>> senator gillibrand attempted to pass similar language through the senate armed services committee earlier this year, but the measure failed. senators ted cruz, barbara boxer and chuck grassley also participated in this news conference. >> barbara, when she comes. don't trip on that. good morning.

um, others will be joining us. they had different time commitments, so we'll just let everyone speak when they arrive. but i want to thank all the senators who have fought on this issue so hard. i want to thank senator boxer for her tremendous work on this issue and for being a tireless partner and leader in this effort on behalf of our brave members of the services. i also want to thank senator collins for standing firmly with us since day one when we introduced the bill as well as senator grassley for being a true champion on this issue. oh, i just thanked you. so i'll say that again. i want to thank senator boxer for her tremendous work on this issue and for being an amazing advocate, an unbelievable champion for victims and someone who has worked so tirelessly from the very beginning. i also want to thank senator blumenthal, senator jeanne shaheen, kay hagan and lisa murkowski who have been working with us steadily on the committee from the very beginning as well. today i want to thank senator

rand paul for being here, for deciding to take a leadership role on such an important issue to really take this crisis head on. i also want to thank senator ted cruz for his very steadfast vote in the armed services committee and helping us lead this new amendment going forward. i think both of them are going to add deeply to this extraordinary issue that needs dramatic leadership and bold action. i also want to thank senator grassley, again, for being with us on the first day, for being the lead sponsor amongst the republicans with senator collins. that early leadership made all the difference in the world. now, our effort now is to bring -- to build a very strong bipartisan coalition that is going to end sexual assaults in the military. and the way we want to do it is create an independent, accountable military justice system that is not partisan, that is not ideological, that can create the kind of

accountability and transparency that our men and women who serve in the military need so that they can receive justice. our carefully-crafted, common sense proposal was written in direct response to what the victims told us, the stories that came from them, what happened to them, the fact that they a didn't trust the chain of command, that they were retaliated against, that they didn't believe justice was possible. so this is not a democratic idea, it is not a republican idea. it is a good idea that meets the needs of the victims, creates transparency and accountability and creates the needed objectivity that this issue deserves. so i want to now turn it over to others, and i will speak at the conclusion of my colleagues' remarks. we are now going to turn it over to senator grassley. >> thank you. i'm glad to be a part of this effort to build support for military justice improvement

act. the status quo is not working, and we need to shake it up. if we don't crack down on the corrosive culture that this sexual assault, if we don't crack down on the individuals who use sexual violence as a means of personal power and personal gain, then we'll create lingering institutional problems that will jeopardize morale and impact recruitment and retention of troops. the bipartisan legislation introduced by our colleague, senator gillibrand, will give members of the armed services more confidence in the military system of justice. the reform will do justice to the u.s. military code of honor which is based on integrity and fidelity to the rule of law. sexual assault is a law enforcement issue and when young adults make the commitment to

serve their country in uniform and put themselves in harm's way to defend and protect america's freedoms, they deserve to know that their rights will be protected including access to justice and not have that access to justice intervened by somebody who for reasons unknown may short circuit and not see that justice is delivered. thank you, senator jill brand. >> thank you. senator boxer? >> yes. >> do you want a stool? >> well, if we have one. >> we brought one. >> oh, yes, i think it's better if you can see me. thank you so much, senator. oh, great. [laughter] i am proud to be part of this bipartisan coalition for change. that's what we represent, change. change that has been coming for 20 long years, and i'm here to say i've been in the senate for that long time and so has

senator grassley, and we know and we've seen every secretary of defense call for zero tolerance on sexual assaults in the military, and every time nothing happens. i want to tell you a story, i could tell you many -- each of us could -- that reflects why we have to do this. stacy robinson at 19 joined the marines for every right reason; how much she loved her country and wanted to put her life on the line for her country. she was asked out on a date by a sergeant. he took her to a bar, he drugged her at that bar, he took her back to the barracks, and he raped her. he dropped her on the ground in front of the bar at 4 a.m. none of those facts are in dispute. i want to tell you what happened to stacy robinson and what

happened to her perpetrator, i'm told his name is thompson, dave thompson. what happened to her perpetrator. the chain of command suggested to the perpetrator that he get his butt out of the military. in order to avoid any consequence whatsoever. and stacy? she was investigated for drug use from that night. she, after ten years or more, she's coming out to talk about this story which has scarred her forever. so do we need change? yes. and what happened in the armed services committee was some good, good small tweaks to the

system which we strongly support. but the main change that was supported in that committee by senator gillibrand and her other cosponsors here didn't happen. so i'm going to close just showing you quickly a couple of charts in no particular order, it doesn't matter. zero tolerance for sexual assault by u.s. defense secretaries over the last two decades, statements by secretary hagel. it's not good enough to say we have a zero tolerance policy. we do. but what does that mean? how does that translate? well, he should be supporting us. senator -- i'm sorry, secretary leon panetta, we've absolutely no tolerance for any form of sexual assault. secretary gates, first of all, i have a zero tolerance. let's go to the next one. this really gets old. very quickly.

secretary rumsfeld, sexual assault will not be tolerated. secretary william cohen, this goes to '97, i intend to enforce strict policy of zero tolerance of hazing, of sexual assault and racism. secretary william perry, this goes back to 1994, and for all of these reasons, therefore, we have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. and, lastly, secretary cheney, march '89, while we've got a major effort underway to educate everybody to let them know that we've got a zero tolerance policy where sexual harassment's involved. it's enough with the words. it's enough. with the empty promises. it's time for some real change, and senator gillibrand is leading us toward that change to more quick, much quicker charts. 90%. i want you to remember that. 90% of sexual assaults are not,

underlined not, reported. because they tell us, and as senator gillibrand had said eloquently, we don't listen, they tell us they won't report it because they don't want to see it in the chain of command. and very last, look, this isn't something the senator pulled out of the air. look at our allies. in israel since 1955 outside the chain of command, canada, '98, outside the chain of command. australia, 2005, outside the chain of command. united kingdom, 2006. so don't let anyone tell you this is some idea that is so out of the mainstream. we are in the mainstream, the status quo is out of the mainstream. it isn't working, and i am as proud as i can be to stand with a coalition like this and just make a statement to those victims who are waiting for justice and to our colleagues who are looking at us and

deciding. please, please put your faith in change. thank you. >> senator rand paul. [inaudible conversations] >> you know, i try not to look at issues from a partisan view. i'm sure i do sometimes, but i try not to. as a physician, i look at problems, and i try to find solutions. i'm concerned, you know, about justice, and i wanted to -- i wt it to occur in the military as well as for those accused. justice is very important to me. i'm concerned that victims of assault, though, may be deterred from reporting their assault if they have to report it to their boss. i'm also concerned, though, about interposing too many lawyers in the everyday life of the military and then getting in the way of the military mission. the vast majority of our

soldiers are honorable and upstanding individuals. we're talking about a very small percentage, but if they commit crimes, they should be punished. in finding justice for the victims, we must make sure that there's due process for all. some say we have no bipartisan cooperation around here, and i disagree. i think this is a great example of how people from both sides come together and are willing to work on a problem and look honestly at, you know, what the problem is. so when i heard about this, my first impression was a positive one. as i looked at the bill, i asked and senator gillibrand asked to come back to me and we talked about it, i thought there were one or two things that maybe were included in this that we should exclude from this. she was very open to the discussion, and it makes my support even stronger for this is that there were a couple things we removed that weren't sexual assault, weren't murder. these were disobeying orders and some other things and we said, you know what? we'll still leave that in the line of command. we're going to take serious

crimes, murder, rape, sexual assault in here, and i think it's made the bill even stronger. i always thought the motive was good for the bill, but i think the bill's even stronger. the only thing, i think, standing in the way is just sort of the status quo. and senator boxer was actually right. everybody says they're against sexual assault. why don't we if it appears there is some deterrence to victims reporting the crime, why don't we fix it? so i see no reason not to fix it, and i'm glad to be part of the process if i can. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. sexual assault is a grave violation of the trust and duty that we owe our servicemen and servicewomen. when our sons and daughters sign up to defend our nation, they willingly anticipate facing hostile fire from enemy forces. but they don't sign up to potentially be subject to sexual assault from their colleagues. the supreme court rightly

described rape as short of murder the ultimate violation of self. now, every senator is opposed to rape, opposed to sexual assault and wants to act to prevent it. and i'll tell you having spoken with a number of our commanders, i'm convinced that our commanders in the military want to see this problem go away. that they understand, they have heard the message, and they are working to make it go away. but unfortunately, in this problem has persisted despite good faith, repeated efforts. this problem has persisted. and i have to say the process whereby this amendment has gone forward really underscores, i think, the way the deliberative process of the senate's supposed to work. because i entered the senate armed services committee hearing on this matter really undecided. i think there were good and reasonable arguments by the chairman of the committee and by others about preserving the cane of command, about -- the chain

of command, about keeping responsibility in the chain of command that i think have real force. and i have to tell you entering the committee hearing undecided, i was persuaded by senator gillibrand's exceptionally passionate and able advocacy. and in particular there are two points senator gillibrand made that moved me and convinced me that this was the right and responsible thing to do. first of all was the point that the most persistent problem we've seen is an unwillingness, an inability to report these crimes, that the victims of sexual assault for whatever reason have consistently remained reluctant, afraid to come forward and report the crimes. and there can be no prosecution, no deterrence if we don't have reporting of crimes. and despite all of the efforts that have been made in the past, senator gillibrand, i believe, made a persuasive case that keeping the reporting in the chain of command -- as rand said -- having to go to your boss and raise the problem, the

