Transcript of Pelosi, Democratic Appointees to Select Committee on Benghazi Press Conference Today

Contact: Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held a press conference today to announce that she will appoint Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA), Congressman Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), Congresswoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA) and Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) to the Select Committee on Benghazi. Below is a transcript of the press conference:

Leader Pelosi. Good afternoon. What happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, was a tragedy – for the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives; for America's diplomatic corps; for all Americans. Unfortunately, the Republican obsession with Benghazi has not been about the victims or their families or our country. We had hoped that House Republican leaders would not go down the path of forming a Select Committee. We have already been there. [Seven] reviews have been conducted in the House and Senate, 25,000 documents released, millions of taxpayer dollars spent. It is not necessary to put the families and our country through this partisan exercise once again.

Over the past two weeks, we have engaged in good faith discussions with Speaker Boehner on the shape and standards of the Select Committee. We had hoped for fairness, transparency, and balance, especially considering the subject matter. We were not able to reach any agreement. Regrettably, the Republican approach does not prevent the unacceptable and repeated abuses committed by Chairman Issa in any meaningful way. That is all the more reason for Democrats to participate in this committee – to be there to fight for a fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what's going on.

What is the purpose of this investigation? What is the timetable? What are the milestones what are they hoping to achieve? I could have argued this either way. Why give any validity to this effort? But I do think it is important for the American people to have a pursuit of these questions done in as fair and open and balanced a way as possible. That simply would not be possible leaving it to the Republicans.  

That's why I am appointing my distinguished colleagues here today to serve on the Select Committee. I'm so proud of them and all that they do for the American people in the Congress of the United States and for their constituents at home. Congressman Elijah Cummings will be the Ranking Member. He is the Ranking Member on the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. Congressman Adam Smith, Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee, has agreed to serve. Congressman Adam Schiff: Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on State & Foreign Operations – very important in this discussion – and is a Member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Congresswoman Linda Sánchez, on Committee on Ways and Means and Subcommittee on Oversight. Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, serving on the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Mr. Cummings' committee.

With their leadership and persistence, we will do right by the families of the victims. And by the way: two families have communicated with us, saying: "Don't take us down this path again. Why is this being done?"

We hope that we can shine a light on where our focus should be: preventing a tragedy like Benghazi from ever happening again. I told the Speaker in a phone call that I just had with him that I'm hopeful that Ranking Member Cummings and Chairman Gowdy can come to some better terms on how we proceed. And it is with that hope and his great leadership that I present our Ranking Member on this Committee, Mr. Cummings.

Ranking Member Cummings. Thank you very much, Madam Leader. And I, too, agree with you that we must be in pursuit of fairness and transparency – not only for the families of these great Americans who we lost in Libya, but also for the American people. I do not believe a Select Committee is called for after eight reports, dozens of witness interviews and a review of more than 25,000 pages of documents. Many of the so-called "unanswered questions" Republicans have been raising recently have already been answered in these previous reports. I also do not believe the Select Committee rules proposed by the Speaker are fair, open or designed to conduct a neutral, reason- and fact-based inquiry.

Despite these challenges, I have agreed to participate for two reasons, and I want to thank my colleagues who have also agreed to participate. First, as you know, I served as the Ranking Member on the Oversight Committee for the past three years. And in that role, I've seen firsthand how abusive the Republicans have been during this investigation. They've issued unilateral subpoenas. They've made unsubstantiated accusations with no evidence to back them up. And they have released selective excerpts of documents and transcripts that distort the truth – in some instances when they had exculpatory evidence right at hand. They falsely accused the Secretary of State of misleading Congress about reducing security in Benghazi, a claim the Washington Post fact checker gave "four pinocchios."

Second, the family members of Ambassador Chris Stevens have pleaded publicly for this not to be politicized. Let me read to you their words, and I quote: "What Chris never would have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes." End of quote.

So I feel that I owe it to the families of Ambassador Stevens and the other brave Americans who lost their precious lives to bring some minimal level of balance to this process and to check false claims wherever they may arise. In short, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we need someone in that room to simply defend the truth, defend the truth. That is why I have agreed to serve.

