>> thank you madam chair. this is a chevy cobalt 2006 ignition switch. this is the same design but failed to shutting off the vehicle airbags killing innocent victims. we now know that the difference between this switch and one that

would have worked is the difference between life and death. do you know the other difference? the other thing that we now know that it would only cost $2 to repair and that's how little this ignition switch would have cost. and it's apparently $2 too much for general motors to act despite a decade of warnings, accident reports into deaths and while an numbe in number of investigations are ongoing to determine how many times the evidence was covered up by gm or ignored there is one conclusion that we can meet and that is it's much more difficult to cover up evidence that is publicly available. if i have a car accident and i

decide to report the details to ntsa, they put that information to a public consumer information database but if i made the same complaint to general motors gm can deem all of the details of the complaint to be confidential business information, and it does that every single time. you told the senate heard that you would have all of the information and share everything related to the information. my question is would you commit publicly to disposing all documents including accident reports notices of accidental could have been caused by a safety defect and all complaints received about all of its vehicles going forward?

>> i understand there's different things being looked at to see what we should be reporting and we will actively support looking at what we think would be useful to be speed of understanding that effect. the legislation is clear if you're noyouare not going to cog it voluntarily tha but we need legislation that mandates it. the families are here, the victims are here. they want to be vindicated to suffer what they have suffered. the early reporting system let me ask you this bill would require auto make her stoop to

describe the documents that first alerted the alert them tol accidents involving their vehicles to the searchable early warning reporting system. would you support that legislation? >> if that legislation is being reviewed by the team we need to review the entire -- >> it would require the transportation department to publish material it receives about safety incidences that currently are kept secret. could you support that from the families across america? >> senator as the bill was put forward we would like to review it in its entirety and then we will comply with whatever is passed in work proactively to try to make sure the most helpful information -- >> it would require the department to upgrade its database to give consumers the tools they need to protect the members of their family. can you support that?

>> the answer again i would like to look at the legislation in its entirety and provide input and work to make sure the appropriate information that can be most helpful is what's made available. >> it would require the transportation department to use the information it has two better identify fetal defects before they claim more innocent lives. can you support that legislation for every auto company in america? >> i would like to look at the legislation in its entirety to make sure the most valuable information is put forward. >> i'm very troubled that you are not willing to commit to ending this culture of secrecy. >> i didn't say that. >> yes you have and i know this because i tried year after year for more than ten years to have

legislation passed that would require the disclosure of all of this information and it was the automobile industry that killed my legislation year after year and this is the moment now for you to say more than that you're sorry or that you're going to commit that families get the information to make sure that it never affects any other family in america again. and that you should be in that position right now ms. barra to say we will disclose this information and make it available. you have had more than two months to make this decision to think about what went wrong, more than two months to think about why you worked to kill legislation is the corporation for years that provided a consumer database so that individual families knew that their families could be harmed and yet you still do not have an answer or understand what the american public wants. thethey needed the information o protect their families and it's

important for everyone to know that general motors is still not -- >> i don't have that information. i can provide it to the committee. >> i'm assuming you've had some briefings about your exposure on the defects. >> we haven't talked about exposure. it's important once we realized the situation. we don't want to have multiple investigations. >> the ceo of general motors you haven't had a briefing by your general counsel about the litigation that is ongoing against your company concerning the defect. >> we would like to know how many have been completed and

settled. how much has been going on in terms of trying to deal on a one-off basis and leveraging what they want to do for their clients with the requirements of secrecy. has mr. giorgio been fired? >> of the investigation has only been going on a couple weeks and we've already made progress as i returned to the office we will start to look at the implication. >> is he working there every day? you know that he lied under oath. >> the data that has been put in front of me indicates that but i'm waiting for the investigation. >> he said several times he had no idea that the changes had been made. here is a document that he signed under his name.

he signed at april 26, 2006 approving of the change. it's hard for me to imagine that you would want him anywhere near engineering general motors in these circumstances. and i for the life of me can't understand why he still has his job and i think that it is -- i know that you want to be methodical and i know you want to get this right but it sends the wrong message that someone has repeatedly -- she was asked the question over and over aga again. this document which is completely relevant to any lawsuit that was filed against gm around these crashes would have been included in any document request from any lawyer or presenting a family. this wasn't given to mr. cooper.

