We ought to be part of the discussions about who we are subpoenaing.

You should have a file already, with everything nicely and neatly organized.

Now, the one thing they have said that makes some sense is the pace is way too slow.

The subpoena was August 2013. We are not talking a couple months ago. We are talking a year and a half ago.

You are saying you don't know. I got that answer.

It will be a meaningless failure. Because if we don't produce a bipartisan report at the end of the day, it will have no credibility.

How can we test the claim when you won't give us what the statute requires?

It is my understanding we don't.

I do not think we should move on until there is a complete understanding of how the security environment described by our own Government in court documents was allowed to exist.

The number one recommendation--frankly, the one that many of the other 39 hinge upon--says we need to create at the Under Secretary level, an Under Secretary for Diplomatic Security.

The President's policies to grant deferred action and not remove newly arriving undocumented aliens led to a surge of illegal immigration that reached its height earlier this year.

In our constitutional system, however, it is Congress that has plenary constitutional authority to establish U.S. immigration policy.

The President's November 20 actions to grant deferred action on work permits to up to 5 million illegal aliens continued a long pattern of Executive overreach.

Many point to violence in Central America as the reason for the surge. Unfortunately, as we all know, there has always been violence in Central America.

We are going to make sure we keep focused on what we started our conversation here about, Mr. Starr, and that is the safety of our people who serve abroad.

We have got more facilities probably than any other country in the world, 285, and none of them use that designation today.

No, sir, they were not met.

The most fundamental question is, why were we there in the first place?

I do not believe so, sir, no.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue, should it? Republican, Democrat, shouldn't matter?

The facts haven't changed. The evidence hasn't changed. But the way our Government characterizes Benghazi has changed a lot.

I think it is a great idea, but I am not alone.

Not exactly a title that inspires confidence, screams stability, does it, Mr. Starr?

We should not move on until there is a complete understanding of why requests for additional security were denied.

Clear back in 1999, Secretary Albright said the same thing.