crime of sexual assault with your boss has proven, in fact, to be deterring victims from reporting their crimes. and secondly was the point that a number of our allies, including great britain and israel and germany, have implemented policies similar to this. and the results in practice have been the reporting rates have increased. i'm a big believer in following the data where they lead. and the fact that other professional militaries have been able to maintain discipline, maintain the chain of command, maintain effectiveness, maintain readiness and at the same time improve reporting and improve deterrence, to me, was persuasive. so i am proud to stand with senator gillibrand, with all of the senators up here. i appreciate their leadership, and i'm proud to see the senate working to fix this problem, to

make sure that we protect every young man and every young woman who signs up to defend our nation, to defend our liberty ands to make sure that they have a safe, secure environment where they can trust their fellow soldiers and be secure from any threat of sexual assault. >> thank you. senator -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> you definitely see the political spectrum of support represented right here. [laughter] and i'm proud to stand here with not just the colleagues here, but there are others who are very much concerned and want to take some specific action relating to sexual trauma in the military. yes, this has been going on for far too long. there is no magic bullet answer, but one of these answers and responses, we think, is to remove the chain of command from making the decision to investigate and go forward. on the other hand, there are plenty of other things we need

to do because we are dealing with a culture in the military that has allowed this to occur for decades and decades. so the commander has a responsibility to change that culture. there's a whole huge prevention aspect that the commander should take hold of. there's our education opportunities, there are all of these other things that can happen. and the navy is doing some of this starting in a small way where they address the incidence and the use of alcohol -- which is very much a part of these kinds of crimes. so there are so many ways that we can address this, but this is one very specific way that we believe will result in more of these crimes being reported, and we think that that is one of the first things that we have to address. so i thank all my colleagues, and, of course, kirsten's leadership. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i am very grateful for the leadership of everyone here and

the several other cosponsors. i think we have close to 0 cosponsors on this -- 30 cosponsors who have provided leadership. we all know that our military's home to the best and the brightest in the world, and there is such a small number of criminals within our military that are undermining good order and discipline, undermining command climate and destroying lives. and those are the individuals we have to find. these cases must be prosecuted, and they must be held accountable. and so i believe that when we look at this issue, we have to look at, look at it from the eyes of the victims. and that's really what matters most, their stories. now, for 62% of those who reported the crimes of the 3300 that were reported last year, 62% said they were retaliated against because they reported the crimes. of the 23,000 that didn't report, more than half -- about half said they didn't report because they didn't think anything would be done.

close to half said they didn't report because they saw someone else be retaliated against. chose to half said they didn't report because they feared retaliation. and that's why this kind of reform so important to be able to have that objective, trained military prosecutor be the decision maker. there may be less fear of realuation, less -- retaliation, more hope of accountability, a greater belief that justice can be done. that's what this change is trying to accomplish. and i'm just going to read the story of one survivor to leave you with because you have to imagine these crimes happening to your son or to your daughter. more than half of the victims are male in these cases. and until you begin to picture that in your mind, you are not going to understand the depth of destruction that is taking place in these victims' lives. one mother said, and she didn't want to divulge her daughter's name, she said, quote: i reluctantly supported my daughter going into the army fearing that she may be a casualty victim in combat

overseas by some foreign enemy. i never imagined she would be a victim on u.s. soil from the very army she partnered with to protect the u.s. and our rights. she was sexually assaulted at the end of 2012 which is a case that is still pending. she's lost her lust for life. she's become dependent on drugs to mask the pain, and now she's being pushed out of the army because the captain is derelict in his responsibility and failed to respond to her plight. he has revictimmized her emotionally by exposing her to unsafe conditions, verbal abuse and total disregard for her as a soldier or a woman. help me, please. so that is what we are here today. i want to thank all of my supporters behind me, but also all those who are not here with us for the press conference. we have to answer the call of these victims. thank you. >> any questions on topic? >> senator? >> yeah.

>> senator levin said this morning that his proposal to move these decisions further up the chain of command to the colonel level will take care of the problem of retaliation. what would your response be to that? >> i disagree with his assessment and i, you know, just to be clear, i think senator levin cares deeply about this issue and is putting forth his best effort on what he believes will make a difference. but the reason why i think that change doesn't do enough is because of this: right now the commanders are putting forward cases that are reported and that their attorneys are suggesting should be prosecuted. even sometimes the commander will say let's go forward even if the prosecutor isn't sure. but that's only about 300 cases. so if you're starting with 26,000 and only 300 are going to trial, if that commander's decision's being appealed if he says no, that's not the problem. in fact, the commander and his lawyer only disagree 1% of the time. so that's 1% of 300 cases. it's a handful.

that's not our problem. our problem is not the disagreement between a commander and a lawyer. our problem is exactly as general amos said, they don't trust us. they don't trust the chain of command. and so if the victims do not trust the chain of command, they not report these cases. -- they will not report these cases. if they've witnessed other people being retaliated against, people being shoved out of the military because they've reported these crime, they will not trust the system that the chain of command has put into place. so our only hope is that by making the system objective, that is not dependent on that judgment, that decision by the commander, they will have hope and confidence that this objective, trained military prosecutor -- and the training is essential because this set of prosecutors are trained for sexual assault in military. sexual assault and rape within the military. they know what the crime looks like, they know who the perpetrators are. they know how they're retaliated against, they know the pressure

that's put on the victim. so they're or very knowledgeable. they know the law and whether they can win these cases. i want that trained military prosecutor. not any commander because not all commanders will have the determination that we saw the military brass pledge in the last hearing. not every commander is going to understand that rape is a serious, violent crime of domination, often not even related to dating or romance. more often related to dominance and violence and -- >> [inaudible] >> power. so you need someone who's trained and knowledgeable to make the assessment. create a system of objectivity so victims have a chance to see that justice could be dope. that is why i don't think senator levin -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, go ahead. >> and i agree that senator levin, and he's -- they've tweaked the system, and they've done some good things which we support and keep in the bill. i want to make a point because people get confused. i -- they sometimes think what

senator gillibrand and we do is take the whole thing outside the military. now, there are some people who want that, but we don't go that route at all. we keep these crimes in the military but with people who know exactly what they're doing. they're trained prosecutors. and they're objective. so i think it's an important point to make. >> senator gillibrand? >> i'd like to invite senator blumenthal to say a few words. >> thank you. well, let me, let me just thank senator gillibrand for her leadership on this issue. i've been working on it for some time with proposals such as mandatory punitive discharge, victim's bill of rights, other measures that will greatly enhance the credibility and trust in the system which is critical to reporting. and none is more important than the one that she has been championing for separating the prosecutorial decision, the

convening authority from the command chain. and i am very, very encouraged by the support that we are amazing. i see -- amassing. i see it in the response among my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as is demonstrated today. and i think that we are making inroads all across the senate including on the armed services committee where i serve and she does along with senator hirono. and i think that success is within sight. whatever the threshold of votes that are required, i think that a majority and even 60 votes are within our grasp. so thank you to senator gillibrand for your leadership. thank you. >> um, just, you know, this is, as senator hirono said, quite a cross-section of the senate. senator paul, senator cruz, maybe you can give us a sense of how you were convinced to sign

on it. you know, was it meetings, was it testimony, what was it that brought you? >> i think a what's lost some times up here is people say there's no bipartisanship. senator gillibrand came over to me on the floor and just told me about it. i also saw the news about it, and my first impressions were to be favorably inclined to it and i needed to read a little more about it, and there were a few things that i wanted modified, and it wasn't a big deal to try to get the bill even better. and i think the changes made should bring more conservatives onboard to this. but i don't know, i really, truly don't see things in partisan purpose. i really don't see them that way. i'm more than willing to go against my party anytime or against the other party. we should go for what we think is right. this is anish sue that -- an issue that i think is, obviously, right, and i think we're all trying to get to a more just situation. >> and i'll mention as i described that i was really persuaded by the argument

senator gillibrand presented at the armed services committee. i went in undecided. when i cast my vote supporting this amendment afterwards, i visited with a reporter who was i think genuinely astonished. [laughter] and said you mean every vote isn't decided beforehand and, actually, arguments can persuade? and i said, well, i can't speak for every time, but i can certainly say here that, you know, look, i think all of us, republics, democrats -- republicans, democrats, and i think also the commanders in the military want to solve this problem. and the question is what's the right solution that will fix it, that will prevent sexual assault but also maintain good order and discipline, maintain the integrity of the chain of command. and i think senator gillibrand has -- [inaudible] with a number of others. i think the suggestions that rand made made the bill stronger, and i was certainly supportive of those. and i think this is a common sense approach to fixing a problem to make our military

stronger and make sure we can stand by and protect every serviceman and servicewoman. >> we have time for two more. >> senator paul mentioned some changes that were made to the bill. the uniquely-military crimes were an exception when -- >> correct. >> during the markup. has there been changes made since the markup? >> no. senator rand noticed two additional crimes that he felt were better dealt by commanders, and i agreed with him. i think his changes make the bill stronger. specifically, direct order which for whatever reason was overlooked. if you are given a direct order by your commander, you're not going to go call a lawyer to investigate whether you responded or didn't respond. that is not the appropriate response. and so he was very smart to recognize that and say that should be included in this 36 specific crimes that i believe and we all believe -- because we the bill this way -- are military in nature, that aren't, there's no parallel in the

civilian system. so going awol, for example, is the most clear example. the military commander will be in charge if you do go awol, you don't show up for duty, he will decide what's going to happen to you because he knows what's going on, what's the appropriate response to either keep you in the military or respond appropriately. so he found two additional crimes that i agreed would be better determined by a military commander and not taken out of chain of command. they were serious, but military in nature. >> one last question. >> defense department yesterday, the ig put out a report that showed really serious problems with some investigations in sexual assault and rape. it was, like, amazing discrepancies like not collecting clothing -- >> correct. >> interviewing witnesses. >> exactly. >> i mean, your bill looks at the prosecution, but they seem to have bigger problems than what you're -- >> well, that's as senator boxer said, this crime, i mean, this challenge is pervasive. it is a cultural, top-to-bottom issue that needs to be looked at

