expensive paint on the trends, all of those things are meant to impress lots of visitors coming here and this room is never used as it was intended. so it is a monument to all that could then but never was.

>> the house oversight and government reform committee heard thursday from two american killed in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi libya. the committee also heard testimony from the leaders of the state department's accountability review board on benghazi. here is a two-hour portion of the hearing. >> committee will come to order. the oversight committee exists to secure two fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes two minutes well spent and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. how how did young oversight government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. for what they know is important for how they decide. in fact, our job is to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver facts to the american people and

bring genuine reform to the federal barkers v. this is our mission. i now ask unanimous consent to read into the record statements from two witnesses who will not be available, the family of the vic dems of the 9/11 attack on benghazi without objection so ordered. first, letter from kate dougherty quinlan. she says in a letter to the ranking member and myself, thank you for invitation to participate in the committee said summer 19, 2013 hearing concerning the attacks on the u.s. facility on september 11, 2012, during which four americans concluded my brother, glenn dougherty was killed. i am unable to do so, the submit for the committee's consideration the following questions concerning events that

led to my brother's death in particular. i ask that because i am unaware of answers, these questions have been provided. first, my ending is that it took eight hours for the rescue team in tripoli to travel 200 miles to reach their destination in benghazi, that there were no dedicated transportation assets in place in the team received no help getting through barriers like the benghazi airport and check points in that city. if this is correct, why was this so given the urgency of the mission recognizing the difficulty of what it's, that's the way it's written. i nevertheless ask that those conditions were so had been different with the outcome had been less tragic.

secondly, glenn lived his life to the fullest and to pride in teaching others how to be their best. glenn died serving with the men he respect it, protect the freedoms we enjoy as americans and doing something he loved. he is an american hero to those who did not know him, but for those of us who did know him, he is a best friend who these behind a giant hole in her heart. my thanks go out to those in congress and the administration who strive to learn what mistakes were made that night so that u.s. personnel can be better protect it in the future. find kate dougherty. secondly, a letter that is signed from chris stephens family. chris stephens died in the service of his country.

he died doing what he loved doing the most, working to build ditches of understanding and mutual respect between the people of the united states and the people of the middle east and north africa. he was loved by many more libyans than those who hated him for being american. a few dozen fanatics penetrated his compound, but more than 30,000 people in benghazi demonstrated in protest over his death. chris was successful because he embodied the trace that i've always endeared americans to the world. a commitment to democratic supposed and respect for others regardless of race, religion or culture. chris regarded unlike each person he met as an individual. he respected their views whether or not he agreed.

one of his friends told us the tale that reflects his success on a small scale. picnicking in libyan countryside, they met a local family. chris immediately greeted them and suggested that they be photographed together. the young son of a pitcher of the family suspiciously and negative towards americans refuse to participate. so chris continued chatting with the others. when it was time to leave the initially suspicious son presented crews with a bouquet of flowers, saying this is because you are so respectful to my father he said. chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would strut around compounds. he amazed and impressed libyans

by walking the streets of the latest escorts, sitting inside cafés, chatting with passersby. there is a risk to being accessible. he knew it and he accepted it. what chris would never have except it was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes. there were security shortcomings no doubt, both internal and outside investigations have identified public and publicly disclosed. steps are taken to prevent their recurrence. chris would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. chris knew and accepted that he was working under dangerous circumstances. he does so just as so many of our diplomats and professionals do every day because he believed

the work was vitally important. he would have wanted the critical work he was doing to build bridges of mutual understanding and respect, that kind of work that made him literally thousands of friends and admirers across the wider middle east to continue. so rather than engage in endless recriminations, his family is working to continue building bridges he says successfully began. one year ago this week, in response to tremendous outpouring of support from around the world, we admonished the jay christopher stephens fund. the mission is to support it to be that build bridges between the people of the united states and those of the broader middle east. this was the mission to which chris dedicated his life. we are grateful to reach

contribution received from friends and family, from the government of libya and from people near and fire moved by christie and her story. in the coming weeks and months, we will launch a number of innovative programs and initiatives. the focus is on young people, both here in america and across middle east and and north africa. chris served in the peace corps in morocco and his death was felt acutely by the peace corps family. at last year in response to numerous queries from returned peace corps volunteers during peace corps week, we encouraged returned volunteers to fan out across america and speak with you about their experience abroad. we are now working with the peace corps to expand their reach into schools and communities across the country.

the center for middle east studies at the university of california berkeley, where chris studied as an undergraduate announced on september 11th the ambassador jay christopher stevens memorial fund for middle east studies, and that the jay christopher's defense fund. our purpose is to encourage and inspire students in middle eastern and north african scholarship. in piedmont, california, where chris spent his teen years, the piedmont unified school district board of education was voted -- excuse me, has voted to name the piedmont high school library the ambassador christopher stephens memorial library. chris was inspired by piedmont high school, his motto, achieve the honorable. later this year, together with the coalition of public and private partners, we will launch the jay christopher's events virtual exchange initiative.

this initiative will embrace the power of technology to fuel the largest ever increasing -- increase in people to people exchanges between the united states and the broader middle east, vastly increasing the number and diversity of views to have a meaningful cross-cultural ex. as part of their formative education and reaching over 1 million units by 2020. later this year the university of california hastings college of law, from which chris graduated in 1989 will host the ambassador jay christopher stevens symposium. the event will emphasize law and public policy is used in the practice to advance global understanding and peace principles to which chris was committed. there have been more awards bestowed honors given to

chris -- chris's memory than we would ever have thought possible. but as we've said before, we have received letters from thousands of people all over the world who were attached by chris's example. his openness touched a chord in their hearts. chris would have wanted to be remembered for that. thank you, the family of chris stevens. without objection, they will both be placed in the record. briefly, in my opening statement, today we want to both do our job as constitutional officers and be very cognizant of the wishes of the family. we would hear on the second panel from additional family members. like the first, and they both want answers to questions and

they want chris's memory to be one of his diplomacy and his service. they don't want this to be a political folk. the committee's primary obligation is the oversight reform committee is to do oversight leading to meaningful reform. last week marked the 12th anniversary of september 11th attacks on the united states. it marks the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attack on the diplomatic facility in benghazi. the attack cost americans their lives. ambassador christopher stevens, state department information officer shawn smith and to american security officers, from a u.s. navy seal tyrone would end when dougherty. today would honor their memories and her service to our nation. we recognize also the family members of the fallen who are with us today are those who

truly experience that loss firsthand. last.cobra, secretary hillary clinton convened the accountability review board or arb as required by law to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the hideous attacks and the report findings and recommendations. the arb report was delivered to congress on december 18, 2012. while the arb made some important finding, it also raised a serious additional questions. first, the arb structure along with the state department culture raises questions about the extent to which he can be independent. although it is a meaningful document, this committee has not been able to receive the background information or recorded no sufficient to allow for a true review of the review.

as the convening this hearing, the committee down the hall, foreign affairs committee has authored significant reforms in the form of legislation. part of what we will do here today is to continue feeling the discovery process for that purpose. in preparation for today's hearing, the staff has prepared approximately a 100 page report, which is entitled benghazi attacks, investigative update from interim report on the accountability review board. i ask unanimous consent to be placed in the record. it raises important questions on the review board process.

today our panel includes distinguished former government officials who know firsthand how this process is and who dedicated their lives to this public service and we thank you for being here today. any criticism of the accountability review process for the law passed by congress in 1986 that created it should be cast on congress and the process they were asked to do and not to the individuals who headed this. i believe that to the extent the arb was currently in traditionally used, it has done its job. our criticism today is was that the appropriate investigation? was a complete? didn't have the processes necessary to do it for a review? didn't have the authority to go beyond the state department? was the records such that it could be reviewed and reviewed

again as many tragic and large investigations well. i think we all understand that if the attack 12 years ago on 9/11, 2001 had been reviewed through the accountability review process, it would not have been sufficient for the american people. therefore, our investigation today, the subject of this hearing is to look at what could be done, what was done about to be learned through the arb. i want to thank ambassador pickering and admiral mullen personally for their work. they made many reform suggestions. my understanding is loved and has been accepted. except in some implementation can be different. in particular, one of the questions that will not be answered today, but undoubtedly will be asked is if four individuals were held accountable and in testimony at

this one was recommended for firing, why is it not mossadegh's pay and i'll are back on the job? that is a question for the current administration and not one for this panel. additionally, we are joined by director sullivan and jon kyl. they are review is a review and is broader in nature than ghazi and it is important because one thing that america learned from the attacks on 9/11, 2012 is that in fact the system failed the people who were in that compound in benghazi. without a doubt, there are problems within how decisions are made for security of our various diplomatic facilities throughout the world. i look forward particularly in that direct or sullivan has firsthand knowledge of primary

protection of an individual such as an ambassador for president of the united states, but he also understands that compound and facilities, both preplanned and ad hoc such as the hotel the president make the payment has to be taken as they are to work. that certainly says a lot about the nature of our diplomatic goodies throughout the world. diplomatic compounds that are compliant need not be looked at in any great additional detail. they are in fact setbacks. they are in fact fortresses. the only thing that needs to happen any compliant facility is for the rules and procedures to be followed for them to be extremely secure. but the vast majority of consulates, offices, usaid facilities and the like throughout the world are not compliant. in fact, our investigation has

showed a great many exceptions occur every day, if you will, waivers to what is supposed to be. often this comes in the form of defining a facility in a way different than what it actually is. a multicountry office has a different standard that a consulate or embassy. but if in fact principal officers said they are in the risk of attack is high, they must be looked at in that sense. so i for one believe that this interim report closes and i hope it really will come in the chapter on the service of admiral pickering -- i'm sorry, ambassador pickering and admiral mullen because their service although limited to the arb has been honorable and they've done the best they could under the rules that congress gave them and 1986. and with that, i am going to ask

unanimous consent that my entire opening statement be placed in the record because i used so much time for the earlier reading in the field back in recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by recognizing mrs. patricia smith, mrs. charles was who are here to specify about their sons who were killed in the ghazi. shawn smith and tyrone woods. nobody can fully comprehend the anguish they are suffering. i know from my own experience that losing someone so young and so promising is one of the most difficult things we ever experience in life. sadly, there are no mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, who were all grieving after the

shootings at the navy washington yard, less than a mile from the server. our hearts go out to those families as well. in addition, although ambassador stevens family was not able to attend today, and the dougherty -- they sent a written statement as did karen dougherty's sister of mr. chairman, i'm very, very pleased in a thank you for not only reading the defense into the record, then making sure that they are part of the record. i look forward to hearing that testimony and i hope we can learn more about who these very brave word. i want to learn more about their hopes and dreams and service to our country. i believe our goal should be to honor them as heroes because

that is exactly what they were. they believe in this nation and they devoted their lives to protect tenet. there are other ways. first, we must unbound those responsible and bring them to justice. it may not always be visible to the public, but as their nation demonstrated in the relentless worldwide ten-year pursuit of osama bin laden, the united states does not forget. we never forgot. and i believe i speak for the entire community when i say that our commitment to this goal is bipartisan and unwavering. another way to honor their memories is to obtain information about what happened and then ghazi.

