quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'll bet the senate is in a quorum call. is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent at a time to be concerned by the majority

leader, after consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar number 834, 835 and 877. that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form ux that following the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on calendar number 834, 835 and 877 in that order. the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and that no further motions be in order and that any related statements be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r h.r. 43, the department of defense authorization act, for fiscal year 2013, that there be up to an hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders their designees prior to a vote on adoption of the conference

report. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois u. mr. durbin: i ask con scene the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration calendar number 566, h.r. 443. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 56, h.r. 443, an act to provide for the conveyance of certain property. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i further ask that the murkowski substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h.r. 4053, which was just received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4053, an act to intensify efforts to identify, prevent, and recover payment error, waste, fraud and abuse within federal spending.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 551, s. 2388. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 551, s. 23 2388, a bill to reauthorize and amend the national oceanic and atmospheric administration commissioned officers corps act of 2002 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i further ask the committee-reported substitute be considered, the begich amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and that any related statements be printed at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee

be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 439 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 439, expressing the sense of the senate that village voice media holdings l.l.c. should eliminate the adult entertainment section of the classified advertising web site backpage.com. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 617. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 617, congratulating the recipient of the 2012 heisman memorial trophy.

the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed, to the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 627, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 627, dez anything the chairman -- designating the chairman of the senate committee on appropriations. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 6671, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6671, an act to amend section 2710 of title 18 united states code and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin con. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1:00 p.m. on friday, december 21. , 2012, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal

of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the timer for the two leaders be re -- time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate begin consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 4310, the national defense authorization act under the previous order, and that following disposition of the conference report, the senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amend t amendment to. further, that the mandatory quorum with respect to rule 22 be waived. further, the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to h.r. 1, the legislative vehicle for the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, be 1:30 p.m. on friday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: there will be a roll call vote at approximately 2:00 p.m. tomorrow on the adoption of the defense authorization conference report. additional votes are expected. we hope to reach agreement on the supplemental and fisa tomorrow. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

senate stands adjourned until

sec fair of state william burns said today that the officials at the highest levels at the state department were..

[inaudible conversations] >> the hearing will come to order. my apologies to everybody for the switch in time, but as everybody knows with the loss of our colleague, nart senator inouye, the course of events uncertain yesterday, and it was decided that his remains will be brought here at ten o'clock, and everybody felt it be inappropriate for us simply be having a hearing preventing senators to attend, and all of us would like to attend.

we'll try to pack this in the period of time we have between now and quarter of so senators can get there to take part in that ceremony. in addition, obviously, with the switch in time, some colleagues and others have not yet gotten here. i do want to share thoughts at the appropriate time about senator lugar and senator webb and senator demint leaving the committee, but i think i'll wait until more colleagues are here to be able to share those thoughts. i want to thank everybody for joining us this morning. as everyone is aware, secretary clinton is recovering if a serious virus and concussion and given her condition, it was simply not possible for her to appear here today. we all wish her a speedy recovery, and in her place we have both deputies from the state department, and i want to

thank them for coming in on short notes. let me emphasize this, please, to everybody. all of you who know hillary, know she would rather be here today. i know how deeply she feels of the importance of the discussion we're having today, and it's not her choice she's not here today, and she look forward to appearing before the committee in january, and i want to make that clear. i also want to emphasize that every member of this committee felt the loss of ambassador chris stevens and his team in a very perm way. we knew him well before he came before us for con confirmation. he appeared for senator lugar and the committee. we knew of the depths of his character, intelligence, and dedication. his death was a horrible blow in

personal terms to the committee as well as to the country and his family. it evoked an outpouring of emotion from our committee in the office to the capitol to the private gestures of members of this committee who shared their grief in private ways at senate 116, signing the books, touching the picture, saying a prayer. equally tragic was the loss of three courageous men, whom i have personally never met, but whose families i had a chance to greet and hug when the military brought their loved ones' remains back to andrews air force base. that brought home the impact of our nation's loss. glenn was a former navy seal, also, from my home state, and i talked a couple times with his family. woods was a former seal, shawn smith, and air force veteran,

all people for whom service to country was their life so today we, again, say thank you to all of them, to the fallen and the families. they all gave to our nation and we're grateful beyond words for their service and their sack -- sacrifice. from the very beginning of the benghazi events, every member of this committee has shared with the president and secretary clinton our determination to get all the facts about what happened and why in benghazi. we submitted many questions to the state department to be incorporated into this investigation, and we're very pleased that they have been. we've had a number of classified briefings for our members, and yesterday, the committee heard from ambassador tom pickerring and admiral mike mulling, -- mullen. they were frank, and they are two of america's most

distinguished and capable public servants. ambassador pickering served as under secretary to the state department and ambassador to india, russia, israel, and other important nations. admiral mullen, as we know, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i think that their backgrounds, their service to the country showed up starkly in the quality of the boards report, and i want to thank them for their extraordinary service to our country and i want to thank secretary clinton who appointed them, who selected them. the report pulls no punches. it tackles head on many of the questions we've been asking. the report makes 29 recommendations in total, five of which are classified. secretary clinton has embraced every single one of them, in fact, she's gone above and beyond board's recommendations by taking immediate steps to

strengthen security at high threat posts and request from congress the authority to reprogram funds to increase diplomatic security spending by $1.3 billion. you know, in washington where too often we see recommendations of blue ribbon panels ignored, delayed, or deferred as they were for a long time even on the 9/11 commission, i think the secretary's swift action underscores how determined she is to apply the lessons of benghazi. clearly, mistakes were made, and we see -- we learned of those yesterday and in very stark terms about the mistakes leading up to the attack. the report makes that very clerks and one of the most candid and important observations was the failure by certain leaders to see the forest through the trees. there were clear warning signs that security situation in libya deteriorated, and going forward,

it is important, and i think it's important for all of us to think in terms of going forward, that we need to do better jobs of ensuring a free and open dialogue among ambassadors, their security personnel, and officials in washington where decisions on security staffing levels and funding are made. now, as we draw the lessons, i want to be crystal clear about something else. congress also bears some responsibility here. congress has the power to purse. we use it for any number of things, but it's our responsibility, and for years, we asked our state department to operate with increasingly lesser resources to conduct essential missions, and because of the gridlock and excesses in the senate and congress itself, we have not even been able to pursue the regular order of authorizing legislation.