every step of the way. what we were able to do in the armed services committee, we had a number of bills authored by many members of the committee and people outside the committee that would strengthen the process and help victims. , for -- so, for example, one bl would assure that every victim would now have a victim's advocate. we included that in our markup straight to the base bill, unanimously supported. so there's a number of reforms that i urge you to look at, we can actually summarize them for you. there's probably about a dozen really strong reforms that will help victims and this process better, also accountability in terms of what types of punishments and whether you're sent out of the military if convicted, also better recordkeeping so that we can find recidivists over time if someone doesn't report, we still have a record of the crime being committed. go ahead. >> you know, i think that's a very important question, and it

speaks to the need for a trained prosecutor. i was a federal prosecutor, i served the state attorney general. ultimately, the prosecutor can insist on standards and complex complex -- excellence in investigations. he's the one in charge. he's the one who has to present the case to a jury and make the case. so this proposal is integral to the entire justice system. and i might just go back to the question, you know, how can people who normally disagree come together on this issue? criminal justice has never been a partisan issue under any administration at any time. it unites all of us. justice, and particularly criminal justice, effective prosecution, should not be about republican or democrat and, certainly, not about ideological differences on other issues. so i think there's nothing surprising about thoughtful people coming together who may disagree on other issues. >> okay. thank, everybody. >> thank you.

>> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow federal reserve chairman ben bernanke is on capitol hill to deliver the fed's semiannual policy report. our live coverage of the house financial services committee begins at 10 a.m. eastern time. also the senator judiciary committee holds a hearing on the voting rights act. that's at 1 p.m. eastern time. live coverage of both hearings on c-span3 and c-span.org.

>> we don't know enough about our first ladies. scratch the surface and you'll find lives that often surpass their husbands in drama and fortitude. presidential historian richard norton smith. our original series, first ladies: influence and image, examines the public and private lives of these women. watch the encore presentation of first ladies from martha washington to ida mckinley starting august 5th on c-span. >> in reaction to the deadly attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya, senators have proposed a bill to improve embassy security. the head of the diplomatic security at the state department testified about the bill at a hearing of the senate foreign relations committee. this is an hour and 25 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order.

today our real focus is insuring the security of our missions abroad and the safety of our foreign service personnel. that has always been and will remain a priority of this committee. having said that, i hope to have the support of my republican colleagues for the embassy security act i've introduced named for chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and glen doherty who gave their lives on september 11th. the lessons we've learned from the tragedies in benghazi are emblematic of the broader issue we will increasingly face in the 21st century. and it will require our full, unequivocal, unwavering commitment to fully protect our embassies and those who serve this nation abroad. we have studied what went wrong, we have looked back, and now it's time to look forward and do what needs to be done to prevent another tragedy in the future.

after benghazi there were 29 recommendations made to state and to congress. while we must do our part in overseeing state's implementation, we must also do our part to provide the resources and necessary authorizations to insure full implementation. and we must make whatever investments are necessary to protect our embassies and our missions. such investments are not an extravagance, they are not simply another budget item. we must strike the proper balance between sealing off vulnerabilities in high-threat areas and continuing to conduct vigorous and effective diplomacy that serves the national interests. the fact is we can never have absolute security in an increasingly dangerous world unless we hermetically seal our diplomats in steel tanks. but security alone is not our

objective of. at the end of the day, this is not an either/or choice. we need to address both the construction of new embassies that meet security needs, and we need to do what we can to insure existing high-risk posts where we need our people to represent our interests and where new construction is not an option. the arb stated it clearly, and i quote: the solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs which in total constitute a small percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. one overall conclusion in this report is that congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the state department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives. the bill i have introduced is part of the solution, the serious and sustained commitment that takes the lessons we have

learned and turns them into action. as i said, total security is next to impossibleful our diplomats cannot end case themselves in stone fortresses and remain effective. and disengagement is clearly not an option. so the solution must be multifaceted. it must include enhanced physical security around our embassies and insure our diplomats are equipped with the

i know there's also some focus on building a training facility, which i know is very expensive, there's ways of doing that in ways that don't require spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build. i don't want to rehash the past. i think the chairman knows we tried to move away from some of the things that happened in the past. i would like for somebody to explain to me at some point. we did the arb. i know we have four employees that were involved in, you know, some reporting on that arbs. they're stilt -- still on paid leave. nothing has occurred. i would like to understand how we bring closure to the issue. thank you for being here. i thank you for your service to our country i hope in a

bipartisan way we'll move ahead that does the immediate things that are necessary to make sure that our foreign service officers are safe. thank you. i'm pleased to introduce bill miller. we also have gregory starr the acting assistant secretary for diplomatic security and the directer of diplomatic security service. nay sit at the nexus of policy management and -- thank you for being here. we'll begin with the opening statements. we ask you to sin these around 5 minute or so so we can have members engage in dialogue with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman,

ranking member corker. i want to thank you for your invitation to appear here to discuss the future of embassy and diplomatic security. we appreciate and share your commitment to enhanced security as evidenced in the recently introduced chris stevens, embassy security act of 2013. the attack on the u.s. diplomatic facilities last september, and subsequent attacks this year as well against diplomatic facilities and personnel remind us every day the world is a dangerous place for diplomacy. unfortunately this is nothing new. being on the front lines of u.s. national security, has always been inherently risky. however, we strive to mitigate this risk to the maximum extent possible. the fact remains that we will not even with the most willing and capable government partners as we have in many places around

the world, we will not stop terrorists or extremists from attacking us in every instance. rather, we must carefully balance this risk against the value of pursuing our national interest in these various countries. we have learned some very hard and painful lessons out of benghazi. we are already acting on those lessons. the state department carries on the business of the american government and its people in 284 locations, many in challenging security environments where key u.s. national security interests are at stake. every day the department works to protect our people and missions by constantly assessing through threats and our security posture overseas. the bureau of diplomatic security advances american interests and foreign policy by protecting people, property, and information.

we do this by min containing a security program that manages threat, manages the situation, and mitigating the risk. they constantly research, monitor, and analyzes threats against american or diplomatic facilities or u.s. dip diplomatic piers them. this information form the basis of the threat assessment we use that are provided to department senior managers to support the operational and policy decision making process. should be taken to mitigate the potential threat against our diplomatic assets. from analysts in washington, d.c., monitoring the threat against our posts, to our regional security officers abroad managing the security programs at these posts, we strive to provide the most secure platform for conducting american diplomacy.

building on the recommendation of the independent benghazi accountability review board, the interagency assessment teams accept out in our own considerable experience and expertise the department is diligently working to improve the way we protect our diplomats, not only at our highest threat posts, but all of our facilities around the world. thanks in large part to your support in 2013 with the continuing resolution progress is well underway. pursuant to the rumtion -- recommendation of the arb, we're training more u.s. foreign affairs community personnel to deal with high-threat and high-risk environments through our foreign affairs counter threat course. we're expanding the duration of ds high tactical training course and incorporating element of the training to other ds courses so regardless of the diplomatic security and special agent

assignment we have a flexible group of agents trained to operate in various security environment. we are hiring 151 this and next fiscal year. that's 131 total. not each year. many of whom will directly serve at or provide support. we are also working very closely with the department of defense to expand the marine security guard program as well as enhance the availability of forces to respond in extremists to threat u.s. personnel and facilities. we recently worked with dod on the u.s. marine corps. to elevate personal security. the security we provide for the people overseas as a primary mission of the marine corps. security guards. each of these efforts enhance the department's ability to supplement as necessary. the host government measure and fulfilling the obligations under international law to protect

u.s. diplomats and property and personnel. the increased security funds you have provided will also support our colleagues at the water -- bureau of overseas building operation and additional marine security guard detachment as well as the security upgrades project that some of our most critical posts. the bureau of diplomat security realizes are working on secure, the post and protecting our people will never be done. we take great pride in our accomplishments, we apply the lessons learned, and we look forward to working with congress on embassy security. i recognize that my opening remarks are brief because i want to allow plenty of time for questions to answer your specific questions. i'll be glad to take the questions as -- after you have heard from my colleague bill miller. thank you, mr. chairman, thank

you, ranking member corker. >> good morning. thank you for your invitation to appear here today. as evidenced by your recently introduced christ stephens, sean smith,ty roan woods act of 2013. threat on attacks against the diplomatic security and personnel have been a concern against the inception almost 100 years ago to counter the global threat the office of the chief was formed in 1916. it was not until 1985 in the aftermath of the beirut bombings that diplomatic security became a bureau within the state department. it was slid diplomatty security act of