chairman issa chose not to work at senate democratic committee members. so today i offer my own report that i would like to provide to the committee and the witnesses. as this report explains, our goal was to provide detailed information in response to some of the specific questions that have been raised relating to the attack. our report is based on the review of tens of thousands classified and unclassified documents. 16 transcribed interviews and one deposition. our report provides new details about the terrifying last september when events at embassies and consulates around the world the u.s. personnel on hair trigger alert for days.

these included the events not only in benghazi, but also in khartoum, said not, karachi, lahore and islamabad. crowds of thousands marched, set fires. mr. chairman, i asked that our report be made out of the record. >> without objection so where do. >> another critical way we should honor the memories of the series is by implementing the recommendations and reforms put forth to improve the security of our diplomatic and military forces around the world. this is so important. since the committee that one oversight and g oversight and government reform, reform so vital, particularly in this moment. we can all agree on a bipartisan basis that we can implement as

effectively and as efficiently as possible. on this point, ambassador pickering explained to the committee during his deposition set because of his own personal and professional time at ambassador stevens, ev do service on the accountability review word as quote and honor. he said and i quote, chris gave me two wonderful years of his life in very typical circumstances. he also said i owed him, his family and the families of the others who died the best possible report we could put together. however, ambassador pickering also said he was deeply concerned about the previous

were excellent, their recommendations to follow through, end of quote. ladies and gentlemen, we cannot let that happen under our watch. this is our watch. we are in charge now and we must make -- we must never let a port like this sit on the shelves collecting dust and then in 12 years from now go to the same process again. as i've said many times, we are better than that. i would like to make one final point. but may go back to admiral mullen. i want to thank both of you for your service. the chairman said this is not an attack on ul, but the concern about the breadth of the reporting things like that. but i know that you gave a

phenomenal amount of your time and i want to thank both of you. but i don't want to just thank you for it today. i want to thank you for what you've done your entire lives, for your entire lives, giving the blood, sweat, tears to make life better for us so we can sit here and do what we are doing and i appreciate that. admiral pickering -- ambassador pickering, inmate 37 years of practice of law, i've never heard such compelling testimony. it just so happen to sit your deposition. and when you told us why you did this and why it is so important that it be completely done and i will never forget the things he said. i really thank you for that.

there have been some extremely serious accusations that he was a quote whitewash, unquote. in a quote cover-up, unquote. some said it doesn't answer any real questions, unquote and that is quote the sole function to insulate hillary clinton, unquote. when i hear those kinds of statements and then i read the depositions and i listen to you, ambassador pickering, you know, i've got to tell you those kinds of statements up 70. because i think they are so unfair and we are better than not. so let me respond as directly as i can.

based on all of the evidence of tank by this committee, this benghazi review was amount of the most comprehensive arp reviews ever conducted. i see no evidence, none whatsoever to support these rockwood accusations. to the contrary, witness after witness told the committee that arb's report was quote, penetrating, specific, critical, very tough and quote, the opposite of a whitewash. finally, one reason i requested today's hearing form of the go was to give ambassador pickering and admiral mullen an opportunity to respond direct leave japan substantiated accusations. i'm glad they are finally being given that opportunity.

our nation owes them some profound things for their dedication and for their service and with that, mr. chairman i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. all members love seven days to submit for the record a move would not recognize their first panel. as previously noted, ambassador thomas r. pickering served as state accounting review board for benghazi. ambassador pickering has had a long word distinguished career as a diplomat. he has served in president a number of ambassadorships. jordan, nigeria, also dark, israel, india, russia and the united nations. not to be any less distinguished, admiral michael g mullen, u.s. navy retired served as the vice chairman of the arb. admirable and is a retired four

star navy admiral who served two terms as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the highest rank of any officer in the armed forces. to mark sullivan, served as chairman of the independent panel investor says and is the former director of the united states secret service, a role in which he and i worked together on tough issues and i respect your participation here today. honorable todd m. title served as a member of the independent panel on best practices and is the former assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the united states department of homeland security. welcome all. pursuant to our rules chubais and take your right hand to take the oath? do you solemnly swear or affirm that testimony will give today will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?

please be seated. let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. as i've said before this hearing in her private meetings, this is an important hearing and one in which each of your testimonies are extremely good your entire but statements will be placed in the record. he is as close to five minutes as you can for a name. i'm not going to have a heavy gavel if you have additional words you have to say, but are they to us much time for questions as possible. ambassador. [inaudible] >> thank you very much. it is an important opportunity to appear to you today -- before you today on this important matter. it's been a special honor for me to work with admiral mullen and indeed the other members of the

accountability review board on this very pressing, important and significant issue. if i may and i don't want to extend beyond openness of my brief review, mr. chairman, i would hope that our report will also appear in the record in appropriate fashion. >> the entire report will be placed in the record. >> thank you, sir. the loss of individuals is devastating to our country must especially to their families. we sympathize with them, and mrs. smith and mr. roots and all of them in their loss. the board met pursuant to a statue. the questions the board was to respond to in the statute and the extent to which the incident was securityated. whether the security systems and security researchers are adequate, whether the security systems and procedures were properly complemented, the impact to intelligence and other

circumstances may be relevant to the appropriate security management of u.s. missions abroad and finally with regard to burst no, whenever the board finds reasonable cause to believe in individual has breached the duty of the individual from the board should report that finding to appropriate federal agency mentality. the board met almost continuously for two and a half months. after extensive act duties outlined in the testimony, reached unanimous conclusions which were reflect it in the report. the board conducted about 100 interviews beginning with key personnel who are on the ground during the events in benghazi. they further repeat many thousands of pages of documents and viewed hours of video. it was provided with the fullest cooperation by the department of state and all elements of the u.s. government.

the key findings of the board include the following. the attacks were security related, involving the use of armed force against this ballot to facilities. responsibility for loss of life and other damage rests completely with the terrorists who carried out the attacks. systemic failures in leadership and management efficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the department of state resulted in a security posture at the special mission in benghazi that was inadequate for the mission and grossly inadequate to do with the attacks. notwithstanding the proper implementation of security systems and procedures and the remarkable heroism shown by american personnel, those systems in the libyan response fell short in the face of the attacks, which began with the penetration of the mission by dozens of armed attackers.

the board found u.s. intelligence provided no immediate specific tactical warning of the attack. gaps in the intelligence community's understanding of the extremist militias in libya and the potential threat that they pose to u.s. interests although some threats were known to exist. the board found that certain senior officers within two bureaus that the state department demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability and their responses to security concerns posed by the benghazi special mission attack, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable post-country libyan protection. the board did not find reasonable cause to determine any individual u.s. government employee breached his or her duty recommendations. the department of state should urgently review the balance

between risk and presence. we did not agree that no presence was in a perp or dancer in most cases. the basis for review should include a defined, a teen about priority mission, clear eyed assessment of the risks and costs. commitment of resources to mitigate risk and constant attention to changes in a situation, including when to leave and perform the mission from a distance. the department should re-examine the security organization and management. the department should organize a panel of outside independent experts to identify best part is an regularly assist the diplomatic security bureau and evaluating u.s. security and high risk posed and indeed i am divided that mr. sullivan and mr. kyl eyewitness who prepared the report.

the secretary should require an action plan on dealing with the supplier as a weapon. recalling the incomplete construction recommendations of the nairobi dar es salaam more, the department should work with the congress to restore the capital cost sharing program in its full capacity adjusted for inflation to about $2.2 billion for fiscal year 2015 and a 10 year program to address outstanding need in high threat areas. our intelligence capabilities have improved post-2001, there is no certainty of warning information. more attention needs to be given to generating deteriorating rats. key trends identified early to sharpen risk calculations. the board recognizes such poor performance does not ordinarily can't shoot a breach of duty as

soon as the basis for disciplinary action, but instead needs to be addressed by the performance management wisdom of the state department. however, the borders of the to view the findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in the case of the should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations by future arms and would recommend a division of department of state regulations or amendment of the relevant statute to this end. in conclusion, mr. chairman, it was an honor to be called again for government service on the benghazi armed. many have said a report would either advocate your reinforcement of purchase embassies are closing down our presence. no conclusion like that could be further from the truth. we recognize perfection and protectionist not possible and fine and good men and women will still come forward to serve

their country and risked their lives on the front lines of danger. we should continue to do all we can to protect them as they go about such challenging tasks. that was the sole purpose of our report and it was produced with a deep sense we had to get it right. politics, elections, personal controversy and all other externals factors aside. i'm aware no report will ever be perfect, but i am proud of this one seen by many as clear, cogent and hard-hitting as it should be. new information is always welcome. i feel this report is still on the mark, free of cover-up and political tilt and will personally welcome anything new which sheds light on what happened and helps us to protect american lives and property in the future. finally i recognize we are a government of breaches and checks and balances. i've always risk to the congress

and the tasks to make our nation great. i appear to be against the backdrop of those beliefs. we will not always agree, the lettuce always agreed agreed the national interest, the best interests and welfare of the american people are the criteria can which we serve. thank you, mr. chairman. i very much look forward to your questions. >> thank you. admiral mullen. >> mr. chairman and mr. cummings, before addressing the subject of this hearing, my wife deborah is here with me today and i want to express our deepest sympathies to the families of those killed in the tragedy earlier this week. as a navy family house, both lost were shipmates and family members in the truest sense of the word and their dedication, serviced your country and sacrifice will never be

forgotten. chairman rouhani, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i hope that testimony will be helpful to the committee with the tragic events that occurred in benghazi, libya on september 11 and 12, 2012. after those events i was then asked the secretary of state to serve as the vice chair of the accountability review board, established to examine the attacks on the special mission compound and annex in benghazi. the board was a good ambassador thomas pickering and included three other high qualified respected members with expertise in various areas relevant to this review. the board took our responsibilities very seriously and we work diligently to fulfill our obligations to determine the facts make recommendations as to how best

to avoid similar tragedies in the future. from the beginning, the state department emphasized that he wanted full transparency about what happened in benghazi what led to those events. we had unfettered access to state department personnel and documents. there were no limitations. we receive the full cooperation of all witnesses and every state department office. we interviewed everyone we thought it was necessary to interview. we operated independently we were given freedom to pursue the investigation and speaking necessary. independence was particularly important to me. i would not accept it this incitement that i thought the board's independence would be compromised in any way. the board interviewed more than 100 interviewed jewels, thousands of pages of documents and reviewed hours of video footage. we determine a seat in the board's report their response

ability for the tragic loss of life, injuries and damage to u.s. facilities and property rest solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attack, end quote. the board did find multiple state department shortcomings, which exacerbated the impact of the terrorist attack. we also concluded there was nothing the u.s. military could do to respond to the attack on the compound or deter the subsequent attack on the annex. the actions of our military, which moved many asset that night were fully appropriate and professional. in toto, the board made 29 recommendations, 24 of which were unclassified. i stand by those recommendations. one of the board's recommendations led to the establishment of best practices panel, which mr. sullivan and mr. kyl will today.

they were to be implemented as state department facilities worldwide in order to keep diplomatic personnel save and secure at february the third, especially in areas where they see scrapers arrest because our nation needs than they are. the state department implement the recommendations as it sees fit. i understand it is accepted and plans to implement them all. the board's recommendations with respect to the shortcomings of state department personnel have been given much attention. because of the courageous and ultimate sacrifices made by ambassador stephen, sean smith, clint doherty and tyrone woods, the board meticulously review the conduct of all state department employees with direct responsibilities for security at the benghazi special mission compound. we assign blame at the level where we thought it lay. that is what the armed statute

intended. operational accountability at the level of operational responsibility. the house report originally adopted the statute that originally adopted the arb statute admonish the quote in the past, determining direct programmatic and personal accountability for serious security failures have been weak.