Let me just close by saying that rather than fundraising off of the murders of these four brave Americans – and I must tell you, I find that despicable – I believe the best way to honor these men is to bring their killers to justice and work in a bipartisan way to strengthen security for all U.S. personnel overseas.

Thank you.

Leader Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any questions? No? Yes, sir?

***

Q: Some very senior members of your leadership team advised you not to do this. What ultimately was the tipping point? What caused you to decide, "No, we need to do this?"

Leader Pelosi. Well, I believe that Mr. Cummings has spelled it out very clearly: the abuses that occurred in the previous Issa investigations; and then when the proposal was put forth as to how we would proceed, you would think that it would argue saying, "Don't go in the room," but in fact it heightened the urgency of it. And so, if the process had appeared to be fairer, more transparent than the rest, there would be more trust in it. But since it wasn't, we needed to be at the table. And our Caucus was mixed, our Members. As I say, we could have lawyered it one way or another, but we didn't.

Yes, sir?

Q: The House is going to vote tomorrow on the NSA reforms, the USA FREEDOM Act.

Leader Pelosi. We're just going to focus on this. Tomorrow I'll be here at 10:45 a.m. and we'll talk about that. Okay?

Q: This question is actually for Congressman Schiff. You had gone on our air on Fox News Sunday a couple of weeks ago and called this a colossal waste of time, but you are standing here today ready to serve on this Committee. Can you square those two, your decision to serve on the Committee and what you said a couple of weeks ago, please?

Congressman Schiff. Well, I still think that this is ground that we have covered time and time again. The pertinent questions have been asked and answered again. But I respect the decision that's been made. I think Elijah Cummings said it quite well: the decision was ultimately made that we need somebody in that room to stand up for the truth. And that will be our responsibility: to make sure that this does not become a select committee on talking points, that we focus instead on the things that really matter, and that is what can we do to prevent other people from being killed in the future at diplomatic posts around the world and where are we in hunting down those who are responsible.

Those are important responsibilities, and if we can help direct this Committee to focus on those questions, then I think it will be very important. But, regrettably, that does not seem to be the direction they're heading. Nonetheless, we're going to do our best to make sure this doesn't become a circus or continue to be a fundraising device, but instead focuses on where are we in implementing the recommendations – the very sound recommendations – of the Accountability Review Board.

Q: Leader Pelosi, you said you weren't able to strike a deal with the Republicans, so Mr. Gowdy can unilaterally subpoena witnesses, depose witnesses. Mr. Cummings, have you talked to him? Do you think you have a better relationship with him, that you can come to some kind of deal that you will be consulted beforehand or be in the room for some of these interviews?

Ranking Member Cummings. Certainly, I'm always hopeful. I talked to Rep. Gowdy very briefly yesterday. And, you know, we basically wanted to be in a position where we were consulted with regard to subpoenas, and if there was disagreement we were asking that it be brought to a vote of the Committee; and that's what we were asking for. Of course they have – it's a seven to five split, as you well know – so they have the votes. And one of the reasons why we wanted that is because we believe that the consultation would be very significant. And there may have been things that we could have done to move that process along so we didn't have to go that far.

But the fact is: I don't know what's going to happen with regard to Mr. Gowdy. Everything that I have seen from him – and I do consider him a great prosecutor and I have seen him in the prosecutorial mode in our Committee – but as far as this Committee is concerned, I think we have to go in and be finders of the facts. I think we have to go in neutral. I don't think we need to be making accusations before we even get in the room to hear the facts. So I don't know what's going to happen. The one thing he did say to me is he is hopeful that we would be able to have a situation where there would be fairness, and I am going to hold him to that. And all of us are going to hold him to that.

And the last thing: one of the reasons why the Leader was so concerned about that, and I was too, is because we had situations in the Oversight Committee where we were not consulted at all with regard to subpoenas. And that is a very, very serious responsibility. And we think that the minority should be included in that process.

Congressman Smith. Just quickly: I agree with my colleagues. And this is a Committee that should not have been formed. It has been investigated eight times. But since the Republicans chose to form it, I think we have to participate, to do our best to bring out the correct arguments. At this point, it appears that this is a purely partisan and political effort, and that is regrettable. Because my biggest concern here is the blow to Congress' credibility. We don't have a lot of that left, as you are aware. Oversight of things like this is incredibly important. When something like this happens, Congress has an obligation to ask the right questions, to conduct proper oversight. And from the very beginning this is not what the Republicans have done on this issue. They have made it partisan, they have made it political, they have undermined our ability to do our jobs as a Congress.