1986. i was preparing to leave the marine corps. i wanted to continue my service to the u.s. government. and the mission envision of ds was part of the team or demonstrated the part of a team i particularly wanted to join. in 1987, i became a special agent. since then i devoted my 26-year career to fulfilling the mission of ds. that is providing safe and secure environment for the conduct of foreign policy. early in my career, i was part of the secretary of state protective detail. i served assignment in the washington field office as chief of the security and law enforcement training division as the chief of counter intelligence investigation, and as a director of contingency operation. i managed security programs as a region nap security officer, also known as an rso in iraq, pakistan, injury reduce lum, the philippines, and egypt. to demonstrate the kept db depth

of my experience i would like to highlight a few of my accomplishments. i dealt daily with the possible terrorist act that impacted the life of americans. to include the kidnapping of american mistheirs. when the united states returned to iraq i was asked to serve as the first rso and manage the volatile security environment as reestablished our diplomatic presence. most recently i was the rso in cairo, egypt, during the arab spring. it's an experience that informs my decision making as i work to ensure adequate security resources during the ongoing transition in egypt. created my mission black blank also known as htp along with

providing a staff to support high threat high-risk posts. the department assessed our diplomatic missions and to determine which as high threat and risk. there are 27 posts which fall under this cease nation. this designation is not a steady process. the lie will be reviewed annually. when needed. as merger conditions change for be better or worse. strategic and operational planning and drive innovation across the broad spectrum of ds mission and responsibility. we continue to work closely also with the regional bureau to ensure that everyone has visibility of the security threat at the post. as the deputy assistant secretary, i'm responsible for

evaluating, managing, and mitigating the security threats. as well as directing resource requirement at high threat diplomatic mission. i closely follow development and continually assess our security posture and take all possible steps to mitigate steps and vulnerability. while the department created a position by the high risk designation. we must continue to to can us on embassy position worldwide. i coordinate closely throughout the department and the interagency to ensure that the threat and, risk mitigation strategies are shared globally. as you have said, we can never truly eliminate all the risk facing our dedicated overseas. however, as the department has said, replace the highest priority on the security of our personnel and don't take the steps necessary which in some instants include extraordinary measures to provide for the safety. i would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear

before the committee today and discuss the future of our embassy security. i'm available to answer any of your questionses. >> thank you for your testimony. let me start the first round of questions here. >> i've heard from some of my colleagues that suggest that what we need is greater oversight at state. but we don't need any must money. the question is, can you underring the existing budget with no additional revenue protect throughout the world at particularly at higher risk posts of the lives of those assign to the diplomatic core of those representing us worldwide? >> senator, thank you going right to the heart of what is really important to us in many ways giving us the resources to address this.

two parking lot -- two part to the answer. the 2013 continuing resolution level of funding plus the generosity of the increased security proposal, i believe, gives us the proper level of resources that we can utilize effectively now. this year and our 2014 budget request which is essentially rolls both of those pots money in to the ask as well. i believe that amount of money gives us the ability to move forward and dot things we need to do. the second part of that question is, of course, as all of us have mentioned no, we can't guarantee that we're going to present every single person. we are working in highly dangerous areas in many countries. but that level of funding and that level of resources combined with the type of action we are

taking gives us a level of confidence we have appropriate resources to address the type of threat we need to address. it doesn't mean that we're going have equivalent level of security across the board. we're going to prioritize where we put our resource, manpower, equipment, technical equipment, where we built the new embassy. we will obviously have places where we have lower levels of resources. >> all right. >>. >> we'll do the best we can. >> what i'm trying to get at if i zero out your account in the next year's budget. what would do you? >> if i zero out -- if you didn't roll over what you describe the large escaped of the congress, what would you do? >>. >> we would prioritize very heavily. >> you're not going to be able to secure people across the globe. >> no. >> understanding the context of security.

secondly, if i cut it in half, what would you do? >> i think it would cause a reassessment where we could put people, sir. i don't think we would be able to stay in the highest threat locations where the u.s. national interests are most important. >> so there are -- when the arb identified itself number 10 of their many recommendations, identified $2.2 billion as inappropriate current funding level for the capital security cost sharing program, which the president fy14 budget requested this amount. it wasn't just a number from the sky, it was based upon an analysis of the accountability review board about what your challenges are, what your needs are, and what you can realistically more over a period of time. is that a fair statement? >> yes, sir. that's fair.

>> so from a security standpoint, do you have a sense of how many new facilities are needed? particularly in high threat, high-risk locations? >>. >> sir, within the high threat list of 27 cubs, we have certain amount that have got new facilities, but there still are about 15 of those facilities that we don't have the proper level of what we call post buildings. there are other places around the world where we dpontd have those facilities. going back to about 2000 after the 1998 bombings, we made a calculation which we stand to to this day. we needed approximately 175 new facilities around the world to be brought up to the highest level of security standards. in the past thirteen years we have conducted about 90 to 90 of

those facilities from 1988 to 1992 under the era. we conducted 22 of those facilities. we are at 110 mark out of 175 facilities we would like to continue working diligently to replace and put new embassy that meet the standards, have the proper level of standoff as mandated by congress, and have the level of protection that we seek for people overseas. >> let me ask you, what is the factors that would require the construction of new facility versus a security upgrade on existing facility? >> primary factor, sir, in many places around the world we don't have facility that have setback. we cannot retrofit many of the buildings to withstand blasts without the ability to move to a new location, acquire setback, and build a facility that meets the blast standards. >> finally, where new construction is not an option because of the inability to either secure land, find

suitable location, or other reasons. how does the department seek to mitigate risks at high threat high-risk facility. >> many locations we have withdrawn our families. we have cut down and moved our staffing levels to only the personnel that we absolutely need. we worked closely with host governments in many cases and asked them to close off streets were a our embassy so we can try to min maintain setback. many have done it several years and look to us to move the facility so they can reopen our streets. we work closely in training our personnel and trying to train host country forces in antiterrorism capablabilities. it's a variety of things, sir. the real one where we really faced with facilities that don't meet our security standards, we work with a host government to try to increase our setback, put up additional barriers, and hardin the facility and make

sure we have only the people necessary at the posts we need. >> so to recap, money is a consideration here in terms of your ability to say to this committee, we're doing as best a we can in order to secure our people across the globe? >> i couldn't say it better, sir. yes, sir, absolutely. >> finally, when we look at new embassy construction, i understand it's prioritized on the basis of security; is that a correct statement? is that an incorrect statement. the primary driver in security, sir, we provide a list to the overseas building office of the highest priority within that list, as we understand, that obtaining real estate and property deals and building facility are a long range and difficult in certain places. obo has certain flexibility. we have reinforced with obo most

recently as an month and a half ago we want them to relook at the highest threat post on the high threat list and determine whether or not we can make significant progress on them. i can give you one example, sir. after thirty years of trying to find land in beirut and start the construction of new facility. we believe we'll be successful in the last next couple of years. looks like we have a land deal and look like we're going able to replace the facility in beirut we have been trying to replace for many, many years. >> okay. for the those that aren't acronym profesht? obo ?rks. >> the office of overseas building operations. >> all right, senator. >> thank you, chairman, thank you for coming here. i know the chairman asked a line of questions which i expect that he would, and we had a hearing, i guess the first hearing and the leadership that put forth

arb, immediately they were talking about money and it seems like whenever there's a problem that is the first place we go. i understand we may need to look at that. at the same time, as we look at your plans, i know you currently have $14 billion. you asked for $800 million more. i see we are spending a huge amount of facilities on the hague, oslo, and even in places where we are construction underway like beirut. the new embassy won't with ready for another six years. at the same time it's a locate of money being spent in places that candidly the security issues are not necessarily urgent like we have in some of the places i mentioned earlier in pakistan and sudan. so just seems to me that from the standpoint of the immediate security issues our personnel has and all of us including you wanting them to be safe our priorities are not aligned with

what it is we're hoping to do for outstanding foreign service officers. i wish you would respond to that . >> sir, i appreciate the point that you're making, and in very many ways on everyday basis. we are trying to address the immediate security concerns through programs like increased training through the personnel and officers. lessons we learned from benghazi how do we increase the fire safety measures. in those places where we can't get new facilities, we're doing security upgrades and working with the host government to the best we can. i think it's clear that while we're doing the immediate and short term needs we need to be addressing, we're also asking for the ability to creases the long-term needs so that as we move forward in the future, we

put ourselves overall in a better position. in 1997, our embassies were essentially raided as -- rated as low-threat posts. we didn't know at that point we were going to be seeing the phenomena of terrorism working outside of the small middle east number of posts we were mostly concerned with. today we know that global terrorism is exactly that global. it's a worldwide phenomena. we do not know where we're going to be a decade from now. we didn't foresee the arab spring rise. we didn't really foresee in many cases the challenges we would be facing through the middle east. our best answer on a long-term basis while we are addressing the short term immediate needs we have to our personnel and safety is also to address the long long-term needs we put ourselves overall in a better position. when we look at the position

from a vulnerability standpoint we said we need 175 facility. the facility in oslo, does not have any setback. it has no blast resistance. it's not bullet resistant. it provides a low-level of safety for the personnel. i hope to be able to replace even facilities in countries like that as we go along for the future. >> well, i mean, is the answer yes or no. are you some of the $800 million are you going use to hardin and deal with some of the immediate issues? yes or no? >> yes, sir. we're going try to address the immediate issues and the long-term issues fp a combination of both. certainly our immediate issues come first. this was -- we sent up combined state cannot and military teams to look at the high e level post. we have dedicated an immense amount of resources to try to

upgrade further those places we have on the high threat list continue to do that. >> what about the training facility? i have received some calls from folks other senators, i guess, training now takes place in facilities that are already built that as i understand it, and i have not visited them personally. you can share with me your own experiences. why would we go ahead and, you know, at the time when we need capital to hardin facilities to deal with some of the longer term needs you're talking about, why would we be expending so much money to build a new training facility when apparently those needs are being taken care of in another existing facility? >> thank you for that question, senator. this is a question that is very close to my heart. we are currently using a leased facility that is on weekend a racetrack facility in west

virginia. we use it five days a week. we can train approximately 2,500 foreign service officers a year what we call fact training. the time of training not for ds agencies like bill and myself. but regular foreign service officer. we give them high speed training and driving vehicles. antiram training. we give them training basic firearm train on how to make weapons safe. first aid training. we explodes them to explosives. the first time they hear a bomb they can understand if they survived it what their next responsibility is. deal with themselves and deal with others in first aid. the level of fact training we have found through the years has definitely saved lives overseas and prepared our people to serve in the environments we're sending them. regretfully, the 2,300 people i can train per year doesn't come close.