understand it as a high legal standard going well beyond negligence that acquires affirmative misconduct. discipline is a formal term meaning complete removal or demotion, removal from or demotion, the federal service. other form of significantive action such as removal from a position or reassignment are not considered formal discipline. the board has earn couraged congress to whether to amend the statute so unsatisfactory leader of perform in -- under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations by future. after careful review, the board found individual engaged in

misconduct or ignored his or her responsibility. we didn't find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breeched his or her duty. however, the board did find that two individuals demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in significantly contributed to the precarious security posture of the benghazi compound. they recommend they remove them from the positions. the borltd also concluded that the performance and leadership of two other individuals fell short of expectations, but did not recommend any specific personnel action. following our report, all personnel decision were made by the state department. i have the greatest admiration for the service and the sacrifice from ambassador stevens, sean smith, glenn dorrty, and tie roan woods. they were patriots and heroes in every sense of the word. they died dedicating their

liveses to our country. i have heart felt sympathy for the families of the brave men. we should never forget their sacrifice. i believe we should honor them by doing everything in our power to ensure that the lesson learned from the benghazi never have to be learned again. the board's report was issued in that spirit and with that goal. i look forward to your question. >> good morning. thank you for asking me to appear here today. the shooting at the navy yard, which occurred earlier this week in our nation's capitol remind us all vulnerability and deverse fied threat we face every day. whether in our own backyard or foreign soil, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims, fair themes, and loved ones.

we are uncertainty permeates one certainty -- necessary collaborative effort that is needed in our country to ensure the safety and security of all american lives. it was also a necessary certainty that we honor and protect the memories of those citizens who have been lost as a result of violate attacks with dignity and respect. as a federal agent for almost 35 years, my life has been and continues to be dedicated to contributing to improving america's security. from may 2006, through february 2013, i had the honor of serving as director of the united states secret service. under presidents both bush and obamacare. as director, i learned an understood the importance of having clear line of authority in an organizational structure concerning security matter. i have also learned that things don't always go as planned. and when they don't, it's vital to implement lessons learned and

effort to prevent them from happening again. mr. chairman, i considered not -- todd kyle, richard, raymond, timothy murphy, and staff erica -- and stefanie murdoch. our panel shares a combined experience of almost 170 years of security and law enforcement expertise. the panel's report reflects the independent view of the panel. based upon the member's best professional judgment, experience, and analysis of best practices and formed by interviews, travel, and research. it was a pleasure to serve with the other panel members, and i appreciate their professionalism and hard work. i would like to acknowledge and thank the hundred of people interviewed in the course of drafting the report from the u.s. government, private sector, international organizations, and

foreign governments. the the best practice panel was the accountability review board for benghazi which recommended the department of state establish a panel of outside experts with experience in high-threat area to support the bureau of diplomatic security, identify best practices and united -- our report provides 40 recommendations in 12 different areas. in the panel's opinion, these recommendations, if adopted and implemented, will further strengthen the department's ability to protect the personnel and work more safely on a global platform to achieve american foreign policy goals and objectives. the 12 areas of recommendations are organization and management, accountability, risk-management,

program acceptable risk, planning and logistics, and lessons learned, training and human resources, intelligence, threat analysis, and security assessments, programs, resources and technology host nations and guard forces capability enhancement, regular evaluation, and changed management. leadership, communications, and training. the best practices panel look across the wide supreme trum of private government and nongovernmental organizations to identify effective measures to enhance the department's ability to ensure safe and secure environment for employees and programs. not surprisingly, the panel found that many institutions, including governments, referred to diplomatic security as the gold standard for security to model their services after diplomatic security. nevertheless, any organization

must continuously evolve and improve to adjust the fluid and i did ma'amic environment. the panel's view was that the recommendations should be realistic, acheeivel, and measurable. the findings in the recommendations of the arb as well as the recommendations of other department state reports and management studies reviewed of the context observations. of the department security-related operations. best practices were then identified to address shortcomings and provide mechanisms for further consideration by the department.

the way forward should be characterized by cooperative efforts that can provide a framework which will enhance the department's ability to protect americans, to be effective we must be innovative so institutions adapt and evolve to meet changing security requirements and needs. finally, i would like to take this opportunity to thank the department of state in particular overseas posts that hosted panel visits and the bureau of diplomatic security for the outstanding support provided to the panel during our endeavor. thank you for your time, chairman, ranking member. we look forward to any questions you may have. >> thank you. i understand you don't have an opening statement. would you like to say a few words? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. in the after math of the tragic effect --

events that occurred. our panel was committed to identifying best practices from throughout the u.s. government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and foreign governments. which can improve the security of u.s. diplomatic facilities abroad, and enhance the safety of department of state and foreign affairs agencies, personnel, not only in high-risk areas but globally. we identified 40 recommendations to achieve this goal. importantly, the panel affirmed knew what we knew based on the special experience. the men and the women of the security service are truly dedicated public servants and among the best in service to our great nation. every day around the world, the face stream challenge, unpredictable risk and unknown events. still provide a safe and secure environment for the conduct of u.s. foreign policy. and they do so with distinction. as we stated repeatedly

throughout our report, best practices will not save lives unless they are resourced, implemented, and followed, not just accepted. as director sullivan state, almost 14 years ago, a number of very similar recommendations were made after systemic failures were recognized as a result of the east african embassy bombing. little has been accomplished by the department of state since then to improve its approach a security, even after approval by then secretary of state albright to elevate the bureau of diplomatic security and make other enhancements. now is the time for the department of state with the support of congress to finally substitution institutionalize real, meaningful, and progressive change. department of state owe it is to the people who have given their lives and service to our country, and those employees who

continue to serve our country. and very dangerous locations around the world. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i'll recognize myself and go in reverse order. mr. kyle, at the current time, isn't it true that both the facilities, sufficiency, and the sufficiency of diplomatic security rise to undersecretary kennedy effectively he is the undersecretary for diplomatic security at this time under the current structure. isn't that true? >> as we travel around the world. >> mr. kyle, i have a short time. you start by saying yes or no. >> yes. >> he is in fact in a position where he -- the pyramid ryes to him. your recommendation and the recommendation 14 years ago he be relieved of diplomatic security. and it be placed in a separate undersecretary position. is that correct? >> correct. >> wouldn't it create, by

definition, a situation in which somebody would be responsible for the hardware, the facilities, including compliance. somebody else would be responsible for the bodies and the support. have you considered that, and how would we or the foreign affairs committee structure that briefly? >> we, we considered that. and sir, currently there's an immigration between overseas building operation and the bureau of diplomatic security. >> they have all report to undersecretary . >> they do. and wasn't the failure in benghazi a failure to have the facility sufficient and a failure to have sufficient physical security in the way of armed personnel? weren't those both rose to one undersecretary? >> yes, sir? >> okay. and that doesn't mean i disagree with the finding now or 14 years ago. clearly there was somebody who had both halves of it and both failed. my ranking member told "politico" that we should listen carefully to in the ambassador and the admiral.

so i did, and admiral, i think i heard you correctly, clearly saying that you have limitations in what the arb mandate was including your limitations are -- you can't really under the arb look at policy deficiency and by definition you were mandated to look at the lowest level of operational failure, not the highest level of policy failure. is that true? >> i think that policy adjustments or policy issue are well within our mandate. when i talk about in my opening statement is the constraint strain was in the discipline. >> okay. finding fault had to go to the lowest level, even though you looked at -- >> i'm not -- finding fault had to go to the appropriate level. >> okay. well, the decision to extend the facility for another year with limited protection and not meeting standards was a decision

made by undersecretary kennedy, so did you consider that policy air, the air to be there with insufficient fiscal and human resources as a policy decision? or only that someone lower was responsible? >> actually, i think the decision the memo, i think to which you're -- >> the august memo. >> mr. chairman, that undersecretary kennedy signed in december of '11. >> yeah. december 2011. >> was the as a result of a process the state department took. everybody the consideration and was approved to extend. i think that was pretty clear to everybody. it wasn't the establishment of the special mission compound. >> we understand that. we actually had testimony that there was -- they were under consideration of september 11 of extending it permanently. the decision to keep them there and the reduction in assets to frequent and occurred and can

-- decided on 2011. >> the failure was not in the establishment or the memo purchases in the execution of what was laid out in the them -- memo to include the reck with a sit number of security personnel, which were rarely there over the course of the next year. >> okay. whoever is responsible for not having enough security personnel is to -- >> actually where we ended up focusing the investigation. >> okay. i think the final point i want to make sure i get out is you had a mandate under the arb, you have said essentially that changes in what the mandate are are welcome and you believe both of you, understand believe that some changes to the arb to make it do more are pretty necessary. i pretty well heard it. what they are considering, not the specific legislations, but

considering changes are something both of you welcome. as well as the anonymity that come to the table to make statements so the statements are made until the spirit of where we're try dog go. they don't feel limited. >> you said both of you said that the administration, the secretary and so on made your job easy because you had full access to 100 witnesses, and the attempt was to have full transparency. >> correct.. do you think congress should have the same option, in other words, since the state department is not made one of those witnesses you interviewed first available meaning people in benghazi or in fact witnesses. none have been made available, as a matter of fact, even the names have to be the greatest extend possible withheld from

the committee. do you believe that's appropriate? or do you think we should have access to the witnesses as we review the process? >> mr. chairman, i think that's in government a long time. that's something that historically certainly in the case has to be worked out between the congress and the executive branch. >> admiral, if something like the cole attack occurred again today and congress said we want to speak to people on the deck of the ship today. would you believe we have a right to speak to those people in order understand the fact on the ground that day? >> i don't -- >> i'm asking from your experience. >> i understand as i that. >> i don't know what would limit you to do that, quite frankly. >> i'm in the process of issuing subpoenas because the state department has not made those people available. has played high and go seek. is hiding behind a thin i had israelied statement there's a criminal investigation. as you know there was a

conversation on the any time that american were killed abroad. so the answer quite frankly is we are not being given the same access that you had or mr. sullivan and his team have. >> thank you. one second. i apologize. i have -- if you continue mind. it's come to our attention that there is a typo on page 25, majority staff report that lead to some misunderstanding about admiral mullen told the committee about the conversation with cheryl mills. we have made a technical correction in our report clarify that portion. the report will be correctly identified as admiral mullen's testimony as referring to char lean in review. the report includes the full

text of admiral mullen's testimony, and the testimony speaks for itself. and the full transcript and interview will be made available on our website immediately, and should be clear that the typo was unintentional and has been corrected. i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. i thank the chairman for addressing this. the last issue that fact came out in our memo, by the way, and we made it clear it was not correct. admiral mum less than, as the former chairman of the joint chief of staff, you were l military expert on the arb; is that correct? >> correct. >> over and over again during the past year, republican members of congress including several members of this committee have impugned the integrity of our military forces and their leadership by suggesting that they were no assistance on the night of the attack for political reasons.

admiral mullen, if you look on page 23 of our report, there's an excerpt from your interview with the committee which you said this, i will quote, quote it for you. it says, quote, i personally reviewed and as the only military member of the arb, i personally reviewed all of the military assets that were in -- available. end of quote. admiral mullen, if your review, did you have access to all mel -- military information necessary to evaluate the military's response? >> i did. >> and as i understand from your interview, transcript that you conducted this examination not once but twice; is that correct? >> the first time was actually with all member of arb. we went to the pentagon to review it in detail. the second time, i went back by myself when this became an issue

that there was essential questions being raised about it. i went back again to verify and value diet what i had done before. i found nothing different. that the military response -- the military did everything they possibly could that night. they just couldn't get there in time. >> so just to be clear, you have 40 years of experience in the military, and achieve the highest ranks. you had access to all the information and personnel you thought were necessary to investigate the interagency response on the night of the attack. you specially reviewed everything twice. do i have that right? >> correct. >> you told the committee during your interview, i quote, i concluded after detailed understanding of what happened that night that from outside libya, that we had done everything possible that we could have; that's correct?