this document was withheld from the lawyer representing the family. he didn't even find out about the documents until after this case had bee has been settled. how do you justify withholding the key piece of documentary evidence in litigation concerning the park that was changed without a part number change as it is spelled out in this document for anyone to read? how does that happen? >> i can't -- i do not condone not providing information when requested and if that was done we will deal with the individuals accountable. >> i think it's important that we find out how many cases was provided to counsel when it was requested within the scope. there wasn't a request made for gm.

corporations think they can get away from hiding documents for litigants and there will be no consequences and i want to make sure there's consequences for hiding documents because this is hiding the truth from families that need to know and it's outrageous and it needs to stop. last month the department of justice announced $1.2 billion settlement in a criminal case against leota. it resulted in a recall on the acceleration. we talked about it in these hearings where it is particularly relevant to you and i want to put this on the record on the fact around the redesign of the park in the criminal case and i'm going to quote from the fact of the settlement. they redesigned a part using a designation that entailed no part number change.

they had their detection from ntsa and i know this has gone over time and time again but i want to make sure we get that in the record. finally i want to talk about the nature of the defect. when i was going through the documents in his testimony he said that the technical specification to contain the power source that is armed and ready to fire for up to 60 seconds after the vehicle's power is cut off that is in the gm specification is that an accurate description of the technical specification? >> i would have to go back and review that. >> there seems to be a problem here. because if the specifications say it deploys when the power is

off and we know these airbags are not deploying when power is off, then we have a bigger problem. that means we could have airbags across the entire automobile industry that do not have the appropriate sensors that allow for the department even when the power has gone off during some kind of collision or because of a defective part. that would be information we would like you to follow up on. >> finally, two things for the record. will you commit to coming back before the committee when you can answer the question? would you be so kind to provide a copy of that information to the committee? there is an ongoing investigation you want to see the results of that.

do you have a target date? >> i hope to have it done in 45 to 60 days. and i've asked him to go as quickly as he can but not to sacrifice accuracy. >> what opportunities do we have to review that? >> any information related to safety and to this incident and that we think would help from the broad we would've provided. the only thing we want is issues of competitiveness or privacy issues we have to comply. >> how broad would this be? there are no sacred cows. i want to make sure we have a complete understanding there is only the complete understanding can we make the changes we need to make in the process perspective. is he a vendor or a subsidiary? >> he's a supplier, not a subsidiary. >> will this overview includes

looking at delphi and their participation? we go in that direction and get information from them, yes. >> i think that it makes sense to talk to people and find out in their words and bring it to this committee to find out what their understanding is to determine their involvement in this particular case. can you tell us whether or not this is a one-time occurrence? >> i see it as a very extraordinary situation. there have been many cases we have been quick to act from the safety recall process and as i mentioned before often we are known to do more recalls of smaller populations because we want to get two issues as quickly as we can. >> so you have no recall where

they had a different part number? >> that is bad engineering. >> do you think it was an oversight? >> i don't know and that's what i hope to learn in the investigation. what would you consider the financial stability of gm in 2005, 2006 and 2007 just before the bell came out? what do you think would have been the damage done to the public image in 2005? >> i can't guess what that would have been. obviously it would have been less than it is now to have the issue results because it too long. >> do you think they would have survived in 2005? i can't guess.

>> do you think the company took that into consideration? >> i didn't take that into consideration great >> would gm have gone under the initiate a recall? >> i don't know. >> i hate to say this but if this is the new leadership may be in this round you can change my mind but it means stepping out with a fresh start and i don't see it. for example you had mr. senator blumenthal show you the recall notice that you still won't say that everybody that has these cars should get rid of it even though the recall notice says if your keychain is heavy or you go over rough roads.

do you know what that does to the infrastructure? then senator markey says will uswillyou support making use it for making transparent to support a company that had a problem with the car, put it out there. you can't answer that either. than how much it costs to fix the cars. none of the solutions represent an acceptable business case. that was a public document. they gave the document over. the chairman that isn't here placed more pictures of the car

and what kind of a death follows that kind of crash. it's my understanding you are recalling many of the cars now, not all of them but if people want to they can safely is pay for loaders is that correct? that is the right thing to do. but do you support a law that would say cars like yours can no longer be rented or loaned? to you support a law like that? >> if there's a safety issue on the vehicle -- >> do you support a proposed law by senator mccaskill and myself i would say recalled cars like yours can no longer be rented or loaned do you support outlaw? >> i would like to read the whole bill.