doesn't even meet the number of people we have at our high threat posts alone. we have certain of our high threat poes where we can only give our people a four-hour online course and say please take the course. the capacity of the current facility that we're leasing in west virginia cannot meet our training needs. our long-term goal given where we're putting people at overseas is to train every single foreign service officer every five years on the type of hard skills security training we believe they need. in many cases the adult family members as well. the current facility doesn't meet our requirements. doesn't meet the highest threat level requirement. as a leased facility, at some point may not be able to us. we are seeking to put in one place close to where we have our partners, the ma rein corp., intelligence community, and the

rest of the foreign service training apparatus. we are seeking to build a hard skills training center where we can put 8 to 10,000 people a year through this type of training. we believe it will give us notion hardin the it tap. the most important training our people before they go overseas. >> we talked a the the 0,000-feet level here about capital expenditure. i know, we're going to be in more detail between the staffs. we have talked a little bit about training and i understand how important it is. we certainly plan to get to more details. i guess the last piece is then, you know, you require people within the state department to execute. and again, i want to get back without, you know, we had a situation where the state department has reviewed functions. we had personnel that four people that have been put on leave and still being paid, and

just for what it's worth, it discuss feel that there's a degree of lack of accountability to put nicely. i wonder if you might address that also. because you build great facilities. you train well, if people don't execute, and there's not that accountability, we still have break downs. and people are in situations they shouldn't be in. could you address that issue for us today? >> yes, sir, thank you for the question. i think my first answer would be is that bill miller sitting next to me, and my coming back after four years of the united nations and 29 years in the diplomatic security. there is nobody that takes this responsibility more seriously than we do. the people that we manage and the staffs we have, the agencies we train, the security protectist specialist, the

engineers, the people that we have in diplomatic security are dedicated and ready to give their lives to protecting our people overseas. and simplily say that you will not find anybody more ready to take the responsibility or make the decisions that have to be made than myself or bill miller or the rest of my senior staff and diplomatic security. i understand that there are still questions about the foreign four individuals. i wasn't here at the time. i do understand it's complex because there are sets of rules and procedures within the foreign service about disciplining people. it is my clear understanding that this entire issue is at the secretary of state's level. that he is getting recommendations an how to deal with? he will finally make the decision on what is going to be the outcome within the four people there. i will tell you, sir, that three of those four individuals i know well and have worked with

closely. these are people that have given their careers to diplomatic security as well, and the security of the department of senate. i have great deal of admiration for them. it doesn't excuse the fact that we had a terrible tragedy in benghazi. i think that the secretary and his staff will name the proper decision on dispositions of those cases, but i want to tell you that that is the same management team in place when the embassies were attacked in cairo, tunisia, all through the years that we had multiple attacks in yemen, afghanistan, and in iraq, those people performed admiral. it's my hope their -- they are dedicated as we are. i will tell you that we will do our best and bear whatever responsibility needs to be taken. >> listen, i thank you for

that. i just would say that, look, i don't think anybody here is on a witch hunt and candidly, i couldn't pick the four individuals out of a lineup. i don't know if i have met them. i think it's important for the culture of the state department for the u.s. government in general, that either, you know, it be stated that these people made mistakes that shouldn't have been made and are held accountable or not. whatever is the right decision, i think we'll be there. this sort of vague place that probably needs to end soon. i thank for your response. i hope the secretary of state will dream deal with this quickly. it's been a long time. i thank you and look forward to working with you and the chairman as we move ahead. >> thank you, senator corker. >> because i take this obligation very seriously. at least on my watch, to the extend i can, i'm not going to have anybody exposed and at risk

as a result of inaction by the committee. i'm going to at times here engage in the followup we have so we are have a sequence issue record. i hope my colleagues will indulging me and move to the next. he asked a good question. immediate needs versus long-term needs. you responded that you are working on immediate needs. immediate needs means to the extent that you can mitigate what exists at the post because if you don't have a setback, you're not going to be able to mitigate that fully until you have a new site and a new construction. if you don't have a setback within and you're talking about hardining, okay, fine, hardining without a setback has limited capabilities. when you say in the balance between what some may view as

the long-term, which you describe as hopefully getting to a point which all of our locations are as best protected under the threat we could envision today regardless where they are located in the world. we don't know with the next high-risk post will be. where the movement of a terrorist activity will take place. then we will all regret -- we didn't think that oslo meant that much by way of example. when you say you are mitigating. correct me if i'm wrong here. what you mitigating in the short term? what are you capable of mitigating in the short term if you have an em was -- embassy or other site that isn't fully living to the implications what you devise as a secure location? >> mr. chairman, what we can mitigate in those locations is,

first, the function of what our analysis in term of the threat and the overall situation in the country tells us. in a place like oslo today, we have a full functioningal staff and the fully functioning embassy, despite the fact we don't have a setback or secret facility. the, we can do that we have excellent cooperation from the host government. we do not have information that indicates to us that we're running a tremendously high-risk by leaving them in the facility for the time being, and we have national security imperative that we're carrying out foreign service officers working on different things every single day. but to give you another sample, sir, in cairo today, cairo is not an imminent building it's a preimminent building quited a robust facility. when the situation changed dramatically in cairo when we saw specific threats, when we saw the social upheaval

happening on the grownld. the last several weeks we have evacuated what we call ordered departure. we have moved out all of our families and moved out all nonessential personnel. these are the types of thing we can do mitigate threats where we don't have facility that meets highest level of standards. there are things question do in term of asking the host government to block off streets for us. if they will cooperate. >> i gather that. i don't want to cut you short. what i'm trying to get to, senator corker's concern, at least it seems. it's been expressed various times. between the immediate and the long-term is it a fair statement. the extend you can mitigate something in the immediate term, you are seeking to do that? is that a fair statement. >> absolutely. >> that doesn't mean that mitigation of the immediate is the desired go because in fact

you may not with able to mitigate beyond if you don't have a set back and the hardened facility. you don't have all the other elements in place for what we consider a fully secured facility. is that a fair statement? >> yes, sir, exactly. >> that gives us a little balance as to what the immediate versus the long-term is. with reference to the question of employees, i agree. i agree on accountability and i grow on performance. now i read the arb's recommendation, number 23, said that the board of the view finding of unstory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to the security incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendation by future accountability boards, and would recommend a revision of department regulations or amendment to the relevant statute to this. in essence when they were here as well and testified to the question, they said under the existing statutory authority,

there are limitations. what is the proof point that you have to have in order discipline somebody? so i don't know if you had the opportunity to look another section 203 of the legislation i have promoted, s980. that satisfy the arb's recommendation and give the secretary the authority to fire individuals who exhibited unstory leadership in relation to a security incident. do you believe that section would give the secretary that ability? >> yes, sir, i believe so. i believe it's important to give the additional flexible. i believe it helps us. >> senator carden. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me concur with your observation. we have a very important responsibilities at our committee for oversight, and i appreciate the two witnesses that are hear. -- here. it's our responsibility to review the steps taken under the authority and resources we have.

we also have a responsibility to make sure that tools are available for embassy security. and that's a responsibility of the entire senate, the appropriations committee has a responsibility on the resources, this committee has a responsibility as to whether the policies are right. and i want 0 applaud the chairman for s980, i think it gives us a way to make sure that you have the adequate tools in order to manage the security of our embassieses, and the chairman's follow-up questions underscored those issues. i thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this issue, but also recognizing the dual responsibility we have on oversight and to make sure that the tools and resources are available. i want to followup on facilities, because i've had a chance as a member of the united states senate to visit many of our embassy. there's a common theme except for the the new embassy when you

get and able to talk with the embassy personnel, there's always concerns about the facility that we could be better. i know you did the review several years ago and the list that was compiled several years on the progress that we have made, and i expect this is updated by circumstances in country, et. cetera. but is it time for us to do another evaluation globally of our facilities? recognizing the circumstances have changed? i personally believe we need to do a better job, oslo is an important ally, a friend. i have been to that embassy. i understand that it's not a high-risk area. they should have adequate facilities based upon the security needs as well as the efficiency factor that are important. in many embassies around the world, the united does not have the combination of space, efficiency, and security that is ideal for us to carry out our

mission. >> sir, i believe that's an accurate statement. it is, in many cases, more than security. security is an overriding factor at this point. i believe you accurate when you say in many cases we don't have either the space or type of facility we need. that is why when we build new facilities the primary thing we're trying to achieve is security, but the office of overseas buildings looks clearly at what our staffing levels needs to be. where we're going to be in the future. what types of operational and functional space we need. that includes things like larger operations in many places, we have many other agencies in our embassy as well. that's all wrapped in to what it is we're doing. and how we build buildings and where we build buildings. i can't agree more.

it's a combination of factors, we believe we still need probably at least another 75 or so major buildings. >> i guess, mr. chairman, i would urge we look at the way we can get an updated, realistic inventory of what we need globally to meet the challenges. i really do applaud former secretary clinton and president obama for recognizing the importance to our national security. our diplomatic missions. they need to have the resources in order able to carry that out in a safe manner. let me to move to on to second issue in security. that is the confidence, support

we get from the local government and authorities. i know that is different and different cub countries. that's evaluated as part of the security mission you have undertake. can you just briefly outline how that is taken in to those factors are taken in to the equation on our security need. the confidence we have on the local government's ability to respond or to work with us on local security? i want to give the star a break so if mr. miller can answer it. >> thank you sir, i appreciate that. it i was feeling left out. if i can go back to a moment to teams that went out in november. i lead one of the teams as we went about assessing our various missions. the 19 missions we very quickly

assessed, and felt that were most volable at that time. one of the legs we were seasing was our host nation willingness and capability to defend it. as we look at that, we have to roll that in to f it weak on one leg we have to strengthen the other. that would be our ability to withstand attack african for some time in tunisia. about eight hours as the facility were attack in early september as well. so if we have a weakness on one side, we have to be able to mitigate that by strengthening on another. t not always possible; however. that calls in to play a greater requirement for our diplomaticked a dry to work with the host nation, political counter part to ensure that they live up to the responsibilities just as we do here for them and the united states. it is something we try to address through antitraining

terrorism assistance programs and other by lateral training programs they provide to bolster the professional capability and hopefully build up to the point where we can trust as in mo places their ability to secure us. >> i want to make one observation. i would hope we engage the political app rat us of our country at the highest level we need more cooperation from host countries to get that. i want to ask one nor question on the arb effort to address language capacity. briefly address us how it's being implemented to have a stronger language capacity in our mission with the local language. >> certainly. this applies to the capacity for arabic language skill. they have been working diligently with the rest of the department to include diplomatic security to assess what our language requirement are for our

special agencies when they engage with the host nation counter part. ..