>> correct. >> can you explain from your perspective what it means for the military to have done, quote, everything possible, end of quote. what i'm getting at is did the military really try everything, and i ask this for the families who want to know that the country and loved ones serve. did everything they could do for them. >> i worked for two presidents. the direction you get from a president in a situation like that, do everything you can. all the guidance you need. secretary panetta, general dempsey both testify to the specific along the line of in testimony early february and along the line what i found when i reviewed this on two occasions. it is our -- it goes to our core when people are in trouble to do everything we possibly can to help them out. there were many forces that moved that night, including a

special operations force in europe that ended up in base on southern europe. a large special operations force from the united states, which moved under direction as soon as they were given orders. it a group of marines that essentially were sent in from spain in to tripoli the next day. it literally became -- this is not something you can just wish to happen instantly. there's a lot of planning, preparation, as rapidly to coit as rapidly as one can do it. if i may, i'll just -- there's been great discussion given to face mover. you have to jet over benghazi because there are jets in europe. we have -- our readiness condition on that particular night, there were no plane sitting at the ready. it's 2:00 in the morning, there are no planes on alert.

it's two and a half to three hourses to fly there. tankers support is four hours away. you need host nation support where are they to get permission fly particularly combat-ready jets out of the country. you have to get the bomb racks and put the munitions together. you have to plan the mission, there are tremendous number of details that have to go on. so you to bring the pilots and prebrief them, et. cetera. it takes hours and hours and hours to do if you are not sitting at the ready when this happens. what happened since then, i have been briefed on, the defense department, the pentagon, has adjusted readiness of forces in certain part of the world to respond. we are not big enough in the military to -- and ambassador, will i'm sure, echo this. we're not big enough in the military to be everywhere around the world to respond to where

every embassy is that might be high risk. we have to take risk and figure it out. >> so, admiral, what do you say in response to the members who continue to this day imply that the military somehow fell down on the job? >> they didn't fall down on the job. i completely disagree with that view. >> now, ambassador, i she you shaking your head. would you comment? i have about a minute ?reft. >> i think the point that has been made by admiral mullen is important. we have over 270 consulate and embassy around the world in some very isolated and strange places. the responsibility for their primary security risk with the host country where that does not exist as it did in benghazi. it falls back on us to do. it the report we provided you and others provides the

recommendations to deal with those particular cases. we are not able to count on the u.s. military as admiral mullen being in position to deal with the issues. so we must do better on the ground. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize mr. micca for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. many americans have been waited for this hearing. as go back to my district, admiral, ambassador, and others, i can't tell you how many times people have said don't let benghazi and what happened there be swept under the table. unfortunately on the ranking member mentioned this that in my district, in the vast majority of american feel that your

report was a whitewash. he said whitewash or cover-up. that's what people feel, and they feel their government let them down. they feel that american public servants were lost there. and now the review is doesn't really address anything. knob has been fired. nobody has been dismissed, no one has been arrested for the murders i can't tell you how frustrating it is. do you understand where the american public is coming from? admiral mullen? >> i understand what you're saying with respect to that. >> would you please put the mic a little closer, admiral. >> i understand indian what you're saying. >> i'm telling you my people feel. they want us to get to this. you look at who was interviewed, for example, so you to got through admiral mullen saying that we seek direction from the

president. you sought direction and the president had to do this. >> mr. mica. >> that's what the moll tear got from the -- >> could have saved the day. and the secretary of state when you don't have 14 years now have an undersecretary security which was recommended. so someone was in charge. he said he felt kennedy or someone in charge. no one is held accountable to this date. that is the way congress feels, and the american people feel. i tend to differ with you. i'm not the greatest military strategies, mr. issa and i were in january we were at least -- i know at least three other posts we could have launched. ate tack -- attack started at 9:45. we might not have been to be save the first two, the ambassador and his colleague,

but the seal should never have died. it was 9:45. it was a 5:15 to 5:30 when they died. you testified a few minutes two and a half to three hours. there's no reason we couldn't launch from at least three locations i visited and been told that we have in place people monitoring the situation particular and specifically in africa and north calf. are we aren't. >> what i said is ten to twenty hour. >> it shouldn't be the case. >> that's what i was -- [inaudible conversations] >> i was -- when i sat down. one of the locations that we could launch almost immediately to rescue american personnel who are american citizens in danger. there is something wrong there. then, again, investigating people above. it's all -- a lot of lower levels of which nobody a couple of people temporarily moved would pay --

[inaudible] you didn't interview the secretary of state. she appointed four out of the five members; is that correct, of the board? >> she did, yes. >> and it looks like sort of an inside job of investigation. the department of state looking at the department of state. and you had difficulty, again, you testified you didn't have difficulty, admiral mullen. two witnesses interviewed by the committee said arb member richard told them it was difficult process that the board was having a tough time obtaining details or context. another witness stated, i said, dick, how is the arb going? dick said, ray, it's going slow. we're not getting any detail. we're not getting any context. >> we have lot of details and lots of context. >> yes, we're the congress of the united states, we aren't getting that. you heard the chairman, the delay. we get access to witnesses. i have somebody come up to me

the other day. i don't know if it's true they say they're conducting lie detector test of some of the people to see if they talked to us. it's the stuff going on out there that american people feel that justice is not prevailing in this case. again, you didn't investigate. how about the deputy secretary, william burns. was he interviewed. >> we talked to mr. burns and -- both deputy secretary of state. at the time we got them, as it was with secretary clinton, we had clear of evidence, full and complete to our information that the authority and responsibility, the accountability rested with the people we identified. they're not on the list of fortunately the arb. finally, when secretary clinton testified she said i talked to the president at the end of the day. but in constant communication with the national security

adviser. i guess it was tom donilon. did you interview tom don lon? >> we did not. we saw no evidence he made any of the decisions that we and the board were asked by the congress to investigate with respect to the security. we followed the precepts that admiral mullen outlined for you. not go for the people who didn't make the decisions, but to go following the willing of congress to the people who made the decisions, and indeed we went to the people who reviewed those decisions. >> i thank the gentleman. >> secretary wasn't involved another plan. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we go to the gentleman from montana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the witnesses not just being here today but your service in relation to the panel that you recently filed reports with. look, admiral, i don't know -- i don't pretended at least -- to know better about what could

have been done than somebodied in the military as long as you did. no matter how bases i have visited. i won't pretended the knowledge -- all the possibilities could be done and would be done. i think it's important for the families to know that. we shouldn't be surprised that some people in the public are confused. there have been misstatemented plastered all over the place on tv. there would be some confusion on that basis. the chairman's staff report that was released early this week concluded that the arb's independence was undermined. and that board members had actual perceived, conflict of interest. admiral mullen and ambassador pickering, that's a serious charge. challenges the integrity of the report. i want to give you each an opportunity to respond to those allegations, but first i want to

acknowledge that you both served our nation for decades and senior positions in your field. you agree to volunteer months of your time on the arb. can each of you explain why you agreed to serve on the board? >> the ranking mierpt minority member made clear. it's my testimony and deposition available to everybody. made clear i served first because the secretary of state asked me to take on a tough job. and i have been doing that for my life and my sense of service to my country said this is not something that i should turn down anyway anyhow. secondly, i made it very clear that chris stevens gave me two years of health and service as undersecretary of state. i had a personal debt of honor to chris to take this on. thirdly, i felt very strongly

that we needed quickly to know what went wrong, and then how to fix it. that was the function of the arb. i believe we carry that to the best of our ability that particular function. finally, i had no sense anywhere that there was any conflict of interest. i spent 42 years in the state department, i knew many of the officers concerned. i have to tell you, full, fair, and free this was not an exercise in any personal sense of debt or obligation to any of those people. and i believed that the comment on the report that it was hard hitting. that it called the shots the way it should have, in my view, is the best summation of what we tried to do free of political influence and free of conflict. i'm proud of the report, sir. >> i was, sir, first of all, because i was asked to do it.

secondly, we lost four great americans that night. i have certainly in the last ten years or so been with so many of those in uniform as well as those who serve in the state department around the world and some very, very difficult posts. and i thought i could certainly, with my experience, contribute from the professional standpoint and particularly from the military perspective on what happened that night, and wanted to be able to do that. at its core, it still who i am, which is a servant of this country and one asked to do that. it was pretty easy to say yes. >> thank you. do you --

how do you respond to the notion that the selection of staff created inappropriate conflict of interest? >> my unking of the role of secretary kennedy was that he made clear he didn't participate. that seemed to have been an error somewhere. and testimony, i think, is now mt. minority report. i think, secondly, my judgment of the staff performance was that i saw no hint of any favoritism or preference. i saw a staff that worked many extra hours that looked carefully. was highly responsible to us. but in every case, mr. tyranny, we all reviewed the final report many times. bemake contributions and the anonymous view of the five-member panel they took full responsibility and approved every word of that report. >> ambassador, the chairman of the report also raises question about your recommendation of

board member katherine. do you any way believe that your recommendation -- who might usefully serve on the board from outside the state department. and i gave a list of names to undersecretary kennedy who was accumulating those for secretary clinton. professor of public policy. i knew in fact her own political background was on the opposite side to the party in power.