that must change, and in the next session of the congress, i hope it will. as in any government entity, we know when a government is cut, you stretch every dollar so for some time now, overseas resources have been withheld or cut on important foreign policy objectives, have, in some cases, been starved. consider that last year we spent $650 billion on our military. by contrast, the international affairs bucket is -- budget is less than one-tenth of the pentagon. secretary gates spoke on this addressing congress to adjust the balance, and we have not yet. admiral mullen said, quote, "the more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take and the more and more lives are at risk so we need to make certain that we are not penny

wise and pound foolish when it comes to supporting america's overseas interests. adequately funding america's foreign policy objectives is not spending. it's investing in our long term security and more often than not, it saves for more expensive expenditures and dollars and lives for the conflict that is we fail to see or avoid. we need to invest in america's long term interest in order to do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world. this report makes that crystal clear. since is the 85, i had the privilege of making official journeys to one troubled spot or another. i met a lot of our men and women in the foreign services, all of you have, and we talked about the work they do and the lives they lead. they take years learning the languages of the country to be on the front lines of direct

diplomacy. foreign policy outdoors as my dad used to call it. when my father served in berlin, they looked at the clock when he was late coming home for dinner in a city where troops guarded the line between east and west and the rubble of war was fresh. my father knew what he was doing was worth whatever the risk might have been, and so to the foreign personnel we send all over the world today, they want to be accessible to people on the ground. they need to be accessible to people on the ground when they represent our country. they want those people to see and touch the face of america. it's no understatement our dip mats are on the front lines of the most dangerous places. they leave their families behind, miss holidays at home, risk their safety to make the world safer and protect the

interests of the country. they don't join the foreign service to be rich, and sadly, many of their names are only learned when a tragedy like benghazi takes place. our diplomats don't wear the uniform, but they swear the same oath as the men and women of our armed forces and their sacrifice is no less important. take note, everybody. as we learned yesterday, the board's report calls for investment of $2.3 billion a year over ten years in order to meet the fundamental charge of protecting our personnel overseas. we owe it to them, to our responsibility, and to the memory of chris stevens and others who lost lives to make good on that request, and i make that clear today. some may ask why we're in benghazi. the reason are central to everything we want our foreign

service to do. they are essential to furthering america's value and our security. we're in benghazi because that's where the revolution in libya began. that's where the vanguard of the transition is today. that's where principle actors of the future of libya come from. we were there to learn and help libyans deliver on the promise of their revolution, and many of our most important contacts in the future leaders of libya reside in the vol tire -- volatile east. we had to be on the ground outside the wire reaching out to the people. that's the enterprise of u.s. foreign policy today to help men, women, and children around the world share in the vision of democracy and values of freedom and through it to bring stability to whole regions of the world and reduce the threats to our nation. i believe we all ought to be proud of what we achieved in

libya by taking military action when we did, we liberated a country under the yolk of a dictator for more than 40 years, give k the libyan people a fighting chance for their future, and i'm convinced we prevented the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives. the tragic events of the last 9/11/2012 illustrate the challenge ahead, but the thousands of everyday libyans who marched against the militias with signs declaring love for chris stevens and the united states, their gratitude for our country provide, i think, a measure of hope. that demonstration of affection for america and for our employee who gave his life, for those people, summed up exactly why we must not look inwards and walk away. finally, let any say, what can be done benghazi is not in

isolation. there's a truth in foreign service that needs to be processed through the committee and the congress and the country as we examine the events of benghazi. we have an expedition their diplomatic core, and they do face very real risks every day, day in and day out. bad things have happened before, and bad things will happen again unfortunately in the future. there will always be a tension between the diplomatic imperatives to get outside the wire and the security standards that require our dip mats to work behind high walls, the wire, and full body searches. we do not want to constantine a wire off america off from the world. our challenge is to strike a balance between the necessity of the mission, available resources, and tolerance for risk. we've talked about this on this committee. we had hearings specifically about the design of our

embassies, the danger of becoming a fortress america, and we need to be safe, but we also need to send the right message to the people we are trying to reach. i remember feeling and seeing the difficulty of this in vietnam. villages would examine us suspiciously and give us a stare, an unmistakable stare raising more questions than we're ever able to answer. in iraq and afghanistan, i have revieted that -- revisited that stare as you pass through villages with guns and big armored personnel carriers and him view -- humvees and the look of confusion from iraqis or afghans who do not understand why we rumble there their streets that way is unmistakable. every diplomat feels this tension and worries about the misimpression our security

footprint creates in the very minds of the people we're trying to reach, an impression revealed on their faces when you are surrounded by gun coating security personnel. balancing our values and our interests with the risks inherent in 21st century diplomacy is sort of fundamental to the questions raised by the events in benghazi of what we're here that talk about today. to paraphrase ryan crocker, "we have to be in the business of riffing management, -- risk management, not risk avoidance." there are costs, and it is a reason to honor the memory of ambassador stevens and others deeply committed to a strong american role in the world. that's why he was out there so in the end, colleagues, we're all americans first. we can't lose sight of that fact. particularly, in the face of this tragedy. we're very pleased that secretary burns, secretary nies

have come here today, secretary burns recently established the christopher stevens youth network to honor chris' memory by building bridges of understand egg and compassion of youth and middle eastern peers, and we look forward to continuing that work. senator lugar. >> thank you. i welcome secretary burns and tom nies, good friends of the committee, and we send best wishes to secretary clinton as she recovers from her mishap. secretary's activities have been in the last several years extraordinary by any measure. we're grateful for her devoted service to the country, the curtesy shown to the committee throughout her tenure. our hearing today gives us a chance to review events that are benghazi, resulting in the deaths of ambassador stevens, foreign service officer smith,

two u.s. embassy security personnel dauhtery and tyronne woods. many questions raised about sufficient security ahead of time and protocols. interest in the questions are personal because of the respect and affection for ambassador stevens who became a good friend of the committee while he was detailing my staff in 2006 and 2007. his advice to me on the complexities in the region was invaluable. after he went back to the state, he continued to brief staff from time to time, and he returned to meet with me after his remarkable tour as united states' representative to the rebels in benghazi. all of us have read accounts of chris stevens extraordinary service. to be clear to everyone, he was personally instrumental in advancing u.s. interest in libya

he provided the leadership we needed for the embassy team going beyond the embassy walls to meet, convert soldiers, shopkeepers, and villagers as well as ministers, generals, and bureaucrats. like many personnel around the world, chris and the team recognized that effective diplomacy in this era carries substantial risk. nevertheless, it is up to the president, the state department, and the congress to ensure our personnel have enough support to do their jobs as safely as possible, and just as we give our men and women the weapons to carry out the mission, we have to ensure diplomats have all the tools they need which include a safe place to work. embassies are both outposts of the united states government and symbols of the country, and as such, they are prime targets were terrorists. every day, the united states

receives threats against its facilities overseas. when i was chairman of the committee for the second time in 2003, one of the first things i did was to initiate an inquiry into embassy security. we conducted a hearing and numerous briefings on the topic. my staff interviewed dozens of security and diplomatic personnel at embassies around the world. i also commissioned a report complete in 2006. that report noted the significant progress that had been made by the state department and building secure embassies in a cost efficient manner recommending that the state department develop an integrated and comprehensive facility's plan to more closely track costs and results. working with former secretary of state powell, we initially were successful in getting extra money to accelerate the construction program. in my view, funds for the purpose never caught up.

