopted by the House on January 6, 2015. The resolution presents a collateral challenge to that order of the House. As such, the resolution does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 462.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, nays 183, not voting 11, as follows:
YEAS--240
AbrahamAderholtAllenAmashAmodeiBabinBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBilirakisBishop (MI)Bishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBlumBostBoustanyBrady (TX)BratBridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuchananBuckBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)Carter (TX)ChabotChaffetzClawson (FL)CoffmanColeCollins (GA)Collins (NY)ComstockConawayCookCostello (PA)CramerCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonCurbelo (FL)Davis, RodneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDonovanDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)Ellmers (NC)Emmer (MN)FarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGarrettGibbsGibsonGohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)GriffithGrothmanGuintaGuthrieHannaHardyHarperHarrisHartzlerHeck (NV)HensarlingHerrera BeutlerHice, Jody B.HillHoldingHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurd (TX)Hurt (VA)IssaJenkins (KS)Jenkins (WV)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJollyJonesJordanJoyceKatkoKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)Kinzinger (IL)KlineKnightLabradorLaHoodLaMalfaLambornLanceLattaLoBiondoLongLoudermilkLoveLucasLuetkemeyerMacArthurMarchantMarinoMassieMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMcSallyMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)MoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNewhouseNoemNugentNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPaulsenPearcePerryPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PoliquinPompeoPoseyPrice, TomRatcliffeReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)RohrabacherRokitaRooney (FL)Ros-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRouzerRoyceRussellRyan (WI)SalmonSanfordScaliseSchweikertScott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)StefanikStewartStiversStutzmanThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTrottTurnerUptonValadaoWagnerWalbergWaldenWalkerWalters, MimiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestermanWestmorelandWhitfieldWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IA)Young (IN)ZeldinZinke
NAYS--183
AdamsAguilarAshfordBassBeattyBecerraBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.Brady (PA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Castro (TX)Chu, JudyCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDeLauroDelBeneDeSaulnierDeutchDoggettDoyle, Michael F.DuckworthEdwardsEllisonEngelEshooEstyFarrFattahFosterFrankel (FL)FudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGrahamGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHastingsHeck (WA)HigginsHimesHondaHoyerHuffmanIsraelJackson LeeJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLeeLevinLewisLieu, TedLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMatsuiMcCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMeeksMengMooreMoultonMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNolanNorcrossO'RourkePallonePascrellPelosiPerlmutterPetersPetersonPingreePocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRangelRice (NY)RichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchakowskySchiffSchraderScott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)ShermanSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakaiTakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TitusTonkoTorresTsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaVelazquezViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWaters, MaxineWatson ColemanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
DingellGrangerHinojosaHudsonLummisPayneScott (VA)SinemaSmith (TX)WalorskiWilliams
{time} 1413
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