>> thank you, sir. i yield back. >> when the staff report talked about conflicts, isn't it true there were no true outsiders, there was nod a vote cay for the family, there were no people service outside of government could have caused them to be skeptical, but in fact each of you, ambassador, you said you had no conflict. while at the same time you talk about 42 years in the offings. organization you were overseeing. the experience in life. wouldn't you agree that in fact your --

investigative panel. the responsibilities were to provide recommendations to see that we do our best never to let this happen again. put this way, someone with no experience to come in and investigate and carry forward the work? we used to, years ago, elect military officers. we stop that a long time ago. i suspect that brain surgery was one of the most early professionalized occupations in the world. why would you choose a panel of people who knew nothing about the responsibilities? nothing about how and what way were carried out? the value of this panel was that three were from outside and only two of us were from the inside. hopefully to give precisely the cross current of controversy,

discussion, questioning, and examination that you yourself just expressed the hope we had. we, sir, had that. >> i appreciate it. it was not a gotcha panel. nobody was got which. >> i would with, great respect, say we gave four names to the secretary of state we believe we're failing in their senior leadership and management responsibilities.

value to the state. security personnel that average state time in benghazi of 40 days or less. and as well differ and sometimes negative attitudes toward security are two examples. >> i would add to that, sir, that the question resource over time high threat training. the physical upgrades that had been sought and because the rotations occurring so quickly. the continuity of achieving those financial upgrades. the stove pipes that no leader, no leader, and we've focused on the key leaders in our report

saw fit to cross, to make things happen from a leadership perspective. so there was an active intervention of kind of leadership. we particularly focused on the people with the knowledge in security who actually were making the decisions. so it was as well as knowledge in the area. so that would be the nea bureau as well. >> you said not the knowledge that was available in several people in the chairman just talked about how no one has been held accountable in the way that most americans would consider accountability in this situation, and admiral mullen, in your interview with the committee, you were asked about man named ray maxwell. you said nobody had the picture like he did. >> ray maxwell was in a position in the nea bureau his portfolio

-- including libya as stated earlier -- there was a tremendous amount of instability throughout the middle east. not just the demonstrations, but clearly the evolution of what happened in egypt and syria as welt. as you neck down and have the assistant secretary jones who is focused on the whole region to include those crises, and you come down under her, the individual with, from my perspective, the focus, the knowledge, the portfolio, the the day-to-day focus was mr. maxwell. i was frankly taken back significantly that he had from my perspective removed himself from those responsibilities in term of what was going on in libya. i was shocked, actually. based on his interview. >> i had to slip out briefly to another committee. maybe you already answered this.

were you surprised or shocked that he or any of these other three people, the top four that have been removed they -- no one was fired? >> we talk about the constraint of the law. if i could, oftentimes -- you brought up -- it gets equated to the military. when we have a military commander that fails we, quote, unquote, fire them. what that is we move them out of the job, they are not dismissed from the federal service unless you get in to unless they go through the criminal proceedings and dismissed as a result of a court-martial. there is this mismatch of the perception of you fire people in the military all the time. what you really do is move them out of a job. they still are in the federal service -- >> you don't fire them in the way they would be fired in the private sector. >> they are no longer part of the organization. >> okay.

thank you. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> isn't it true you never be promoted again in all likelihood and your career would be over? a basis you have a limited time before you're forced out. if you're a second, first, lieutenant you're forced out before eligible for retirement. isn't level a ultimate accountability which your career is over and you know it at that moment? >> i absolutely. i would let ambassador to speak to how it works in the state department. >> i think there is an exact parallel. exact parallel. if you're removed from a job, particularly under the circumstances that have to do with something like benghazi, your future career is, in my view, finished. >> thank you. mr. lynch? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member. i want to thank the panelists for helping us with our work. to begin i want to offer my prayers and condolences to the

steven, smith, woods, and dorrty family. we can only hope their grief and the burden they carry might be lightened a little bit by knowing it's shared by so many across this nation, and perhaps by knowing the high regard with which our government hold the breadth of their family's service and the depth of their sacrifice. also, as mentioned, i think it's important we these four individuals are among the nation's very best who accepted great personal risk to do a dangerous job. in that sense, i think somehow diminishes their memory to think of them as victims. far from it, these four men, i think it is better to honor them and their memories by recalling they were very dedicated patriots. they are american heroes. they trained long and hard, and they prepared long and hard, and

with extreme bravery they went out -- they went out to meet the challenges that they faced, they loved doing so on behalf of this country. now, admiral mullen, in your interview with the committee, you said during an unfolding crisis like this, the president is likely to tell their military leaders to, quote, do everything possible to respond, and this is basically the direction they need to start moving assets forward and formulating a response. is that basically your testimony? >> that's my experience with two presidents. >> okay. terrific. did it nap this case -- did it happen in this case? >> yes. >> did you find the defense department, the state department, and the intelligence community engaged quickly after the president gave them the green light? >> as rapidly as they possibly could. >> okay. ambassador pickering, the committee had an opportunity to interview our committee at the

opportunity to interview jake sullivan at the state department. and he told us -- it was rather less than less -- they were heavily engaged in the night of the attack. let me read you what he said exactly. this is a quote. secretary clinton was receiving report what was happening, and she made a series of phone calls as a result of that and gave direction to pat kennedy to jones to do everything possible with respect to our own resources and with respect libyan resources to try to respond to situation. she was deeply engaged. she not only was receiving regular reports and updates, but she was proactively reaching out. she spoke with director petraeus, she spoke with the national security advisers on more than one occasion. she participated in the secure video teleconference system and made other phone calls that night. from the time she learned of it, secretary clinton was the only

-- this was the only thing she was focused on. so ambassador, mr. sullivan's statement consistent with regarding what you found with interagency response? >> they're consistent what we heard principally from mrs. jones, and from undersecretary kennedy from their perspective. what we heard and what the committee heard and the public heard from gregory hicks, who was in charge of tripoli after the death of ambassador stevens. >> very good. state department officials immediately engaged as they unfolded? >> they were, sir, through multiple ways and channel. >> if nay do everything they could that night, if your opinion? >> i believe they did. >> okay. my time is going short, butted a -- ed i followed both of your careers. they are your reputation is

impeccable, your service to this country has been in the highest standards of state department and defense department. i just want to say i think at times you have been treated unfairly, and your body of work, your diligence hasn't been appreciated by some, and i just think that you are owed a debt of gratitude for your years of public service. number one, and also your diligence and your energy and honesty and integrity during the process. i want to thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentle nann from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, -- exul admiral, if your testimony, your written testimony today the fourth paragraph you we operated independently and given freedom to pursue as we deem necessary. in the interview with the committee staff tribed

interview, the committee asked you the arb is supposed to be set up as independent review board. did you any questions of the board, your response from my perspective, the most important descriptive characteristic it would be independent. is that accurate? >> correct. >> in the same interview with committee staff, you were asked did you update the state department in the course of the arb? you replied, quote, shortly after we interviewed miss lamb, char lean, i initiated a call to miss mill to give her a heads up. at this point, miss lam was on the list to come over thorough testify. over here to testify is that in reference to when miss lamb testified in front of the committee? >> in october. >> in october. >> yes, sir. >> okay. and miss mills you refer to, is it the same miss mills who is cheryl mill, chief of staff and counselor to secretary of state. >> it is. >> okay.

this is the same miss mills that greg hickses testified when he was in front of the committee last spring when she called you take her call not you want to get but you take. that's the same we're talking about? >> yes. >> later in that same response to the committee's question about you updating the state department in the course of the arb, you said this, essentially i gave miss mills counselor to the secretary of state a heads up. i thought that her appearance, char lean lamb, could be a difficult appearance for the state department. >> correct. >> here is what i'm wondering. my guess is a lot of people are wondering. it this is so independent, why are you given the state department a heads up about a witness coming in front of this committee? >> we had just completed within a day or two of that phone call. -- >> wait. you had a phone call with miss mills? >> yes. and, i mean, i think that is what my statement said. >> okay. >> no, we had just completed the

interview with miss lamb, and someone who -- >> that raises an important question. >> can i answer the question? >> yes, you can. >> my -- as someone having run a department and spent many, many times trying as leader of a department to -- >> let me ask you this. my time is winding down. [inaudible conversations] >> let me answer this. >> let me ask this inspect is important. arb was formed on october 3rd; correct? >> correct. >> lamb came in front of the committee october 10th. >> correct. >> seven days later. >> right. >> why was she one of the first people you interviewed? >> she was one of the first people interviewed because she was -- >> how did you -- >> in control of diplomatic security -- >> okay. >> how did you know she was on the list? who told you she was testifying in front of congress? >> it was public knowledge. >> that's usually not made public until a few days before. >> i by the time i knew it .

>> between third and tenth. >> okay. when did you talk to mills right after that. >> not right after that. i would say 24-hours. >> specifically to give her a heads' up i didn't think that lamb would be a witness that the point in time that would represent the department well. i had run a department, worked a lot. -- >> but again -- >> worked a lot. -- we've been told that the arb is an independent review. you said it. you said it twice. you said in the committee staff and the statement today. within a week you're giving the counselor to the secretary of state a heads up when you think it's not going to be a good witness. you know what else happened between october 3rd and 10th congressman went to libya, and on the trip for the first time under what greg hicks testified under the committee last spring cheryl mills sent staff lawyer

on history. the first anytime his years of service the lawyer was instructed to be in every single meeting jason had with greg hicks. that also happened. did you talk about that? >> no. >> that also happened. and greg testified that when there was a meeting at the classified level that the staff lawyer was not eligible to attend, he got a phone call quickly thereafter from cheryl mills saying why in the world did you let this meeting take place where this lawyer couldn't be in the meeting? this is the same cheryl mills you're giving a heads up to. we are supposed to believe the report is independent. >> i was comfortable -- >> let me ask one last question. my time is out. did cheryl mills -- two last questions. mills see the report before it went public? >> we had a draft report when it was wrapped up, we specifically briefed the secretary of state -- >> also --

>> for a couple of hours and miss milts was in there. >> mills and hillary clinton got to see the report before it went public? >> the report was submitted to her, the secretary of state made a decision -- >> before december 18th. they got to see it. one last question. let me ask this, admiral. if an inspector general -- if you learned that an inspector general in the course of an investigation informed its agency leadership that a witness scheduled to testify before congress would reflect poorly on the agency, would you have concerns about an inspector general doing the same thing you did? >> the intent of -- >> that's yes or no. if the inspector general did what you guys did. would you have concerns about that? the intent of what i did was to give the leadership in the state department a heads up with respect to -- >> you gave -- >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, mr. chairman. >> you let them see the final report.

>> the gentleman's time is expired. >> skilled that mr. connelly be given the same amount of time. >> absolutely. i thank the chair and the ranking member. i welcome the panel, and i do want to say the family members -- i have heart ache for your loss. i lost three constituents at the navy yard last week. i'm old enough to remember lebanon. i lost a good friend in that embassy bombing in the early '80s. and of course, we lost also a marine amphibious unit well over 100 lives were lost. i don't remember, mr. pickering, an arb at that time. was there an arb? >> no. it was before arb became a practical -- >> right. we lost our embassy dozens of deaths, we lost the mau at the beirut airport with over 100 deaths young marine.