there have been suggestions that cost considerations cricketed t- contributed to the inadequate protection in benghazi. last week, as preparations for the hearing got underway, the state department announced it would seek $1.4 billion in the 20 # -- 2013 budget fur increased security proposal for the security posture. i'm pleased to see the proposal notes, quote, we must ensure we struck the right balance between security and engagement, end of quote. i'll be interested to hear from the panel out the obama administration would apply the funds and how they would affect the pace of new embassy embassy construction and staffing levels in the security service. in the end, however, our embassies are unlikely to beboth effective and safe if congress fails to devote adequate funding to the 150 account which stays for state department operations.

do not forget lessons learned in the 1990s when the sharp budget cuts at the state department at the same time establishing many new embassies in the former soviet union and the bulkans. this led to difficulties that took years to correct. the state department budget is a popular target for cuts. in recent years, we avoided the decline that the state department suffered in the 1990s. it's still possible to vote on indiscriminate proposals showing little understanding of the contributions of the state department to the safety and prosperity of the country. diplomacy is not a luxury. it is essential to american national security especially in a ere era of terrorism. i look forward to a discussion with the witnesses, and i thank the chair. >> senator lugar, thank you very much. if i can ask the committee, i'll take a moment.

i will not ask questions and yield my time so others have more time because i took longer with the opening, but i just want to say a special thank you, it's the committee's last hearing this session, and whether you served as chairman or ranking member, dick, you've been just an extraordinary influence on all of us. i know the lug garnishtive anonymous with bipartisanship and foreign policy spans his legacy, but i'll always remember the work we did on the philippines, your efforts on the floor, your amazing humility and sense of purpose is finding the commonground and reaching out to both sides of the aisle. every member of the committee has joined, and i'm presenting you with a resolution, and i just want to read just the

introduction whereas throughout his 36 years in the united states senate, richard lugar served indiana and the united states with grace, distinction, and tenacity and will have many more contributions to the nation that reveres and reveres him. we want to present this to you from everybody on the committee, my friend. >> thank you. [applause] >> mr. chairman, i thank you very much. i'm very grateful to have had this opportunity to serve with each one of you. thank you. that's a very special tribute. >> well, it's small compared to your service, but we honor you. finally, we're also going to be losing jim webb and jim demanipulate. jim, as we all know, jim webb

came here, did something very few freshman can do by getting a major piece of legislation passed, the new gi bill, and on the committee, he's been really critical to our thinking about the far east. he was the first american to visit burma in ten years, and i'm proud to say i think i may have been the one who was there before that, but he changed the policy. he knew we had to lift sanctions and move it, and his contribution in thinking about the partnership, the efforts with vietnam and mias, superb contribution, a great thinker, and appreciate his service. jim demint and i obviously disagreed on a number of the treaties and commissions in front of the committee, but one of the great things about jim is you know where he stands, know what he believes, we do, and he's been a terrific advocate for his point of view, and we're confident that in his -- in the

new half that he's going to wear, we're going to contribute to debate and continue to feel his presence, and we thank him very much for his service on the committee also so we thank both of them. gentlemen, thanks for putting up with our early efforts here on the committee. we appreciate your parks, and, thank you very, very much for being here today. secretary burns issue you're going to lead off, thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. chairman, senator lugar, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity. secretary clinton asked me to express how much she regrets not being here today, and i'd like to join you, mr. chairman, on behalf of the secretary, the men and women of the department of state in expressing our deep respects and admiration for the many years of service of senator lugar to our nation. since the terrorist attacks in our compounds in benghazi, state department officials and senior members from other agencies testified in four congressional hearings, provided more than 20

briefings for members of staff, and submitted thousands of pages of documents including the now full classified report was accountability review board. secretary clinton sent a letter covering a wide range of issues for the record. today, i'd like to highlight just a few key points. the attacks in benghazi took the lives of four courageous americans. ambassador stevens, a friends and beloved member of the community for years. he was a diplomat's diplomat, and embodied the very best of america. even as we grieved for the fallen friends and colleagues, we took action on three fronts. first, took steps to further protect our people and posts staying in constant contact with embassies and consulates around the word facing protests, received reporting from the intelligence community, and took additional reprecautions where immediated. you'll hear about this from tom.

second, we intensified a diplomatic campaign aimed at combating the threat of terrorism across north africa, and we continue to work to bring to justice the terrorists responsible for the attacks in benghazi working with our partners to close safe havens, cut off terrorist finances, counter extremist ideology, and slow the flow of new recruits, and, third, secretary clinton ordered an investigation to determine exactly what happened in benghazi. i want to convey our appreciation to the accountability review board's chairman and vice chairman, ambassador tom, and former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, and richard, and katherine. the board's report takes a clear-eyed look at serious systemic problems, problems which are unacceptable, problems for which secretary clinton takes responsibility, and problems which we have already begun to fix.

before tom walks you through what we're doing to implement fully, i want to add a few words based on my own experiences as a career diplomat in the field. i've been a proud member of the foreign service for more than 30 years, and i had the honor for serving as a chief of mission overseaings. i know that deploam sigh, -- deploam plume -- diplomacy is worked in dangerous areas, and we cannot work in bunkers to do our jobs. when america's absent, there's consequences, and chris stevens understood that as well as anyone. chris also knew that every chief mission has the responsibility to ensure the best possible security and support for our people. as senior officials here in washington we share that profound responsibility. we have to constantly improve, reduce the risks our people face, and make sure they have all resources they need.

that includes the men and women of the state department's diplomatic security service. i have been deeply honored to serve with many of these brave men and women. they are professionals and patriots who serve with no marines on post or little or no u.s. military presence in the country. like secretary clinton, i trust them with my life. it's important to recognize the colleagues and bureaus of diplomatic security and middle east affairs and across the department at home and abroad get it right countless times a day for years on end in some of the toughest circumstances imaginable. we cannot lose sight of that, but we learned very hard and painful lessons in benghazi. we are already acting on them. we have to do better. we owe it to our colleagues who lost lives in benghazi. we owe it to the security professionals who agented with such extraordinary heroism that awful night to try to protect them, and we owe it to thousands of the colleagues serving america with great dedication

every day in diplomatic posts around the world. we will never prevent every act of terrorism or achieve perfect security, but we'll never stop working to get better and safer. as secretary clinton said, the united states will keep leading and engaging around the world including in those hard places where america's interest and values are at stake. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, senator lugar, members of the committee, i also want to thank you for the opportunity. i want to reiterate what bill has said. all of us have a responsibility to provide the men and women who serve this country with the best possible security and support. from senior department leadership setting the priorities to supervisors evaluating security needs to the congress appropriating sufficient funds, we all share this responsibility. secretary clinton has said that as secretary of state, this is

her greatest responsibility and our highest priority. today, i will focus on the steps we've been taken at secretary clinton's direction and that we'll continue to take. as bill said, the board report takes a clear-eyed look at syria, systemic problems for which we take responsibility, and that we have already gun to fix. we are grateful for the recommendations from the team. we accept every one of them, all 29 recommendations. ..