Now the Committee is formed. We have to serve on it, I think, to make the best comments possible. We can't simply let the Republicans run the show. But I will tell you, at this point, I'm highly skeptical. Even when you look at the Members that they appointed to the Committee – they are lacking in experience on national security or foreign policy matters for the most part. So what is the purpose here? And then you read stories about how they are fundraising off of this. This is a partisan, political process. We hope, as my colleague from California pointed out, to shift it to at least be somewhat useful to talk about the issues that matter. But right now it does not look good. Thank you.

Leader Pelosi. I'd like to make one clarification here on the subject of subpoena, and also access to witnesses and documents and the rest – especially relevant to your question. At first it was the idea that they're going to call this one and that one. We don't think that Secretary Hillary Clinton or Secretary John Kerry or the others need our help in the room. We know that they are professionals, patriots, articulate spokespersons for what they have done and for our country. The concern that I had is, who are these other people that they're going to call? And when it was not guaranteed that we would have access to who they were in sufficient time in advance to prepare, to even be able to make a judgment about who they were, that really argued in favor of saying: let's not worry about, again, the Hillary Clintons and the John Kerrys. They can fend for themselves. But let's make sure that there is not an exploitation of information because we have not had access to these other people they would call.

To your point, Deirdre: we at first said to the Speaker: "We want an evenly divided Ccommittee, we think that that would have the most strength and the most credibility." He said: "No." And then we said: "Well, then, why not give a Democratic vote for a subpoena" – a letter that Steny Hoyer and I wrote to the Speaker – "Why not have a Democratic vote so that legitimizes the call for a subpoena?" He said: "No."

So then we said what Mr. Cummings just said and what Mr. Smith said: if there is going to be a subpoena, there should be consultation. And if that consultation does not produce concurrence, if it is controversial, then there should be a vote of the Committee. Doesn't say nine votes. A vote of the Committee. It means that they have the votes – seven to five in the Committee – to pass what they have. But that vote would have to take place in a business meeting which is in open session, and that is what I think they're afraid of. That's why I come back to the word "transparency": transparency, fairness, balance in all of this.

Can I hear from either of you before we go? We are very proud of our entire Committee. We think we have strength in terms of knowledge and understanding of what the challenge is, and also, shall we say, experienced leaders at hearings in the Congress.

Congresswoman Sánchez. Thank you. I am Congresswoman Linda Sánchez, and I just want to make one correction. I serve on the Ways and Means Committee and the Ethics Committee. So as somebody who is in a position to have to be a trier of fact and take in evidence and make decisions based on what the evidence shows, when your Leader asks you to serve your country on a Select Committee, it makes sense to be in that room. And I have a lot of respect for the colleagues that stand behind me. They are outstanding Members. They are thorough Members. And I think sitting and trying to get at the facts, leaving politics out of the room, is going to be the challenge for this Committee. And we are here to try to make sure that we're looking at the facts – not just making up allegations. So I'm honored to be asked to serve, and I'm ready and I'm willing to do it.

Congresswoman Duckworth. Tammy Duckworth. I represent Illinois' eighth congressional district. I have the great privilege of serving on both the Armed Services Committee and the Oversight & Government Reform Committee. I, too, am honored to be asked to serve my country in this way. Having been a freshman on Oversight and Government Reform, I have watched as Mr. Cummings time and again, in a very measured way, put forward requests for the truth, for greater transparency. I sat in a Committee where the testimony of Admiral Mullen – a man with over 30 years of military experience – on whether or not there were capacities for military aircraft to make it to Benghazi in time was questioned by someone with no military experience, questioning his judgment as a military commander.

So I'm proud to be on this Committee, and I'm going to stand for the truth. I'm going to start from square one. I want to make sure that no American diplomat, no American life, no American service member is ever put in the same kind of jeopardy where we don't have the resources there to protect them as they carry out this nation's business around the world. And I'm very proud to serve on this Committee. Thank you.

Leader Pelosi. Thank you all very much.

# # #