i don't remember any investigation or any charges. i don't remember the democrats exploiting ronald reagan's management of the that incident. we understood it was a national tragedy and try to come together. i say to four of you, i deeply regret the hearing. it's -- in to benghazi, where apparently there's an agenda. the agenda isn't getting at the truth. it's getting at somebody. in fact the chairman used the word got which. it seems to be regret there wasn't enough got gotcha. we're going do it by getting at you. particularly the good chairman of the arb for among the to serve this country in their generation. i just say to you, there are

many who see through that and understood that innuendo and smear and insinuation and badgering aren't going cloud the truth. that a tragedy occurred, and it occurred because terrorists perpetrated terror. and we're trying to find out, as you most certainly tried to find out in the arb, how can we learn from the tragedy? how can we make sure there aren't more grieving families before us? how can we make sure we're better prepared. i thank you are for the courage you have shown not only in taking that investigation on. but writer -- withering the partnership that clouded this investigation. admiral mullen, speaking of which, in an entirely partisan report leaked to the press, not shared with this side of the committee, which should give you a big fat hint as to the intent

is, you were the subject of an allegation. followup on the questioning just now, where, yoat -- quote, mullen put mills on notice in advance that the board's questions should be difficult under the state department under the title you gave miss mills an inappropriate heads up prior to the arb interview. i want to give you an opportunity to respond to that allegation. >> i called -- i said -- tried to say. i called miss mills having interviewed -- actually the arb interviewed miss lamb very early in the process prior to the first testimony here on the hill on -- i think the 10th of october, and i was particularly concerned because i had run a major organization, a couple of them, always worked to provide the best witnesses to represent the organization on the hill, and it was very early in the process as

far as what had happened. there were many unknown. i was concerned about her level of experience, and i expressed that to miss mills, and that was it. >> you don't think you gave an inappropriate heads up to miss mills? >> no. >> did you give an inappropriate heads up to cheryl lamb? >> no. i'm -- in fact, with respect to the independence piece, it never had an impact. >> ambassador pickering, did you want to comment on that? >> i would. i think there are two issues running here. i think admiral mullen has clearly explained what he did and why. i think it had nothing to do with the arb. i do think that the republican text, which you cited, is an error. it had nothing do with testimony by cheryl mills before the arb. the third point is that i believed from the beginning of the arb, since we were to report

to the secretary, that it was my obligation as chairman from time to time to talk to the secretary through the chief of staff about our progress. about where we were going. about, in fact, the timing of the report. in fact, what our expectations were with respect to the timing of conclusion. all of which i believed was in full keeping with our obligation to the secretary to give the best possible report. there was no direction, there was no feedback, there was no request to do this, that, or the other thing. it happened every couple of weeks. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i have one more minute. i want to ask one more question. admiral mullen, one of the -- one of the things seemingly disproved time and time again but keeps coming up as recently on our hearing on benghazi

yesterday at the foreign affair committee. there was an order to stand down. somebody gave the command that was the military was not to respond. could you put that allegation to rest? did it, in fact, happen or did it not? >> an order stand down was never given. this specifically refers to the four special operators that were in tripoli, they had finished at the -- in tripoli from the embassy come found a safer place, having finished that as every military person active or retired would want to do. they want to go to the fight to try to help. he checked -- lieutenant counselor -- and the direction that he got --

he was remissioned to support the security and the elevation. in fact, only in hindsight had they gone -- we had a good understanding what was going on with respect to the evacuation. had they actually gotten on an airplane, they would have taken medical capability that was needed out of tripoli, most likely crossed en route with the first plane evacuating benghazi at the time. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time is expired and yields back. i recognize myself for five minutes. steven smith, woods, and dorrty, got bless them. that's what it's all about. admiral mullen, i would like to direct my question to you. within the department of defense was there an after-a, review or report done. did you tread? >> i am -- there are always is, i haven't seen it, no. >> my understanding there isn't a report, and for you to come to

the conclusion that you did without reviewing such a report or if there is a review, or such a review or report, something that committee wants to furthered explore. it seems odd and mist tier use there's no such report you wouldn't have reviewed it. did you -- the arb talk to lieutenant corner steven beginning sob? >> -- gibson? >> we did not. did you speak from anybody with the office of security cooperation located at the embassy? >> we were in touch with and spoke with -- actually interviewed the defense -- >> not within the security cooperation. what about colonel george bristol. >> i don't know. the commander of joint special operations task force transsahara. was no the interviewed. did you speak with richard, districter of operations for africa? >> not directly, no.

>> and nobody was in the arb did it? >> no we were certainly aware of his input having interviewed -- i'm sorry having spoke within the joint staff and the director of operations on the joint staff. >> he was the director of operations -- >> different from the joint staff. >> yes. >> as i understand. he was not interviewed. bryan -- do you know who he is? >> i do. >> the commander in special operation command at the time of the attack, did you or the arb interview him? >> we didn't. >> did you speak with vice admiral charles joe, deep toy the commander for -- >> we spoke to actually general hamme, who is his boss. >> all of these people i named off directly involve in the operations that might. one of the concerns is you didn't read an report or review. we don't know if there's one done. all the people are directly involved. they were not engaged in this.

what time -- >> i effectively -- when i went back particularly the second time, listened to an after-action report with respect to what happened that night. >> we all know -- >> i standby what they did and what i saw. >> we understand that general hamme was in washington, d.c. he was not in libya. these people were. -- what time the department of defense ask libya for permission for flight clearance? >> actually, general hamme was involved throughout. and able to do it globally. >> as i understand he was involved. he was not in libya. did the department of defense ask libya for permission for flight clearance. i believe the answer is no. >> do i goat answer the questions? >> i'm asking if it's the -- >> what kind of flight clearance? >> so we can fly our military assets. we had permission to fly -- the answer is no; correct? >> correct. i actually -- i take that back. the assets that came from germany, specifically, we

received permission to put them -- >> that was -- let me keep moving. when specifically did the united states military reach out to our nato partners, give their close proximity. when did it happen? >> actually, i don't think it did. >> that's one of the concerns. italians had more than 50 tornadoes, less than 35 minutes away from benghazi. we never succeed -- asked them. >> mr. -- >> there's not a question there. specifically when the united states, jet, tanker, whatever you need to do, show of force called up? when they were they put on alert? >> they were specifically looked as to whether or not they could gleet in time. they couldn't. that was the decision made. >> here is the problem -- >> actually the readiness status was upgraded. >> you said no planes were at the ready. that was your testimony. >> at the time of the attack,

-- there was no strip alert aircraft ready to go. >> that's a fundamental problem. a challenge i think we have to look at. in cairo, hours earlier, the demonstrators breached a wall. gone over the 12-foot wall. it was libya after the revolution on 9/11. we have been bombed twice prior. the british ambassador had the assassination attempt, and nobody is leaning forward? there's knob red -- nobody ready to go? were the closest assets truly in -- >> physically there? i think it was there and other places in europe. >> europe, actually had more assets that were closer. >> they were not in a readiness condition to respond. >> that's what we fundamentally do not understand. did you talk to anybody who did want to move forward? was there anybody you came across that can want to engage? >> everybody in the military

wanted to move forward. everybody in the military wanted to do as much as they can. there were plenty of assets moving. it became a physics problem. it's a time and distance problem. certainly that's who we are to try to help when somebody is in harm's way. >> and the fundamental problem is they didn't. they didn't get there in time. i'm telling you -- i'm telling you -- if you look at glen, you look at woods, they ran to the sound of the gun. there are other people that wanted to go. like lieutenant colonel gibson. i wish you had spoken to them. it's embarrassment to the united states of america that we could not get those assets there in time to help those people. we didn't even try. we didn't ask for permission or flight clearances. he didn't stand up to the assets we had in europe. didn't even try. >> i disagree with what you're saying, mr. chairman. >> you just told me they didn't even get to the ready. they were never asked. you presided, as the chairman of the joint chief, when we bombed libya for months, we did so in

connection with with the nato partners. you never asked. >> i commanded -- i actually -- likelihood nato could respond in a situation like that was absolutely zero. mr. chairman, i would ask be given an extra minute and a half to clear up so some of what you said. which we consider to be misleading. >> it's allowed. gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i am so outraged by the conduct of this committee today. there's 83 years worth of service to this country by these two men, and they're being treated horrible belie. i apologize to you what i find totally unnecessary. we're trying to get the facts, we're trying to prevent this

from happening again, and badgering you does not achieve that goal. now, let me also point out that there has been a classified briefing, mr. chairman, on the whole issue of whether lieutenant colonel gibson was told stand down. it was armed service committee, subcommittee meeting. i was there at it. there was a press release that was put out by the subcommittee after that classified briefing, and i want to read to you what was posted. during the attack, cornel bristol was traveling in africa. unreliable communications prohibited him from participating in the attack response beyond an initial conversation with the lieutenant corner gibson and the admiral. he confirmed to committee in his role, he gave lieutenant corner gibson initial freedom of action to make decisions in response to the unfolding situation in

benghazi. he proofsly testified to the committee that contrary to some reports, he was at no point ordered to stand down. but rather to remain in tripoli to defend american embassy there in anticipation of possible additional attacks, and to assist the survivors as they return from benghazi. cocial bristol confirmed this account of events. when i asked, will we ever listen to the facts? this came out of the subcommittee of the armed services committee chaired by a republican colleague. these are the facts. let me move on and ask admiral mullen a question as well. another allegation has been made by many republicans including

that the military should have sent the f-16 or other fighter planes. i think that was a series of questions just prior to mine. mr. issa stated on national radio, you still have to say why weren't aircraft capability headed toward them at flank speed? the next time happens, can we count on the president of secretary to actually carry about people -- there are some things wrong with the statement. and i don't know where to start. but how about this? do you agree that the president do not care about people in harm's way? >> i do not agree with that. >> with respect to flying jets over benghazi page 32 of the report includes an excerpt from interview transcript you explain the planes would have needing refueling maybe twice en route; is that correct?

>> that's correct. >> that's basically dempsey said in his testimony four months earlier before the senate armed service committee; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> after conducting your own independent review of the military asset, did you reach the same conclusion? >> i did. >> in fact, on page 31 we quote, there's no one i met in military that wouldn't want to get help there instantly. the physics of, the reality of it wasn't going happen for 12 to 20 hours. and i validated that in my review when i went to the pentagon to look at every single asset that was posture in theater, including those jets. is that correct? >> correct. >> so admiral mullen, former set tear gates and panetta raise risk-base concern sending aircraft to fly over benghazi.

are you familiar with their concerns? do you agree with them? >> i am familiar with their concerns. you vawldz to -- you have to assess the risk like that. my own experience certainly our military is prepared to go to high-risk environments if they're able to do that. there was an awful lot that night back to what we talked about that precluded that. it wasn't for lack of the desire to do that or help someone in harm's way. the other thing i would talk briefly about is the whole issue of the situation under the circumstances in which woods and glenn doorty gave their lives. in fact, they were killed in a -- they just relieved two individuals on top of the building shortly after that there were three mortar rounds that landed accurately in a

short period of time in the middle of a night from the place nobody really knew where that mortar fire was coming from. and that is how they lost their lives in the end. so even the lookly hood we scrolled provided some kind of overflight over a long period of time. the likelihood it would have sorted out that mortar fire is virtually impossible. >> i thank you gentleman for your service and to the families of those who lost their lower housed ones. >> you have thirty seconds. >> i yield. >> he asked you about a number of people that you said you didn't interview. will you comment on that? how did you choose who you interviewed? >> i think we both quickly -- we basically -- as we started the interviews, we took -- we essentially took the process and those we would interview based on the facts as we uncovered them over time.

and did not feel -- i did not feel compelled to interview a chain of command in calf. i understand that chain of command. i don't know what they were doing that night. didn't feel compelled to do that. it was crvelg, as i said in my opening statement, we interviewed those we thought we needed to interview. >> coming up on c-span2 tonight. the senate foreign relations committee hears from state department nominees. then remarks from international monetary fund managing director. and later, ceo and investor warren buffett talking about philanthropy. on the next "washington journal." we'll talk with ed o- kef about the upcoming house vote on a tbhail fund the government in the middle of december and defund the new health care law. also look at this week's census bureau report on income and poverty. our guests are david johnson

from the census bureau and ron hsskins. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 ament -- a.m. eastern. friday a house science committee examining nasa's effort to manage the facility and infrastructure. nasa inspector general and nasa associate deputy administrator will testify. you can see it live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on our companion networking, c-span 3. many have said that our report would either advocate mere reinforcement of embassy or closing down our presence. no conclusion like that could be farther from the truth. we recognize that perfection and protection is not possible. and that fine and good men and women will still come forward to serve their country and risk their lives on the front lines of danger.