specific action items. will assign every single one to the response for the bureau if immediate implementation and several will be completed by the end of the calendar year. implementation of each and every recommendation will be underway by the time the next secretary of state takes office. there will be no higher priority for the department in the coming weeks and months. should we require more resources to execute them we will work closely with the congress ensure they are met. as i said secretary hillary clinton wants us to implement the findings and do no more. let me offer clear specifics. for measure 200 years the united states has relied on host nations to provide securities for embassies and consulates. today in the environment we have to take a new and harder look at

the exaibility and of our host. we have to re-examine in the places where be we face national security the worldwide review of the security posture. but the particular scrutiny was a number of high threat posts. with the department of defense we deployed inner agency security assessment teams made of diplomatic and security experts to 19 posts in 13 countries, and unprecedented cooperation between the departments and a critical time. these teams have provided us a road map for creas -- addressing emerging security challenges. we're partnering with the pentagon to send 35 additional marine detachments, about 225 marines to medium and high-threat posts with where they'll serve visible

distenderness to host l acts. it's on top of the approximate 150 tachments we have already deployed. we are lining our resources to the 2013 budget request to physical vulnerability and structures whenever need and reduce risk from fire. we made need your help in ensuring that we have the authority to streamline the use processes that faster results. we're seeking to hire more than 150 diplomatic security personnel an increase of about 5% and provide them with the equipment and training they need. as they recommended we're target them squarely and securing at the high threat post. i want to second those praise for the brave security officials. i have served for only two years having come from the private sing or it. however, i have traveled to place like iraq and afghanistan and pakistan. i have seen firsthand how the

dedicated men and women risk their lives every day. we owe them a debt of conrad attitude to protect us in more than 270 posts around the world. as we make the improvements in the field, we're also making changes here in washington, d.c. we have named the first ever deputy assistant secretary for state for high threat posts within the bureau of diplomatic security. we're updating the deployment procedurings to increase the number of experience and well trained staff serving in the posts working to ensure that the state department makes decisions about where our people operate in the way reflects the shared responsibility for security. our regional assistant secretary were directly involved in the interagency security assessment process and assume greater accountability for securing our people and post. ly will provide the congress with detailed report at every step we're taking to improve security and implement the board's recommendations. we will look to you for support

and guidance as we do this. obviously part is about resources, we must quip our people with what they need to deliver results, safely and work with you as needs arise. but congress has a bigger role than that. you have -- you know our diplomats on the ground and challenges they face. you know the vital national security interests at strange. we're in this together. we look forward to working with you. thank you, mr. chairman, for your support in counsel and for the opportunity to discuss the important matters. we would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you very much, secretary. senator lugar is also going to yield his time. so we will go directly to senator boxer. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, and senator lugar, thank you very much. i will miss you very much. i want to join in sending my best wishes to secretary clinton as she recovers.

please tell her that we would like to get the message to her. and i send my deepest thanks and grief once again to those that we lost to the families of those we lost. i know, they are suffering especially in the holiday season. i praise secretary clinton for ordering a true i are independent investigation of what happened in benghazi. i attended a classified briefing most of yesterday, yabtd say everything or much. i can say this, i found this to be an extraordinary presentation. it was clear, it was tough, and i believe if we don't listen and follow the recommendations, it will be a disaster for our out there in the field. i believe we will. and i thank our chairman and ranking for having the hearing, because i know it's the end of the year, but we have to change

the way we view the securitied at our missions because times are changing. and the needs are changing. let's be clear. they asked for fiscal year 2012, the house cut this request by more than 300 million now. we the senate helped restore some of the funds. but it was $200 million short. now i love our military bands. as a matter of fact, we go to the concerts and, it's just important to know that in the house there was a amendment to cut funds from the military bands which failed and the funding for mt. military bands is $388 million. so all i want to say is we need to get our priorities straight around here, and we can't walk away and invite another tragedy

and as much as people like to say well, it's not the money, it's the money. you can't protect the facility without the funding. i'm looking at our security at our schools now just as a after the tragedy in connecticut, it cost money to get the facilities hard end. to get the personnel that are needed. ambassador stevens was -- a whole in our hearts. i'm going it get to my questions . and and i guess i'm going to ask it straight out. do you plan in the next budget to ask the funding level that are necessary for protecting all of our facilities? the answer is yes, i'm aware, as

we are in the constraint which we are -- all of our programs including -- everything we do at the state department, as the secretary clinton is articulated many times. it's less than 1% of the federal budget. >> so my . >> my question is are you going to submit to us a plan and the money ask that you believe you need after sliewb -- absolutely paying attention to fiscal con train. we not asking for bells and whris les. will it be that you truly believe you need. i hope so. you can't count on us to know the needs. >> there's no question that we will be doing so. as you know, secretary clinton asked us to come to congress and

amendment the 2013 budget request to do this three things. pay afor additional marine deployment and the high-risk three increase diplomatic security for about 5%. we are mt. midst of 2014 budget process. we intend to come back to the committee once we do our assessment as you know. i pointed out earlier we had a assessment team between the department of defense and state department and looked at nineteen high-risk posts. >> i't nt to cut you off. i have to. you are going to . >> yes. absolutely. >> that's important. and secondly, the troubling thing here is that there were repeated request to implement security upgrades in tripoli and benghazi. as we look at the report, we know what happened, and i would like to know, do you intend to

put it to process -- to put in to place a process that would allow for a second review of the request by another body within the state department? because it seems like what happened is request came and went one particular individual or desk and never saw the light of day. >> one of the recommendations that we have is look at the ask. how are they given to us, how we exam the request, and yes, whether he learn from the incidents in libya and to be very clear about digging in to the request as i point out earlier. we have begun to set up individual tasks to look in to that. >> may i ask one last quick question? it was it appropriate to rely on them to guard american personnel. how was it made and how do we avoid the types of failure.