>> we are doing this within our existing capabilities. and i think the chairman for introducing this legislation in the long-term. it will help us on a number of different fronts. but i am not were to sit here and tell you that the tragedy in in benghazi could've been avoided had we had this legislation. we should have made a @

we should have made a decision to evacuate that post earlier. the threats are greater. >> when it comes down to this, benghazi wasn't this particular situation given the makeup of the government. especially given the newness of all this. what lessons have we learned from that that could be applied elsewhere in terms of the host nation one of the chief issues

was the fact that all the facility should meet the standards there were no waivers that were granted and we have a balance of our national security interests and this is part of the security threat. >> my first hearing was the hearing what secretary clinton to talk about the benghazi incident and it was a very

memorable one. one was the recommendation about the the second was a recommendation of the state department personnel. as a summary of may 20, how far along we are been reading these recommendations, the marine security guard sort of lowered this from the midpoint.

we were talking about the state department employees and we had met about this previously. it is just to give us some history for everyone here. the state department began trying to find a training facility to replace the race track about four years ago. there has been a four-year effort are that considered 80 different sites for this training facility. with a particular requirement largely to involve this is synergy with the marine security guard and others that was the

preference we were moving to before benghazi. it specifically focuses a permanent facility and consider a few months ago the state department communicated to congress and indicated that they were about to issue this. but in april there was another that suggested this was not related that we would not have a

part of this within our department staff. it is now after benghazi and after being thrown into kind of a question mark status. it would be ironic. that is the wrong word. it would be tragic if a process that was moving towards better training and optimizing training for the department of state staff, before benghazi and before it this would be announced as slow down and diluted after we know what we know as a result of those horrible incidents from september 11 of 2013. so i would like to ask you is it

was the most consistent to increase training and the most consistent with the recommendations by the committee. >> thank you for your question. the answer is simple. we still believe that the site fact that we chose at fort pickett gives us the ability to train the numbers of personnel that we need to train to incorporate partners and the other u.s. agencies that are critical to build the synergies that we have at our own foreign service institute and their own training regimens appeared.

we have to have the synergy in order to develop the relationships and the training partners as well as the students who are going through this. we both could give you numerous examples of opportunities that foreign affairs officers have had to participate in actual lifesaving events where they benefited which has so well served us. we can do better. we can do better, we absolutely have to because we are talking about people's lives. >> thank you. i don't have any other questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the security is critically important and the accountability review board situs want to make

sure. >> this involves two imperatives, engagement and security, which requires intelligence and strong preparedness. it will determine whether a location with simple we look at three basic questions. the host nations capability and willingness. we look at the threats to direct themselves to our facilities and then we also look at what we are able to maintain based on this

posture apposed. we then move forward with our diplomatic engagement. we can't balance can balance these three, then we have to assess those. >> and in this includes one of our next steps in what may be. >> can i talk about the audience that came out in june of 2013, releasing this compliance with physical and procedural security

standards? i am concerned that it has been 10 months since the terrorist attacks and it will fail to comply with security standards for increasingly are yet? >> please explain to the committee by these problems are happening and what the plan and timeline is for remedying these issues? >> thank you. i think it is a point at which you point out some differences. that is very often used and not well-defined term. so they look at the various recommendations and it should be

parsed very carefully in response to this. i will say that we are continuing to work with this to address the concerns the security is working with it to find common ground. >> thank you. let me thank both of our witnesses not for the testimony only, but the incredible service you're providing our country. obviously these are very important responsibilities and we thank you very much. there has been a lot of questions asked that i think that will involve us working together to make sure that we have safe facilities and personnel in etc. we look

forward to working with you to protect the dedicated men and women around the world. with that, the committee will stand adjourned. >> my understanding is that the u.s. special mission was a temporary facility. and that the oversea oversee security applied to all services, including temporary facilities. in a report that was issued, the state department noted that it would reissue this long-established policy to all posts by january of this year. is that policy reissued? >> i believe it was jerry 23. >> okay. >> how are the overseas part of

the temperate facility? >> sir, when we moved back into our country, and this is really where we are going to experience a temporary facilities, one of the things that we will have to do is determine what our presence is going to be and whether or not we can balance the need versus the safety. part of the process is looking closely we do not have a facility that we think could meet our requirements at the moment. i think that perhaps is the best judgment i can give you. we are very vocal and clear when we think that we don't have an answer that can meet the security requirements.

we are very concerned about things like facilities and we need to have one that meets our need. should the department make a determination that we need to go back into those places. we used the integrated cells to determine what we need to have and we have to make a determination whether we have the internal resources or have to come to congress to do that. we have developed certain new tools to help us and one of the things we learned is one we had many people in trailers in many places, and then we have these trailers and we put sandbags around him and overhead covers, and walls around him, we have developed something called the trailer system this includes

these temporary type situations. let me go to part be of this particular benghazi heights had a circumstances. that is in instances where the facility is shared or is used principally by the u.s. government agency, how does the interagency process address the security needs and who takes the lead? >> the individual agency will be responsible for upgrading the facility and it is still upgrading to the oversee security policy board standards. >> very good. it is something that i would

like to establish, but i don't think the general public knows this. that is the attachment of the marine guard to embassies. correct me if i am wrong. it was in athens for the security of classified documents. is that right? >> that is correct. the staffing levels was that requirement, 24 hour protection. >> i think many thought that they were about protecting this. this is open to the new recent

agreement. this is a mandate that we have asked the marines to perform. is that correct? >> but without the? >> we have renegotiated this between the department of state and clearly emphasized that our new mandate is equal protection for our personnel in our facilities in our embassies while protecting classified information. sir, if i may, even when we had our smaller numbers assigned to our detachments come in many cases six or seven marines in

the primary responsibility was protection of information, there wasn't a marine out there that didn't understand that their job was to protect the people. but we were not staffing with enough marines necessary to take on that role. what we're working with is an high-threat locations to increase the numbers of marines at each one of these posts so that they are better capable of doing the defense portion as well. >> i appreciate your expanding upon that. certainly there was no staffing level to be able to accomplish that. is the new marine understanding with high-threat posts or globally? >> it is global.

the reality is that we are concentrating on the highest level post at those locations. >> okay. finally i want to get to the post government capacity. the accountability found that they were acting on the night of the attack. elias heavily on his come you can have the will but not the capacity and not have the capacity to have the will and they both need to be there. so as we look beyond libya and globally, how do you assess these variables and how do you quantify them and how do these

determinations go into your overall security assessment and is the provision we have included in the legislation, which deals with the question not of lowest cost, but the best cost or performance as well would that will be critical to security and a desire for flexibility. >> let me take the last part of this and then turn to it. we believe it is critical and we thank you very much for recognizing that the situation in almost all of our her posts are different. and in certain cases where we don't have perhaps level of support because of willingness or capability from the host government. situations may arise is not

going to give us the guard force that we think that we could get if we have another instrument contact with. i just our high-threat post but where we believe that this could increase significantly so yes i think it is an important step that allows us to address some of the inherent capabilities when we don't have the level of support that we would like. >> have you assess the host governments ability and willingness and how do you quantify it and how do you make those determinations factor in your overall security assessment? >> to some extent it is a subjective call. that we quantify it as much as we possibly can with our various

partners that the host services have received and it has a relationship that has gone back a number of decades and we can quantify what our expectation should be and how well we could live up to the expectations. because of recent instability, that expectation has been nullified and it's a matter of this to go to extraordinary measures above the measures which are standard. chairman, we are making a

determination of the capabilities of the host government. we are much more sensitive to having a better analysis capability and having a political officers and ambassadors weighing in on what is the particular to help us in a particular time. there are certain places where we have a great deal of willingness on a tuesday afternoon that may not be there. this is part of the dilemma and part of the solution into

looking at changing these events are which might indicate that different level, in the new paradigm in which we live and the terrorists have to get out. that is a tough challenge, but that is our challenge. we have to get it right. how are you integrating the use of intelligence? how would it be for you to continue to make an office so you can adjust accordingly.