that was the sole purpose of our report. it was produced with a deep sense that we had to get it right. politics, elections, personal controversy, and all over external factors aside. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and all weekend on booktv from washington, d.c., live coverage of the national book festival. with your chance to talk to the authors. on c-span 3 american history tv from converted horse tracks, high school gym, and military bases.

life for the nearly half million german p. o. w. sunday afternoon at 1:00. the nominee for two state department posts were before the senate foreign relations committee on thursday. ann patterson, the nominee for assistant secretary for near eastern affair was formally the ambassador to egypt. gregory starr is nominated to personally oversee diplomatic security. it's an hour and ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] i'm most experienced career foreign service officers, ambassador ann patterson is the nominee for assistant secretary of state. and gregory starr, no stranger to the committee as assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security.

ann patterson spent the last two years serves as ambassador to egypt at the tumultuous time in egypt's history. i want to extend our thanks and appreciation of the service. she was in the eye of the storm in the winds of the arab spring began to blow across the region and expertise and experience served her well. she has a long record of service as the time she left her home in arkansas, and went to westerly. her experience is great about foreign service officers who put their lives at risk often in places where an american presence is necessary, but not always welcome. a look forward to supporting her nomination, but i essential in doing so at the same time i want to express several ongoing concerns in the region. as you know, ambassador patterson, the impact of sanctions on iran has been significant, and while i support a diplomatic solution to the crisis and hope question find such an opening with a newly elected government in iran, at the end of the day we need a

parter in who comes to the table in good faith an offer actions. until then, it is my view we must maintain an increased pressure on the regime in order ensure the success we want. and i look forward to hearing your view on the situation in iran. i also like to know your view on the next steps moving forward in egypt to realize the promise we had hoped for from the event in taxable square. that has given way to undemocratic and unsecure environment if the egyptians. in iran i have several concerns about our diplomatic relations following the drawdown of u.s. troops, and i'm also disturbed by iraq's failure. i want to underscore iraq's failure, from my perspective, to protect the community in camp liberty. most recently resulted in 52 deaths in the kidnapping of seven individuals who remain

hostages. i expect the iraqis to hold the guilty parties responsible for their actions, and i also hold the iraqi responsible for the security of those at camp liberty. i hope that the administration will send the same message. finally, on the peace process, i support secretary kerry's efforts and believe we must continue to keep the palestinians at the table engaged in face to face negotiations with israelis. i applaud israel's courage in agree together realization of prisoners at the outset of negotiations. i hope the palestinians will publicly dmoit remain at the negotiating table nonpursuit state hood or enhance status to any international body while the certificate going along. it's the hard work of negotiations that we'll be able to realize realististic peace. you're no stranger to the complex issue. you are a decorated foreign service officer. i look forward to your service.

let me turn to greg starr, the nominee for assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. who appeared before the committee this summer to testify on a bill cosponsored by senator corker and i and the other committees of the members. we provided us with insight and benefits of many years of diplomatic security, first, a special agent in the foreign service serving in tunisia, democratic republican of the congo. later -- details and technical security operations. chief of the division for worldwide local guard and residential security programs, and a senior regional security officer in testify arrive. now you're returning coming out of retirement to be considered for assistant secretary of state for dip -- diplomatic security. i have said in the past and will

say again, lessons we have learned from the tragedies are emblematic of the broader issue. it will require our full, une une that will be your charge as assistant secretary to help strike the proper balance between vulnerabilities and high-threat area and continue to conduct vigorous that serve the national interest. the fact is we can never have absolute security in increasingly dangerous world. security alone is not the objective. at the end of the day, we need to address the construction of the new embassy that meet the security need and do what we can to secure existing high-risk post where we need our people represent our interest and new construction is not an option. that's what senator corker and my embassy security bill seems to do. my hope is that we --

[microphone problems] >> so we look forward to hearing from you, mr. starr, about the progress we have made. what other challenges we may have and pursue it. thank you for your years of service. i know, senator corker had original comments. with that, ambassador, patterson we'll welcome your statement. both will be included in the record. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member corker, member of the committee. it's an honor to be appearing before you as the president's nominee for assistant secretary. mr. chairman, i would like that introduce, if i could, my husband, david and elder son edward and daughter-in-law. mr. chairman, i have prepared longer statement for the committee, which i submitted for the record. i'm grateful for the confidence shown by president obama nominating me for the position. if confirmed, i flog work with you to advance u.s. interest across an important and complex

region that is facing historic upheaval. mr. chairman, the changes taking place across the region carry the promise of a more democratic political order that will benefit the region and the united states in the long-term. however, the renal will remain volatile and often violate for some time to come. the challenges we face are complex, but our extensive security, economic, and humanitarian interests demand our continued engagement. the region has changed in the past few years, and there is no going back. if confirmed, my top priority will be to protect our country and allies. doing so will require a vigorous effort to identify and disable syria's chemical weapon it will mean continuing to prevent friern going a nuclear weapon. we must continue to combat terrorism and confront violate extremism across the region. secondly, we will continue to promote sustainable democratic transitions.

let me stress again how hard this is going to be. the results of elections may not be to our liking, and transitions are often plagued by false starts and reverses. we will continue our efforts to promote democracy and universal rights. we will stand up for the rights of women, christians, and other minorities. third, we need support governments in the private sector to create economic opportunities and jobs. many countries in the region need fight corruption and cut subsidizes to spur investment and growth. our global economic leadership and assistance programs both can play a role. and we must press for open business and trade environment so american businesses have fair access to growing markets. and fourth, mr. chairman, mindful our country has 6,757 men and women in iraq and afghanistan, i would focus on coping with the enormous sacrifices that our colleagues in the state department, in the

intelligence community, and other civilian agencies are making. supporting these professionals and their families as we don't ask more of them. people working in this region have been deeply and disproportionately effected by evacuations, lengthy separations from family. and the sheer workload associated with living and working on the critical front lines on american diplomacy. mr. chairman, protecting our country requires us to practice diplomacy in dangerous places. our people understand this. accepting calculated risk is part of what it means to be an american diplomat today. our bureau will work closely together with our ambassadors, mr. starr, if confirmed, and our dip -- diplomatic security colleagues and all other element of government to protect american overseas. i understand fully the responsibilities arising from the attack on our mission in benghazi. the resulted in the murder of

four of our colleagues. if confirmed,ly work to fulfill our obligation to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice. allow me to briefly review some of your key concerns. mr. chairman, i know that the secretary of state has briefed you on syria, and the negotiations underway at the united nations and in hague. i reintegrate his point there is no room for anything less than full compliance with our goal of deterring and degrading syria's ability to use the weapons in the future. the threat of unilateral use of force by the united states remains on the table should syria not comply. mr. chairman, i have just completed two years of ambassador to egypt. an extraordinarily important country for the national security interest of the united states. that deserves our couldn'ted partnership and support. mohammed morsi was elected as president of egypt in elections

that were free and fair. even though the complex constitutional and legal process that produce these elections manage to confusion and upset nearly everyone. his removal from office on july 3rd, falled an extended series of miscalculation and inability to create an inclusive democratic process. in the end, egyptians will be the ones to determine whether that actually is correct. we have made our concerns about this method of government change, and about the violence used against the unarmed protesters abundantly clear. our response to the situation in egypt will be consistent with u.s. laws, our national interests, and our values. at the president's distribution we have undertaken a major review of the economic and military assistance program. as egypt changes, so too must our by lateral relationship. if confirmed, i will continue to urge the egyptian government to move toward an inclusionive

civilian-lead transition. that guarantees universal rights for all citizens, including women and christians. i look forward to working with the congress to assure that we have the flexibility to respond to and influence changing events. mr. chairman, the united states is fully committed to helping israel and the palestinians negotiate a final status resolution to their conflict. we are also fully and deeply committed to israel's security, our security cooperation has in fact never been closer. israel is our close friend, and the region's only stable democracy. the united states also continues to assist the palestinians as they guild governing institutions. as we mark 35 years since the camp david this week, the search for middle east peace remains at the heart of u.s. national security interests. secretary kerry has worked very hard for the resumption of

negotiation which is is required courageous leadership by prime minister netanyahu. mr. chairman, iran is the world's -- terrorism including in iraq, syria, and lebanon. it continues to defie the international community by pursuing nuclear activity and violation of its international obligations. the united states will not allow iran to acquire nuclear weapons. thanks to the indies penceble role played by congress we have put in place an unprecedented sanction regime against iran. and mr. chairman, i like to acknowledge the effort you have played in this effort along with other members of the committee. sanks have hurt iran's economy badly. the people of iran who voted for change in the recent election of the president who common -- demonstrated a different tone. to make progress, we need to see

concrete actions. mr. chairman, mr. confirmed, i pledge to work with you to assure that the resources and tools you provide our bureau are supporting activities that advance our top national interest. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador. mr. starr. i'm honored to appear been you today this support enables diplomatic security also known as ds to safe guard american diplomats and facilities for the conduct of u.s. foreign policy. while maintaining our robust investigative programs which serve to protect the united states borders and our presence overseas. as the president's nominee to become assistant secretary of the bureau of diplomatic security i'm thankful to the president and secretary kerry

for the confidence they placed in me to lead during the difficult and demanding time. i have been a security professional for more than thirty years. my experience both within the department and outside federal government has prepared me to take on the challenges of leading diplomatic security in the future. the world is changing, and so is the way in which diplomacy is conducted; therefore, the way in which we provide security for the diplomats must change with it. we can never truly eliminate all risks faced by the u.s. government personnel as theyed a lance -- advance. we in the department constantly review evolving threat and seek mitigate risk as much as possible. the challenges we have faced in the previous decade over the previous year in particular have been significant and growing. increasingly, our people are called upon to live and work in difficult in dangerous environments. we operate in these environments out of necessity because that is where we must be to serve our

nation's interests. i have learned that we cannot shut ourselves inside embassies and -- forego the work of helping build the rule of law and strengthen democratic institutions abroad. it is in just these countries where it is toughest to serve where american diplomacy pays the the greatest dividends. this is the face of american diplomacy today and it is my job and the job of diplomatic security to keep our people safe while still allowing the important work to continue. as a senior leader within diplomatic security, i can tell you we are looking toward the next challenges and threats. we must continue to embrace change across the speck trouble of security requirements, if confirmed. i plan to focus on three broad priorities staffing and resources, improving coordination among our investigative element, and continuing to improve our physical security protection for u.s. personnel serving overseas.

in term of staffing and resource, i want to ensure we have qualified people with sufficient training and the right resources at our post overseas in order respond to each post unique security environment. we approve the training of the foreign affair colleague by expanding our foreign affairs counter threat courses. when the investigative side of diplomatic security, i'll continue to ensure that the criminal investigators, background investigators, and cybersecurity personnel are working closely together as well as with other department offices. ..