are there standards policy and procedures for the hiring of them with the libyan anomaly or other facilities around the world where we rely on the same type. >> as you know, senator boxer, we have -- the fact for us on the ground is rely on the local government and the government to protect us. we have to do that because we have -- do not have the ability to have enough troops on the ground. most of the countries will not allow us to. we are one of the tasks that secretary clinton asked to do when we send out the assessment teams. that two very quick questions. a country's intense -- to protect us and the ability to protect us. sometimes they are different. as we see and refer to the new normal. we have to ask ourself those question. >> would you write to us and let us know if there are any other facilities relien ma list militia? >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i too want to thank senator lugar for many years of great service. we'll miss him. and want to wish secretary clinton a peedy recovery. i think it's imperative we appreciate you both here. it would be a shame to turn the page on this and go to a new regime without it being here. i look forward to that happening. i thank you for being here and do i want to say that i was on the ground in libya right after this happened, and was with our team there, and witnessed the shock of them losing colleagues they lost. met the folks who were nothing short of absolutely american heroes in what they did. but also witnessed a despair of a group who felt like they were on the tether and did not have the support of washington.

i'm dismayed that this hearing is already centered on additional money which may well be needed. as senator boxer said, we would have no idea because we have never done a top to bottom review of the state department since i have been here for six years. i hope will change with the next congress. we have no idea whether they are using the money wise or not. what i saw -- that doesn't think outside the box. that is not using the resources that it has in any kind of creative ways is not prioritizing. i can't imagine sending folks to benghazi after what we saw from the security cameras and the drones. i cannot imagine we had people throughout with the lack of security existing. it seems to me what the state department would have done is

prioritize and in fact we cannot have people safely there not sent them. i would like a brief response from the secretary as to why we did not prioritize that. secretary clinton just sent up another a information to to congress asking for $1.3 billion. why did she never ask for any information to or change of resources to make sure benghazi was secured? why did that the not happen? >> thank you, senator. as you know, we have fully and completely embraced the recommendation. -- i don't i understand. by the way, you had eighteen arb in the past? and you have never fully implemented one yet. not one. so i don't want to talk about the arb. i want to talk about why you didn't ask for the resources for benghazi just like was done this

week on the arb. tell me why. >> as you know, senator, we are -- we must re-examine all of our high-risk posts and determine the situation as we see it as a -- new e evolving risk are occurs. as you are well aware, we are in a situation where the middle east is evolving, democracies are growing, militaries are forming with ab when must look at each and every one of the site and every one of our post and re-examine under a new normal. >> you were aware of the security risk there. we have read the cables. you were fully aware. and either you send people there with security or you don't send them there. i don't understand why you didn't send a information to up with the cables coming in, with concerns about security, why didn't you do just what you did with the arb? seeking adissal funds. i don't understand the appropriations committee has

never received from a state department the information to asking to shift funds for security in ben gas -- benghazi. it happens all the time. it happens almost weekly. >> senator, as you know, reconstantly evaluating our security posture. we are constantly reevaluating where we need funds, and constantly reevaluating the current situation on the ground. as you are well aware, we have risks all over the world, we're constantly evaluating, determining at the time, clearly as the it points out mistakes occur. we have to look at the mistaking and exam them and take ourself acounsel for the mistakes and need to figure out to make sure it doesn't happen again. as you should point out. we get about 99% of the time. we would like to be at 100 percent without question. we have over 275 posts around the world.

our men and women are in danger all over the world, and we attempt to try to do this 100%. we hope that this and the recommendations, we will actually learn from them and determine to make sure it's not happen again. >> one last point. a lot of talk about money, it's amazing every time there's an issue, we start talking about more money. the fact is that you had sixteen site security team personnel on the ground, they were at no cost to the state department. totally funded by the defense department, no money issue. they had been there for a long, long time. they had been extended multiple times at no cost to you other than the lodging for them to be there. defense department totally pays for them. tripoli asked they be extented and you didn't do it. this has nothing do with money. why did you not do that?

>> as you know, senator, that team was in tripoli, it was not benghazi. that team visited benghazi a few times. the team, just to be clear was posted in tripoli. >> we only had a person there on the ground forty days a year. i assume they would have traveled and been there when we had the ambassador there? so i just don't understand. you talk about money, but you had sixteen people there free from the defense department, they asked they stay and you denied that. i don't understand that. >> they were extended three times, senator, and more importantly the team was in fact in tripoli. they did in fact visit benghazi a few times during their time. >> senator, let me say i think you asked good questions. and i would ask you to review admiral mullens and ambassador pickers' request as a specific

set of requirements with respect to the funding they talked about. >> i have reviewed it. i will say there are have been eighteen arbs. not a single one of them has ever been fully implemented. i understand about the process, heim just saying that the culture within the state department, to me, is one that needs to be transformed. this committee can help, maybe the next secretary of state can help, but the fact is there's a lot of work that needs to be done there. >> senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too want to say to senator lugar that he is leaving behind an extraordinary -- at this point, i'm sure he's going to serve in many oh ways in the future, an extraordinary career and lasting legacy in so many different ways. we appreciate your service. and remember ambassador stephens as the hallmark of foreign services is about. our challenge here at home and

abroad in the context of terrorism is that the terrorists have to only be lucky once. we have to get it right 100% of the time. it's a heavy burden. not an easy one. obviously this time we didn't get it right. but state acknowledges where it made a mistake, but i find it extraordinary is congress is always very good at doing is only casting blame on one side but never seeming to take any responsibility of its own. and i hear voices that will not accept responsibility. i hear about eighteen accountable review boards. i don't believe it's in this administration eighteen accountability review boards. ic it might be the first, if i'm not mistaken. it's going back over administration, and you can't even implement all of accountability review boards if

one of the recommendation is significant part is about resources, and you don't have the resources provided by the congress to meet those recommendations. so i think that we need to take this in the context of making sure that we collectively both state and the congress look at the responsibility to protect our embassy and our diplomatic personnel abroad. in this that respect, reading directly from the young classified section of the report, they say the accountability review board says among various department bureaux and personnel in the field within there appear to be a real confusion over who ultimately was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on policy and security considerations. can you tell me, ambassador, how we're going change that? it sounds there was silo and a lack of understanding, the clear definition of responsibility. how are we going to neat

challenge and change in terms of the recommendation? >> as recommended, we are going focus very clearly on the issues of organizational structure within diplomatic security. we are too going look very closely at the involvement of the bureau, which is -- which oversees the countries in which the security recommendations are put forward. we are going to make sure that the communications between the field and security is correct. we will, as suggested, don't make sure that the double checking, to make sure that the request are evaluated and looked at with a lot of eye balls. we are going to learn from what the arb suggested as we look at the security requirements, to be very clear eyed about the request and the determination on the security situation on the ground. are we going to have more of a