>> we have officers from other agencies that are working with us at our desks and in our offices now in the level of coordination that goes on in terms of discussion of threats is deeper and wider and held both at the working level and the national security staff level. the coordination that we have with the regional bureaus, saturdays and sundays as necessary. we look with the threats that have come out most recently and we have representatives from the regional bureaus of the department of state to the we are linking up the political with the intelligence that is coming in. if i could say one thing that

came out of benghazi, one of the observations if there is no specific intelligence to indicate that there was a threat. there is going to be a threat that night. >> you can lower yourself into a position where there is no specific intelligence to say, okay, this must be okay. the political, social, what is going on in terms of web activity, social networking, trying to keep abreast of what we see is going on in that country in addition to whether or not we have specific intelligence threats. it is a much deeper and broader effort than we have had before as well. so i think it is deeper and we

melded the two into our decision-making. >> with that, we thank the committee for your service and the men and women who serve under you. protecting diplomats abroad. we look forward to continuing the engagement as we move this legislation forward. >> next on c-span2, senate debate on the nomination of richard cornyn to be the

director of the consumer financial protection bureau. >> on the next "washington journal", we will be joined by john fleming a discussion on the employer mandates and the health care mandates. it continues with representatives tim green and the member of the health subcommittee. then our spotlight on california governor jerry brown. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

>> this increases the value and the standard of existence the economy is important with our government. >> the very first time buyer. we have president calvin coolidge talking about economic policy. it is not the most simple thing in the world, but it is fascinating to see him. we are going to reach a day very soon when there is a tremendous amount of material waiting for researchers to discover and make something meaningful of it.

there are a lot of stories that can be told in our collection, and we are just so eager to make more of it available for people to discover. >> more on american history tv on c-span3. >> today the senate voted to confirm that consumer financial protection bureau teeth he has been serving as the head of the agency ever since his recent appointment in january of 2012. before that vote, senators discussed his nomination in the senate. this begins with senator jeff merkley of oregon. >> we would like to make a couple of comments regarding the

activity of this chamber we are talking about the nomination of richard as the cfpb it is vested with the responsibility of predatory financial practices. we all discovered in the run-up to the great recession just how important is protectionist the credit card payments where they got mail to, also sees could be locked up on unsuspecting consumers.

certainly we found out how important financial protection is. the mortgages were 4% and they were changed up to 9%. now, you'd think most would-be homeowners would look at that and say, that is not exactly a good deal. but here's what happened. they went to a mortgage broker in the mortgage broker said that i am your financial advisor will roar all and you are sorting through and finding the best deal for you. so the first-time homebuyers trusted their mortgage brokers and unbeknownst to the new homeowner, those brokers were being paid kickbacks called

steering payments and special bonuses outside the framework of the deal in order to steer the customer into a predatory rate even though they qualify for a fixed-rate mortgage. those mortgages, the predatory mortgages have been put into securities and they were bought up by financial institutions across america and beyond because the folks who are buying this understood that in a couple of years the interest rate would go way up and it would make a lot of money off those securities. this is a system rigged against the first-time home buyer. homebuyer that wanted to start

their journey to own a piece of the american dream. those practices should never have been allowed. some here will remember. they will remember that the responsibility for consumer protection tested in the federal reserve. what happened in the federal reserve. the federal reserve carried on with its responsibility on monetary policy. but it put its responsibility for consumer protection down in the basement and they locked the doors and threw away the keys. they have abandoned consumers around the country. that is why we need a consumer financial protection bureau.

we have new techniques that will crop up and we will try to ban them. 550% interest on unsuspecting citizens. we need to have a bureau that looks out and says we need to find a way to stop the practice in which online lenders use your bank account number and without your permission, you reach in and grab the funds out of your account. the list is unless because the human mind is endlessly inventive. so we have an important bureau but a bureau that cannot do its job and must employ a director to run it. two years ago richard cordray was nominated to head the bureau and he has been waiting to get

closer on his nomination for two years and he has been in and around of appointees during that period of time. by all accounts, folks in this chamber are doing a very good job and working very hard with the great technical details of the financial world to find a fair and solid way forward. the fact that it's so long to make delete this does not reflect that personally, many senators who have opposed allowing the vote to take place have said it is not about him personally, it's about the consumer financial protection bureau. forty-three senators in this children a letter to say that they would oppose any nominee for the consumer financial protection bureau it was a bold attempt to change back to daily

and that drama in favor of american citizens and taking strong action against predatory mortgages in the practices of the future. in eight hours will you be voting up or down as we should have long ago. let me shift gears and say that the vote that we took today is symbolic of much more than just the important function of establishing an effective consumer financial protection bureau. it is central to ending the paralysis that has haunted this chamber. that is something new. in the time from eisenhower's presidency, there was not one

filibuster and the four and a half years, there have been 16 filibusters. it is a reasonably timely up or down vote and that is the tradition. it is a tradition that fits with the constitution. the constitution calls for a super majority to be confirmed. but it only speaks of the simple majority requirement for nominations. there is reasoning behind that because our founders envisioned three colorful branches of government that could never have envisioned that it would be okay for the minority of one branch

to be able to deeply disable another branch. be it the executive branch for the judiciary. so it is part of a larger conversation focusing on the challenges will timely votes. the senator from illinois. >> madam president, we thank him for his leadership. he has been a singular force in the senate and we have assessed the rules to make sure that they are serving the needs of our nation and i think the thank the senator for his leadership and i know that he felt a great sense of satisfaction with the vote that was cast on the floor. they voted to end cloture in the

filibuster on the nominee to head the consumer financial protection bureau. this has been controversial since its conception when we passed the finance reform bill there were many who did not want to see us create a consumer protection agency, yet we did. it was the brainchild of one of our current colleagues, senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts before she was elected, she thought this was an important agency in the federal government. but it wasn't welcomed by some. but i think it is noteworthy. i would like to ask the senator to respond it has proven its worth. i'm working on this for profit

schools. the wife of general betray us works for this agency and focus her ministry on the g.i. bill. i think every american would agree that those who are guilty of it should be held accountable. i think that is important and that is why this is important and this is a larger point of the senate and perhaps congress. we have in one month seen two very significant votes in my estimation. the first was on the immigration bill was 68 senators voted and 14 republicans joining all the democrats, it was a breakthrough

and it was the first time that we have seen in a long time senators of both political parties sit down and hammer out an agreement. fourteen republicans and 54 democrats. and now we have@ fourteen republicans and 54 democrats. and now we have a second bipartisanship with the vote that was just passed. some 17 republicans voting in favor of this. the point i would like to get you seems to me, and i would ask the senator for senator for his reflection on this comment seems to me in a fractured political nation is bipartisanship and not just from the senate chamber but from the house as well. start thinking about how we put things together on a bipartisan basis now when it comes to

consumer protection, we move forward. we had a bipartisan vote to move forward. and i asked the senator to not only reflect on the institution of the earlier vote, but on the current challenges that we face politically and how these votes are reflected. >> indeed these are key milestones on a journey wheredey milestones on a journey where the journey is to restore the functionality we've had other

recent moments that fit this. that is providing the water supply and infrastructure and water waste treatment infrastructure. we should be in the middle of the conference. so that is in evidence of the model we are trying to make with unexplainable sense to the american people.

your kids are getting their inoculations. and of course there is a lot of concern within the military world about our national security for the programs. so there is a lot there. we are going to continue on this road. we are trying to make this

chamber work. this question gave me an opportunity to talk about what has just transpired as an important victory. an important victory for this chamber and its deliberation and people across america and families working to have their financial foundation and solid were torn asunder by predatory practices. this ever to pursue a senate tom udall and i came to the senate together and immediately recognized that the senate needed to address the internal functioning. we propose that we had a conscious debate every two years about how to adjust the rules and make the senate chamber work much better than we have the

paralysis and judicial nominations we have a few important exceptions that we just talked about. my senator and my colleague from illinois. so i want to thank tom for his work to help motivate this body to take on these issues and restore the functionality. i have been pleased to be a partner with him on this journey. i know it is a journey that is not yet done. i think my colleagues across the aisle. there are frank discussions in which for three hours we have bared our hearts, if you will, about what is working and what is not working in this chamber. that is important to make the

senate work it resolved the two-year standoff in regard to having a functioning chair of the consumer financial protection bureau and hopefully change dramatically as partnership to restore the function of the senate going forward thank you madam president. [inaudible conversations]

>> the senator from vermont? >> madam president, i'm glad that agreement should be reached department of labor and the head of the environmental protection agency. it will also provide that the president's new nominees for the labor relations board will be rapidly confirmed it is a seriously dysfunctional senate.

we are trying to respond in a timely and effective way. i'm not sure that we have the votes to pass any piece of legislation.

so the good news is that we are now focused on the functionality and the need for us to have rules or a process and people ask why is it that congress now has a favorability rating of less than 10% real unemployment is somewhere around 14%. the minimum wage has not kept up

with inflation. millions of people are working in jobs pay them wages. tens of millions of people today lack health care. while we have the most expensive and wasteful health care system in the world. the greatest planetary crisis. the united states president and transcendent is a very peculiar institution. it is peculiar in that sense that anyone member can come down here on the floor and the other two magical words which bring the senate to a halt.

i will not allow the senate to go forward. which means the whole government shuts down. i object and what we have seen in recent years, essentially barack obama has been elected at an unprecedented level which brings the function of the united states senate all this takes place on a when a time when millions of people can't find jobs and a time when kids are graduating college and millions of others are now choosing not to go to college or address the issue of higher education. it takes place at a time when the infrastructure of roads and bridges and airports and rail

systems are crumbling under educational system is in need of major reform that requires 60 votes time and time again when the votes come up, everybody votes. but what happens here we don't

get motions to proceed. we don't keep interest rates for college students. what we have seen is an unprecedented level of between 1917 and in 1967 and in that 50

year time frame there was only we were of the majority leaders in the late 1950s in the six-year tenure the least requirement for 60 votes. this is unconscionable.

right now we have a situation as a result they can not make the contribution public. we have a majority vote on that

issue and we couldn't get it past because we needed 16 votes. the tax system is enormously flawed. legislation we didn't have 60 votes. we couldn't get 60 votes. we had a majority vote talking

about women getting paper equal work as men. we are getting the majority vote they elected obama president people that campaign on certain issues at one point in senate history from 1917 through 1967, the filibuster was used very

sparingly only under exceptional circumstances. have they abuse the system, have they been obstructionist? there are times when they have been. since 2008, what has happened is the republicans have taken obstructionism to an entirely new level. virtually every piece of legislation now requires 60 votes. in virtually every piece of legislation requires an enormous amount of this.