>> having said that want to be clearly responsibility for the provision of security lies with the assistance a ticket -- secretary of security and if confirmed committed to shouldering the responsibility and will be glad to ian's requested as you have. thank you for allowing me to appear. >> and i know that is in response to issues so let me explore these with you. over the last two months we have over 1,000 people

killed in egypt. hundreds arrested with their political allegiances. the mubarak era has been reinstated an extended another two months. pilot error efforts i see our bright star exercises and suspended delivery of f-16 at least to me has not indicated changing behavior of the present leadership. what other leverage do we have to get back on track to ensure a civilian government moving to the inclusive egypt? what rearview sodden conditioning or restructuring aid to egypt with the current

environment? >> thank you. lebanese say that the incident of the past few months killing of the unarmed demonstrators of the emergency law has been quite worrisome but also may point to a road map said the government has put forward we will do everything we possibly can and to push them of what to reinstate the civilian government but it does provide an opportunity to look at the assistance program in the new way in they have instructed us to undertake a full-scale review of the assistance programs in egypt to look at ways at the very least to modernize the particularly with the assistance package that is ongoing so i cannot predict that but i a have made my dash ability to look so it

is not just assistance that will encourage the government to resume a democratic path but tourism has dried up we have not seen disinvestment by engagement is more widespread than the insistence relationship in the business community will appreciate the need that revenue. >> i appreciate i hope you take back to the department for what is the assistance. i was one of those that argued strenuously against cutting all aid or freezing aid to egypt but i have to be honest as i see circumstances unfold i am

concerned at this point is the continuing right decision i will look forward to a dialogue with the department to share views how we move in a direction that achieved our goals and cited egypt. let me turn to iran quickly i know there is a lot of of expectation and hope and i certainly share the hope that some of the words he and actions taken are something bigger but related to the position not just the u.s. position with the international community will lead us to believe iran is sincere to change the course

to nuclear weapons and that we will not have that is not enough if the world to just trust everybody like a saudi city does not have chemical weapons but to say we never have nuclear weapons is not be enough. since the iranian election every and has added a thousand centrifuge including second generation and looking at a plutonium process that is worrisome viet this is a frustration has issued very few. i would like to get a sense what more can the administration do to send a message we appreciate the words that is aligned with the international community?

>> mr. chairman i think that is right. we have seen the encouraging signs of the past few days with a limited number of political prisoners about the nuclear program but the fundamental issue they have to comply with the provisions of the international obligation through the security council and but let me say as i was getting ready for the hearing looking at the sanctions i was surprised how effective they have been it is the most and i can ever remember with the petroleum experts the effect on inflation one might hazard a guess that brought this to the point we need to

see how the sanction regime will play out there is some targets coming up with the reduction so we need to give it a little more time but i live for disconfirmed to work closely with you on the iranian sanctions program because it has been very successful. with one demonstration is the president since the people voted for change clearly. >> let me close by saying sanctions are a means to an end. as strongly as i have been an advocate and author, if iran were to act in

accordance with the position with the international committees positions then upon acting in that way and will be one of the advocates to seek to lift those sanctions i am sure the iranians winter if they would never be lifted if complied i would be ready to do so but only if we have compliance with united nations security council resolution i have whole host of other questions but i will turn to the senator. >> figure you for your distinguished careers and from your position is to be nominated i look forward to working with you both. in your case ambassador patterson of moving from a field commanders position to

a strategist some of us feel sometimes that response to what is developing is ad hoc especially in syria until recent times to do you get a sense of there is the overarching strategy in the region or whether in fact, foreign policy or the relationships is more dependent on defense as they involve water dash evolving can you expand on that? >> yes. i know this is a very difficult issue because frankly i think changes of the arab awakening came the very rapidly baidu think there is the overarching strategy to the region and i try to evade that out in my locker written statement.

the first is to try to promote a democratic transition these societies will not go back to where there were they have gotten rid of old autocrats with a high degree of violence a lot of institutional structures so i think that is our first priority and it will be really hard because each country is headed different level of development. at the same time we have enormous security interest in the region and we will have to pursue those simultaneously. those to be the two overriding elements but the implementation will be extraordinarily difficult. in debt will be expensive at times. those heavier to priorities

in to promote the strategy of democratization. >>. >> democracy is an election. one of the reasons we have security issues that they have their into appealing to the base is there any light you might shed how you see that evil being overtime to governance issues? >> that will be a huge challenge as senator because it is not enough because they have no institutional structures in the most

fundamental way even with the electoral process we have to help them with commercial regulation with participation by minorities throughout the middle east with a minority population then works with the civil society and it takes a long time because there is no history i'd want to suggest this will be easy. we can support our allies in this respect it will be long and hard. >> there is no question and

i went to think canfor that. those actions relative to syria have a big effect on moving to the discussion matter now under way. recently read this morning and have heard to conversations last night that the radiation and -- issues being discussed you have the sense what is happening relative to negotiations with the syrian issue leading to other conversations that we might not be aware of? >> no senator i have no information about that. >> the arab awakening as we look, the chairman mentioned the national interest i felt that the time of the debate

it was not the time to just cut off all aid and some point we will figure out a way to pursue it in a way that does further our natural interest but does send a signal to the egyptian military but can you tell with the dictator that left coming election a different situation has issued a difference in egypt at this point has anything changed hardly back were restarted? >>. >> battle think we're back where we started because the huge number of largely unemployed young men that have the ability to communicate that they did not even have five years ago.

the population is hugely energized alleys to egypt they think taking to the streets is the way to express yourself politically but for the global community is to have countries get past that to channel the enormous enthusiasm and frustration of young people into a legitimate political structure. i don't they get will go back but because of a combination of factors which could be in for a prolonged period of instability and not just in egypt. >> my time is up by know if we have another round of if we don't i will thank you both for your desire to serve and i know we talked about diplomatic security

and you have to emphasize the buck stops with you in there like that attitude i hope in the state department you will find a way to have a different degree of accountability than we now have. i hope the that the bill that we have solved that to help with that i do appreciate your willingness. >> faq ambassador patterson and mr. starr for your willingness to serve the country to take on these important post at a critical time and ambassador patterson i appreciate the kindness you showed to a number of arrests when we visited pakistan and your great work in egypt during a turbulent time. i actually want to start about the immigrant visa program having served in

some of these issues critical to iraq and afghanistan and i am sure you are aware it was established by congress to address those people of afghanistan that have been those that missed their lives to help insure the americans that are on the ground that a safe and able to accomplish their mission i am very troubled we're here with the special in the grant the subprogram due to expire at the end of the month and i am hopeful we will have a willingness on the part of the house to extend this program i know this and it is very committed and there is language on the defense

authorization bill as senator became and i have offered to address but hopefully we can reassure those people to come to the united states they will have our assistance to do that. can you speak to what might happen if we cannot extend this program and allow them to come to the united states? >> thank you senator. a captive in iraq a few years ago he is here today and sent me any mail about one of the interpreters with his unit who had told some of the injured soldiers in his unit to safety. i feel a personal connection to this issue. the administration is asking for an extension. i know the number has been

under 2500 people have been processed. we are trying to speed up the process and i hope we can do that and i promise i will do everything we can to speed that process that but we will ask for the extension. >> is a two-part problem but the other problem is to make sure the state department now keeps people moving through the ku and the record has not been as good as ever like to see it addressing the people that are waiting it would be tragic to fail to help the people on the ground as a

result are at risk and threatened. thank you for your commitment. >> can i also ask you to give us an update where the current israeli-palestinian negotiations are? we have all applauded the effort to restart those and secretary kerry tireless work to do that with some concern if these talks will go anywhere. >> he is very optimistic and with his leadership on this issue that there is a personal prestige but i frankly don't have any details to offer you i will

certainly convey that to him but he may be back in town. >> that would be very helpful. i hope you will facilitate that. i just want to ask one question for you with the focus on what happened tragically in benghazi we know security embassy is critical and despite the diplomatic role that anybody who was assigned overseas is in a risky position with a potential for danger. at the end of the day is our host country that the one

dash we depend on security is there more that we cannot or should be doing working with those host the entries to ensure the embassies are protected? >>. >> yes. and despite the fact we work so closely with the intelligence community, a department of defense, the federal government on all these issues, in many cases it comes down to the state department on the ground and the host country. we believe programs i the anti-terrorism assistance program and other programs where we try to post -- the host countries to protect themselves and protect us at the same time our critical we need to continue those programs they have been effective in the past and look for opportunities to expand those programs and quite honestly it is an

important factor beyond continuing to say we will hold the host country responsible but help them to be responsible there are ways but if i am confirmed i will continue to look closely at that. and the bureau of counterterrorism will look what dash would closely. >> hope you would share what happened with this committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a series of questions on syria hit egypt and others but i will set those aside because i am shocked shocked, absolutely shocked to sit here to have you describe this asians against iran after you have reviewed them, as you said, in your conclusion to be effective

and describe them as successful. i was a sponsor of those and i promoted them and i had reservations about them but i have to tell you, if this is the administration's view of these have been effectively unsuccessful i hope to take the message back to the state department this is not a mission accomplished moment. i think it has been an abject failure you heard the chairman described hindus centrifuged they brought the new technology they're using i don't understand this i am taken aback by your description of what the sanctions have done. the sanctions were not put in place to impose pain but imposed to change conduct in

order to make conduct different in they have been an abject failure in their response. i would really help that you and the administration of that is there position would rethink this. >> i certainly did not mean to imply they have been successful to change behavior by a successful at causing pain with the iranian economy. hopefully they will be successful in bringing every into the table to discuss these other issues i totally understand your point is not just to cause pain in the economy but to change behavior. causing pain in the economy is so sanctions work with the production of oil revenue is dramatic cutting them off from the international financial system has made it almost impossible to export trade

and the distress of the population which we think had an impact on the president's election. it needs time for diplomacy to work but let me express senator that the position that iran will not acquire nuclear weapons but i understand your point. but what matters is resolved but not economic pain. >> as we all know vocabulary is important. i would hope he would remove the word success and the word tea effective from the vocabulary when you talk about this program. they are not in any way, shape, or form a successful or effective to make these people comply with the conduct with the demands so i hope he would

review that and instead to try sanctions first but all options are on the table and everything that goes by a looks like more and more turning to other options that we don't want to do and when we're done the iranian people don't want to do so i really hope you revisit the language and the adjectives in vocabulary we using. let me finish up much more parochial and lenders stand it is difficult to do in an open setting opposed to classified but i have constituents that have been held 418 days in prison in iran for doing nothing but being a christian and speaking about christian

matters. industry and we don't have diplomatic relationships with the country and we know how difficult it is but also there are other to -- channels we cannot talk about here but i hope that -- to take back the message how important this may be released from prison for doing something that the world does not condone simply for exercising his religious freedom. my time is up. >> let me just take a moment and i appreciate what the senator had to say how you view the word success or effected by personally believe if we say the end game is for iran to end the nuclear weapons program if we succeed in that, not yet? but i do believe that as we

understand the embassadors use of the word i would embrace personally. they have any effective to move the iranians to a point to understand the consequences to everyday iranians and their lives and therefore to the regime. they do want to stay in power. they may think efforts is about regime change but it is not has the international community has said not to pursue nuclear weapons that could ultimately turned into weapons another regime change all that is not the focus. part of the consequences of sanctions they continue to

be vigorously enforced that the population inside of iran will increasingly clamor against the regime to change the consequences of their lives. the regime will have to think of the regime unchanged from within it is very important unbelief they have been effective and canby even more effective. . .