or dan tal effort here. the sharing information and knowledge? >> but with a clear delineation of who makes the ultimate responsibility. >> yes, sir. we need to learn from this. that's one of the lessons that came out from the report. we sphwoand incorporate that not only in our thinking but the actual reality how we do our operation. >> one of the element from the the report is on intelligence and essence a intelligence failure. we have relied upon specific threats as a basis of reacting and preparing versus a careful consideration to a deor deteriorating threat as a base i basis of improving security posture. can you talk about how the department seeks to improve that new reality? >> yes, sure. i mean, that is a challenge that we need to be much more effectsive in addressing both within the state department and also, i think, throughout the intelligence community. the truth is across the eastern

libya for many months, before the attack took place in ben benghazi, there was a troubling pattern earn of deteriorating security not only directed a the the united states, there has been a tendency not just in the case of eastern libya, across the world in recent years for us to focus too much on specific credible threats and times those are the forest and the trees. i think it's something we were painfully reminded of in the benghazi attack. there are specific recommendations that the accountable review board made we will implement relentlessly in the state department and we'll work with the rest of the intelligence community. >> finally, reading from the report again, and having listened to both ambassador pickering and admiral mullen, they made it clear while there are many mistakes made in the outline and respond to them a

significant problem here is resources. we can hide our head in the sand or ultimately meet that challenge. where they say it's imperative for the state department to be mission-driven rather than resource-constrainted, particularly being present increasely risky areas of the world. in that respect, i hope that when you present your budget, at the same time that you are asking for what the accountability review board has recommended, as one of the remitses, that -- recommendation in fact you give us the sense of the reforms you're pursuing so congress will feel even more empowered to be responsible and to; therefore, help you meet the changes of our diplomat support. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, it's really unfortunate that we have to do

go through an incident like this in order to get our act together, if you would. everybody here has been through embassies all over the world, and what has always struck me -- fist of -- first of all, i feel good when i see the marines and they say, good morning sir before you walk in. before that you have to go through the trench of locals as you told us that are operating under a 200--year-old agreement to protect our operations in there in their own countries. and, you know, the world has changed over the last 200 years, and those -- you get a real sense of incompetence when you go through there. jury room the people are -- generally the people are confused. most of them you wouldn't meet going in to a theater here in the united states having the kind of competency they have. so i guess what you're going

have to do is instead of treating these the same. each one has to be treated circhtly. every host country is going to be have to be treated differently. our reputation in the world, and feeling about americans in the world has changed dramatically over the last 200 years. there are countries such as western europe where you don't -- we don't have to to have what you have. and we go to other places i've been shocked shocked in some countries that are not countries friendly to the united states and seemed minimal amount of marine presence that we have there. and then, of course, we learned, i think, at least i did for the first time or i guess i heard it, but didn't stick previously the marines are there to guard the documents, and, i mean, that's shocking. the first obligation ought to be to protect -- americans in the embassy. i'm hoping it will change.

i'm sure it will change. it seems to that the rules of engagement need the review. i looked a the the people streaming through the front gate in benghazi. that wouldn't have taken that much to stop the attack if indeed they would have responded to it immediately, it seemed to me. again, you're looking at film, and i understand it's a lot more sterile than being there on the ground at the time when the people are coming through the front gate. it seems to me that it's time to do something about it. and nothing was done until -- i don't have any questions for you. -- i looked a the review board. we have our own review of maybe which of the stronger what should be less. but the bottom line take away from me is things are going to have to be done a lot different than what they have been done, and we really need to discriminate amongst countries as to what kind of effort we put

forward. with that i yield the rest of my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. goodsgood observation. in ben gas city i want to followup on -- i want to point out mr. chairman, i know you have worked on the state department authorization bill. you had discussions, i think it's important in the next congress that we have a full committee discussion on the state department authorization act. so ha we can weigh in in a more deliberative away on the policy on the responsibility of the committee. i want to followup on the senator corker and menendez's points on intelligence. recommendations 21, is very

clear on this. that post 2001 intelligence collection that is expanded hugely. that's true. benghazi attacks are stark reminder question not rely on the certainty of warning intelligence. and careful attention should be given to factors showing deor it your ration threats, situations in general on a basis for the action. let me point out that it was clear in benghazi that the security was deteriorating maybe not a specific threat. we didn't have information about that. it was also clear. we also knew that the local security team was not 100% reliable. that was known. and yet the security details that we had in benghazi as the report points out was in inned inadequate. so i would like you to expand more on how we are going institutionize careful attention

so we do not allow a situation such as benghazi to occur in the future. we can't eliminate all threats. we understand that. we understand there was not adequate security at the benghazi facility based upon the deteriorating since. how do we institutionize the careful attention to make sure in the types of dangerous assignment west have adequate security. i want to add one more thing. ambassador stevens knew libya perhaps better than any other american. the judgment will be never second guessed. it's important in dangerous poteses, -- posts there be more than just the head of mission who is responsible for the security. no question about that. he has the best advice on a broad are basis as we go in to the types of sicks. how do we institutionize that? >> let me start, senator.

you raise a good point. i think the true is, as i said before, first with regard to the intelligence that the eastern libya there was a troubling pattern it developed. a lot of violence and security were intralibya. some were districtedded a the the -- directed a the the united states. i think we made a mistake in the assumption that we wouldn't become a major target. >> the thought of the anniversariful 9/11. there's a lot of reasons. >> there were a number of different motives as the report makes clear. as you stayed, senator he understand the risks as well as anyone. one of the painful lessons we have learned the importance of being able to take a step back and try to analyze better the broader pattern of security. there's a sense of responsibility on all of us for trying to better understand those challenges and not be so fixuated on specific credible

threats. and take that in to account in dealing what were obviously security -- that go beyond specific threats i hope you would share that. streamline of process so you can move quicker in implement. you mentioned there may be concerns with additional marine assignments with the host country. is there any anything we need to be aware of as you implement these recommendations as it relates to your bureaucratic streamlines that may require congressional attention or problem with host countries as we put marines in state in country. >> senator, thank you. it's been a unprecedented cooperation between the state department and the defense

department, i should say, not only do they agree to send very competent and trained with the state department, colleagues to the people immediately to evaluate all the countries during the period of time with the current unrest going on. two, one of the recommendations that came back a that general dempsey along with secretary panetta and secretary clinton and the white house agreed to the use of additional marine attachment would be helpful. the senate is correct, the mission of the marine is statutorily to protect classified information. there's no question for all of us who have come in to those embassies with the marine detachment. they are a deterrent of the imposing deterrent and it comes with a lot of other things. the additional request, the 35

additional attachments which include about 250 additional marines. re-asking to build potential barracks on the ground where we possibly -- marines the five individual in the attachment could potentially live on the facility or close by. the cooperation between the defense department and the state department, in any view, is unprecedented for a situation like this. and we will be coming to the congress. we're not only the appropriations for pay for that but also potentially the authorities which we will be working with dod. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator carden. senator rubio. >> thank you. i want to begin by commending senator lugar on the service to the country. i've been watching you since i was in high school. i mean that as compliment. growing up in miami foreign policy found the way to the local politics too. and i have a passion for foreign policy partially by watching

your career. i am pleased achance to serve with you for two years on this committee. i also want to thank you for being here today and the service our country. i do it every time. i know, how unrewarding it can be. thank you for being here. i want to say the report is furthered our understand of what happened in benghazi. i appreciate it. i don't want to say i'm concerned but i'm a bit puzzled. in t places the blame on the lower level officials. particularly lower secretary officials. why i find that puzzling benghazi and libya is -- it's a country we were involved in many militarily not so long ago in a high profile intervention and i'm curious because in page 5 of the report in the classified version, it talks about the, you know, it's not a triterty for washington. the special mission was not a priority for washington it came to secure i had-related ask.