>> we do not want the senate to be like the house and i agree with that. the senate should not be the house. whether the minority where the majority, there should be a lesser debate is a member of the united states said it and he wants to stand here on the floor at and seek hour after hour to call attention to the issue that he or attention to the issue tt he or she feels is important, that senator has the right, in my view, to do that.

>> at the end of that debate there must be a finale. there must be a majority vote. fifty-one votes should win. the concept that i support about the talking filibuster. minority rights must be protected and they must make their point. what happened is not only enormous prescription about the series economics and environmental stresses.

>> people working 40 hours a week is that if we don't change rules, the overwhelming support will amount and republicans talking about the filibuster issue. they are advocating an up or down vote. how you feel on those issues, let us not have issues because

we couldn't get 60 votes nobody understands madam president, let me just conclude that we will finally be able to get some key appointees here. he will get some key appointees

we are dealing with one very small part which is the dysfunctionality of the united states senate and i hope that having addressed the immediate crisis that we can now go on and address the broader issue and that is making the united states senate responsive to the needs of the american people and having serious debate on serious issues and let's see where the chips fall. >> within the consumer finance production, we are talking about dodd-frank and the consumer protection bureau. and i think people know that i'm

going to rely a great deal on inspector general within the bureaucracy and to make sure that money spent accordingly is done according to the law. dodd-frank created the consumer finance protection board. but it did not speak specifically to the inspector general. >> this has created a problem. it right now consumer finance protection board and inspector general has a split roll.

you could oversee the federal reserve on the consumer finance protection board. these are two very different but important priorities. dodd-frank created the consumer finance protection board within the federal reserve in order to fund the bureau and that is a problem but not one i'm willing

to deal with right now. so we had a marriage of convenience is. the consumer finance protection board within the federal reserve. this unique situation remains. my concern is that if you have one inspector general trying to cover two are different entities in other words, we don't have adequate checks within the bureaucracy to make sure that laws are abided by and that money is spent according to all. congress believes that each department and each agency needs

its own independent inspector general. this has been a long-standing bipartisan position. there are 73 inspector general's in every single cabinet level in almost all independent agencies they have their own inspectors general. in each of these agencies, and each have their own inspector general, shouldn't the consumer finance the protection board? particularly sends this. if we don't get appropriations oversight, so some of these decisions can't even be

challenged in the courts. we have challenged the inspector general i did not hear any merits of this proposal. our amendment wasn't about litigating anything.

we have those sort of checks and balances. that makes the inspector general even more important. we don't have legislation related to it, we don't have opportunities to amend. this nomination is now before the united states senate. it is really the only tool the senate has to create transparency and accountability within the consumer finance protection board. as we consider this nomination, i hope that we will remember

that and consider the role in overseeing the consumer finance protection board and what steps we can take to make the consumer finance protection board more transparent and hence, more accountable and then returned to the american peopd then returneo the american people. >> the senate went on to confirm the nomination of richard cordray to be ahead of the consumer financial protection bureau. when the senate returns at 9:30 a.m. eastern, a look at the nominee to head the export import department. we'll have that live on c-span2. next on c-span2, a senate hearing on military contractors in afghanistan. then senators propose changes to how sexual assault as reported.

in the senate relations committee. >> tomorrow ben bernanke is on capitol hill to deliver the annual policy report. our live coverage of the house financial services committee begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also the senate judiciary committee is holding a hearing on the voting rights act. that is at 1:00 p.m. eastern and live coverage is on c-span.org. it will air on c-span3. >> in 1964 the presidential helicopters that we would so

look forward to every weekend, and i would see his children and gone are those days. she missed that and gone are the days when we were the most powerful family in the world. >> on "after words", the newly released diaries and letters as she talks about the kennedy matriarchs and her influence over the family dynasty at 10:00 p.m. eastern. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> new contracting rules and the 2013 national defense authorization act was discussed. this is one hour and 40 minutes.

>> hello, thank you all for being here. we think senator johnson for attending this morning. it is hard to believe that we have been at this for over six years, working on wartime contracting and it has been a roller coaster ride there have been days that i thought that there was no hope and other days when we were able to get these provisions finely interlock. i thought we were really rounding the corner. today we are here to examine we

are going to implement this as it is mandated in the defense act and to talk about a couple of the current issues that have. on august 31, the commission in iraq and afghanistan presented its final report to congress. @enator webb and i introduced senator webb and i introduced the comprehensive reform act of 2012. which was based on the findings and recommendations of the commission. just so everyone were members in 2007 when they arrived in the senate is new freshman working on getting a contracting commission that could look extensively at issues of how we

contract during times of war. the provisions of the reform act, which were based on the findings of the commission were incorporated in the fiscal year 2013 that was signed into law on january 2 of this year. a few of the provisions had porting requirements that we viewed earlier this month and several of those positions had targets to be met by the end of this year. this morning we had representatives to testify about how other agencies are complying with the wartime contracts and provisions. based on reports that these agencies had made to congress, they are working to implement these provisions and i am encouraged by their progress. however, there is still a long way to go. the majority of the provisions apply only to future

contingencies. unfortunately they do not apply now. i learned just this week that the defense department spent millions on a defense program that has never been used. this was built despite the fact that the forward commander said that they neither needed nor wanted this facility. in may of 2010, almost a full year before construction began. we now have a brand-new state-of-the-art building costing taxpayers $34 million. the worst part is only going to tear it down. we can't even give it away. we can't give it away because they don't want a building and they would have to spend millions to rewire it since it was built to the u.s. electrical code. i also recently learned that more than 13 million may have been wasted on the agricultural development contract.

but the special inspector general also found that the contractor failed to cooperate with the audit. frankly that is not acceptable. i will also ask questions about the subcommittee and i continue to have serious concerns regarding the contract. these examples illustrate why these are finally come out part of kosovo and iraq and afghanistan. the office has provided the were contracting provision.

>> thank you, madam chair. it is interesting the couple of examples that we did bring out that we would like to reinforce a little bit. 6000 square feet, what is depressing about that is that the construction has been stopped. it was proposed in february of 2010 and by may of 2010 they said they really don't want to, but in february of 2011 we went ahead and produced it were constructed it at a cost of $531 per square foot i have done a lot of complex construction projects. the average cost of a home is about 80 hours per square foot. there are so many problems with that.

you also talked about the embassy in kosovo and there is an article that i would like to submit to the record of the project on government oversight issued january 2013. as you are reading were reading that report, and this was contractor security and whistleblowers and raising alarms in what is alarming to me is that i am hearing in the reports the response to the state department it is eerily similar to what we heard in terms of the security around the embassy or the consulate and ungodly and the resulting tragedy that i will have a number of questions about that as well. madam chair, i commend your efforts in holding here it's like this.

we hear the same problems time and again. lack of accountability and doing things in a cost efficient manner when it comes to talking about our personnel. >> we now hear from the director of procurement policy. he was a general in the navy prior to serving his current position. he served as director from 2008 until 2010 and deputy director and acquisition policies from 2010 until becoming a director in june of 2011. patrick kennedy has served in the state department since 2007.

he has been with the department of state for 39 years the chief of staff and deputy director of national intelligence for management. mr. john bonney was overseas as a supervisory contracting officer and he began his and is part of the subcommittee and we are all witnesses here is where the testimony that you give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth let the record

reflect that the witnesses answered the permanent. >> the distinguished members of the subcommittee, i welcome this opportunity to implement the wartime reforms. you asked me to speak about the defense act of 2013 and this is covered in my written testimony in the asset will be submitted in the record. >> it will be we have made a number of improvements based upon independent reviews such as the commission on wartime contracting and the various inspector general reports as well as the analysis. the department is carefully

planned for, executed and monitored and this applies to the current mission in afghanistan as well as future conflicts the department established a permanent board of overseers capabilities this includes more than 140 individual actions. the action plan was provided for your review and the department has engaged in an initiative to obtain greater initiative of productivity. we take seriously the charge to protect public funds and it works with the interagency topics and sharing lessons learned in this includes working with the department of state and others who are here with me today. some improvements have required conventional assistance and we appreciate and we appreciate our

military and civilian forces. we are focused on meeting the current and future needs while judiciously managing the resources and balancing the risk. i welcome your questions. >> estate is always seeking improvements. this includes contracting management in our workforce.

in this acquisition's office, we have to regional procurement officers to support our contracting requirements in the working groups continue meeting to advance the implementation of this provision and we work with the general accountability office on their engagement it includes making improvements to the contracting program and this includes hiring contracting staff in this includes our day-to-day contract oversight. we have established an advisory board to share best practice methods as well. we're supporting our rock operations and this can be a model for future contingencies.

the stable examined using human resources flexibility such as recruitment and retention and relocation incentives to ensure the hiring and oversight functions. the state issues guidance to strengthen management and is working with dod on overall coordinating arrangements. this includes working to improve data quality. we are also working with dod to integrate data automatically on the spot and we continue using the reporting to congress for section 847. we are validating our risk management process and formally establishing a risk management unit. the new responsibility to