especially those related to staffing. i wanted to underwashington and in that frame of mind, i have a number of questions. i know crin ton visited in 2011. did the security situation come up during her visit there whether it was a country team or in the interactions with the libyans? >> senator, i'm sure in general terms that did. i wasn't on the trip. i don't know specifically. i can speak to my own experience. i visited libya in july . >> july. correct. >> i visited in july. i visited in september after the attack in benghazi. i can speak to my own experience. and, you know, secretary clinton said the senior leaders in the democrat are accountable and respondent for what happened. i certainly fault myself. i accompanied the remains of my four colleagues back after the attack in benghazi. i had had been in the middle east on a trip and cut short a trip in iraq to come back. on the long flight home i had a

long time to think about sharper questions i could have asked or provider. >> on your visit in july or in september, did you go in july? >> right. >> yes. >> can that issue a specific come up. did the focus on the ground say we're worried about what is happening with security. we made a number of request. >> there was no specific discussion of that. i talked to ambassador stevens about the security situation. we didn't talk about specific at the time. >> clinton met with the prime minister in libya in march. did you know if it came up in the meeting. >> there is march . >> 2012. >> i'm certain it. , youyou know, we certainly emphasized the importance of not only improving the security capabilities, for the libyan interim government at that time, we offered a number of programs to help them build those institutions, which remained one of the greatest weaknesses for

libyan government. >> as it was in july when i met with the prime minister as women. >> in the particular -- you don't know if that -- you're pretty sure that the issue came up. we don't know the full content. >> i don't know all the details. >> you met with the deputy prime minister in june of this year. it it come up in the meeting. >> it did. the focus on urging them and offering support for the dwo. security institution, at that time and to this day are extremely weak. >> the department reviewed or briefed on the cable sent from the post in june and august of 2011 regarding the security situation. to what level did those cables get reviewed? >> they certainly would have been reviewed up through assistant secretary level and it may be some of colleagues saw them as well. >> so beyond that level, were there any senior officials beyond the assistant secretary level made aware from the repeated request from the post for extend order additional security. in particular will were request made in march and july of 2011.

too you know beyond the secretary level. in a memo or some other written document? >> i'm not aware of any specific memo that went beyond the sixth floor with regard to the specific at this time, no. >> do you know going up to the secretary level were they aware of the more than 200 security incidents in benghazi leading up to the attack? there there were certainly memos that came up to the seventh floor that talked about the key or it your rating security situation. >> and finally after the different trips to libya yourself and secretary and others senior officials and state department, there were any memos produced after the visit to the tune of basically say we have been to libya, by the way, there are two thing the station is concerned about secure any general and the libyans are concerned about their ability to provide security. do you know of my moms were produced or high level meetings about that too took place above

the assistant secretary level. were there any meetings or memos. >> there were meetings that took place with senior levels with regard to the situation in libya in general and particularly to the concern about the weak security capabilities of the libyan government at that time. and so certainly that was a subject of fairly consistent concern as i said. we made a of number of officers and occasions pushed the libyan government to try to move to accelerate the difference -- which related directly to the security. >> beyond the assistant secretary level, there was a general specific awareness of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in libya of the repeated ask from the fema on the ground for security and inability of the libyans to . >> sorry. senator, what i would say there was a generally awareness of the deteriorating security situation in eastern libya and there was

not only a general awareness but a real concern about the difficulty that the libyan government was having in developing capable security. >> the assistant secretary level that existed. >> the awareness with regard to the incapacity of the libyan interim government in developing security institutions. yes, sir, we work hard to try to push the libyans to move faster in that distribution. >> thank you. senator casey. >> thank you. i want to reintegrate what was said by many on the panel about the lugar's great relationship and it mentored many of us and a great example for us. we are great to feel the service. and continue to serve in another capacity or or many capacities. we also -- i want to express the condolences they have, i know and so many on in this room about the loss of the state department suffered.

ambassador stevens and other two kills. and that's why the questions that we're debating are so great and so meaningful. as reflecting upon the challenge that you both have in the state department has, in light of the report and light of the subject matter that lead to the report, and because of that, i guess you try to think in your own minds what experiences are relevant to inform the questions that you have or the points that you want to make? two are relevant in my life, someone that the traveling that i've done across the world is a men of the committee three times in pakistan, three times in afghanistan, several trips to the middle east last time senator and i were traveling together. and seeing the difficulty of providing security not only for

folks in embassy and consulate, but members of congress travel in the danger that we feel sometimes and even with the knowledge we have security around us. getting that balance is right. as you know, we have to get it right every time, and taxpayers expect that, and they expect us to put forth every effort. they expect it of you, and they expect it of us. the other experience i have as a state official leading informations and audits of public agencies and at times kicking the hell of out them really hitting them hard. and calling for people to be fired, demanding accountability for tax dollars and results. i do know this, though, when a report is issued and findings are made, you can't simply have us in congress or in the case of state officials officials in my experience, just yelling and screaming about the results.

the work i did and information technology, hardware, whatever it takes we have to dedicate the resources. you cannot get the results that you want just by yelling and screaming. so you to have investment and resources. third, the third point i would make is that your credibility as a department will be greatly enhanced by the pace of implementation, by the demonstrable success you have been in other words the taxpayers can see that you made the changes and the steps you're taking now in the couple of days and weeks. that's mostly important for the broader concerns we have.

it's especially important when you come back here and ask for dollars. ly stand with anyone to say the resources matter. i know, from personal experience. your credibility will be enhanced when you ask for the resources and specifically focus on what the resources will go for and how you will be able to change the dynamic. let me say, i don't have much time. with the predicate, let me ask the question i'm not sure has been raised yet. number one, close country cooperation in partnership, i know there's a great variance or it varies by country and situation, but if either of you secretary burns or deputy secretary can neat -- speak to the question of the host of challenge of having host country partnership, and then mr. new yorks can you quickly one more time run through the timeline of implementation of the remitses

-- recommendations. >> obviously one of the lessons of all the changes have taken place across the middle east in the last couple of years as you have revolutions and post revolutionary governments coming in to place, is that the development of security -- institution in the country and the capacity for following through on the convention obligation through protecting foreign diplomats is uneven and sometimes extremely weak. and that something we have to both understands and adapt to. that's exactly as tom described earlier what we're determined to do as we make changes and strengthen our security our at diplomatic facilities over the coming years. >> we asked the appropriations committee for additional funds. the thirteen appropriations are well on the way. number one, number two, we formed the team that got them to

the field immediately with dod to the 19th post and we have recommendation of the high-risk post very soon and quickly. number three, we took the sixty tasks, the twenty nine recommendations and broke them to sixty tasks i had my first meeting with the committee, with the task force and divided up to the timeline and dates and make sure we execute many of them hopefully before the end of the calendar year, and be able to set up for the next secretary to come in and make sure that we're executed the rest. and finally, obviously, we name the first ever deep deputy secretary. we took the action steps as we proceed in takes the recommendation. >> to keep us updated you go. thank you very much. >> thank you senator say -- casey. >> let me say i agree with the sentiments of senator rubio and his reference to you, senator

lugar. except since we're both in high school at the same time, i didn't get that message. but you've done a wonderful job for a lot of years. we respect you. both senator corker, and senator rubio talked about some of of the events that lead to the disaster. however, they assumed, i guess, that everyone already knew, and i think it's imperative for us to put the things in the record so we know what signs were out there. -- technical warning of the 9/11 attacks. we will run over some of the things and ask you both if you agree with that statement. it was more than yes or no answer, you can do it for the record. in april, two former security guards for the consulate in ben

gas city through eid over the consulate events in may, they got out -- militated an explosive perimeter gait. -- gate. in june a rocket-propelled grenade hit the convoy carrying the british ambassador to libya and ben benghazi. they got out of town. they left in june. ambassador stevens wrote that the al qaeda flags were flying over the government buildings and training facilities in that area. in august, security officers stated that they did not believe ben benghazi consulate would brand, quote, coordinated attack. that was in august.

in august the state department came -- we're talking about cables now. information that came do you folks, discussed the location approximately 10 islamist maliciouses and al qaeda-treaded camps within benghazi. on september 4, ambassador stevens warned that libyan officials had introduced a state of maximum alert in benghazi and finally september 9th, ambassador stevens requested additional security two days before it happened. like the rest of the mens of this panel, i knew him, i knew him well and had a great deal of respect for him. in light of the findings, these are facts that no one has argued with. do you -- either of one want to say you agree with the statement i read first in the report saying there were no warning?

i think it's a statement of fact. you are right to point out the pattern, the troubling pattern of dedoor your rating security in eastern libya and each of the incident you discussed. the reality is that amongst that key or it your ration or part that have a lot of intralibya violence. some targeted against the united states. we didn't go a good enough job as the report highlights in trying to connect the dots between that troubling pattern. even in the absence of an immediate . >> protecting -- [inaudible conversations] in secretary, nides will assume you agree with the statement. there's not time to go in to it. for the record. >> yes. i do. then there are two questions. one not so significant and it's obviously and the most significant question that isn't asked is not covered in the report that i'd like to get your

response to first is where the comments of the ambassador rice completely and inaccurate regard your assertion on five tv shows five day of the event the video responsibility for the death of ambassador stevens and three other americans. the second question this is important because we all knew we had testimony and i'll read the testimony the cia before the house, they said although intelligence community knew from day one that al qaeda terrorist responsible for deadly ben benghazi consulate attack. someone cut reference to al qaeda and terrorism from the overview they released on september 14th instead those talking points. now, somebody in the white house, because this report went to the situation room, someone in the white house changed the talking points from generally petraeus and the cia and before they were given to ambassador

rice. assumed they were changed and she was aware or wasn't. it's not pertinent. someone changed. do you know? do you care? >> right. senator, here's what i would say. tbhapped benghazi was clearly a terrorist attack. secretary clinton on the day of the attack that what happened was an assault by heavily armed military on the compound. later that same day president obama spoke ton an act of terror. what was not clear which terrorists were involved, what their motives were, exactly how it came aabout, whether it will been planned well in advance or more a tart of opportunity. i'm convinced, senator, colleagues in the administration who addressed the issue and with whom they relied operated in good faith.

it was run out of time. [inaudible conversations] specifically the report from the cia references al qaeda and terrorist. that's specific. we can't get anywhere specific than that. >> i'll get your response. if you have time, mr. needs niendz time to respond. i'm trying to find the other senators that get to the inouye. i think we have time. i concur with secretary burns

comments and i think interagency was operating that he didn't have good faith. sit trying as made calls to the leader of the country where the men and women were in danger, that was what the focus was. that is what our spend our time and energy on. >> you don't know who changed the talking point. it was an interagency process i'm not aware of. how it occurred. it was an interagency process. >> thank you. we'll be happen -- happy to have you followup. there's some testimony with respect to that within the intel community. but within the the intel committee. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both for being here this morning. i think the report the accountability review board report of the direct it was very honest about pointing out mistakes were made within the agency and hopefully now is the

as a result h as a result of the report as you have indicated we can move forward, we can hold people accountable and make appropriate changes and followup on the lessons that are learned as the result of this tragedy in benghazi. i appreciate secretary clinton's taking responsibility for what happened, and as she points out in the letter to the committee going further in the representation in the report to address the mistakes that were made. >> if i just -- interrupt you there i want to put the letter from secretary clinton me and senator lugar in the record at this time. >> okay. thank you. mr. chairman, one of the things that you pointed out is that you have gone out -- there have been teams to assess the nineteen state department locations around the world where they are high-risk areas. and i wonder if you can talk

about the metrics that are being used as we think about how we determine what is a high threat, high-risk location, and how we are then responding to those metrics. >> we cast the -- between the defense department and the state department with a variety of questions to ask. principle question to ask was what was the ability for the host government to protect not just their willingnd, all of the countries in which we examine every one of them without question wanted to present us. >> right. and i appreciate that you gave us that information in your testimony, but i wonder if you could be a little more specific when we ask that question what then is the followup to that? >> then the security professional then exam the practical things. the ability for fire protection

of perimeter, how close to the street, very exact, in fact, we then asked them for recommendations. the recommendations from the immediate recommendations things need to be done. things can be done between now and six months and six months to a year. so we got very exact detailed assessments from each one of the teams we then put them on the major. we were going through each one of the requirements putting budget requirement to it. prioritizing them and coming back to the institution and csh helping you think through. it was not a it was clear and specific the requirements for each one of those posts. >> and senator corker and cay casey's questions about implement takes of the report with have we attached a time line for those will get o