>> you haven't read it? it's been out a long time to read are you aware they can be rented or loaned? you can send your owner to a rental place or get a loaner and they could get a defective car. are you aware of that there is no law that says -- >> i checked here but they are grounded. for this specific issue one of the things we did is made sure -- >> i am asking do you support the law senator mccaskill and i and others have proposed that would say if the car is recall that it cannot be pleased or loaned. >> my understanding is the community is voluntarily

complying. >> do you support the law yes or no? >> it makes sense. i would like to understand. >> conceptually it's not a problem. do you support the bill? >> i haven't read it. >> since you were the ceo when we got an e-mail from your organization that you are a part of in the auto manufacturers alliance opposing the bill. you should know my constituents lost her two daughters in a tragic accident caused by an unrepaired safety defect in a rental car they were driving so senator schumer and mccaskill, we wrote the rachel and jacqueline safe car accident you know what the rental car people

supported it but you don't. the automobile manufacturers don't so you are essentially bragging today if i may use the word you are telling your people go get another car but at the same time the lobbying organization is supporting to build -- opposing the bill that would make sure no one would'vee the way that they died. i would say that i'm chairman i'm so grateful to you and senator heller for these hearings. they run deep and we have work to do. and i'm very disappointed as a woman to woman i'm very disappointed because the culture that you are representing here today is the culture of the status quo. >> senator klobuchar? >> i have a few specific follow-up questions.

you mentioned the steps taken in terms of the recall and because it focuses on the vehicles built way back from 2003 to 2007 i wonder how many of these vehicles are on their second or third owners and if this is creating challenges to reach them if there's anything more that can be done. >> i don't know the right agency to manage it where we would have been attached. what we do when we have this issue because we want to get through however many there are as we go to the registration data and that's how we get the latest information. but if there was something that allowed that master database that you always knew who was the registered owner that would be incredibly helpful. >> and this would be something from the department of transportation? >> i'm not sure which agency would do that but it would be

very beneficial. >> we should approach them on that in the next questions. >> the faulty switch from 2011 from the company on the dealers have to advise customers on the problem and approve the redesign to the admissions which is. but it was never made public. we didn't get this formal investigation in 2011. was it that they felt that they could handle this internally and make these changes i'm trying to understand the reasoning. once there is a safety issue it should never have a business case that goes against it. and we go forward now.

there isn't any. as the im as disturbed as you. i want to understand and i commit to you. >> the company that produced the ignition switch that are linked to this defect have performed investigators that proved the original part in 2002 even though they didn't meet the specification for the poor performance. do you think it makes those specifications? >> i understand there is documentation that exists and that's what i have to understand that's what happened. the new vice president for the vehicle safety that sounds like a pretty good idea right now but i was surprised there wasn't already a person high up in the company dedicated to safety. the upper management this person

would have free reign input and access to information across the resources on this individual to use the right data analytic tools to put the pieces together on the development for the entire globe staff. >> how are you going to measure if it is working or not? >> the success on the position. >> i work to make sure how quickly we understand and implement the change and take the necessary steps all the way up to and including the safety recall. >> do other automobile companies have a person in place like this? >> i haven't done any read across of others to look at that. >> i'm going to put a letter on the record from our constituent who perished in a car crash and

i think just as many of the other senators prayers are with the vendor and those behind you and obviously there is a lot more work to be done so thank you for appearing today. >> thank you madam chair for continuing these hearings. we were talking about the recall notice and i was pointing out you said there is no risk as long as people don't add the key to the ignition keys is that correct? >> there's been extensive engineering testing done that demonstrates the weight of the key were just the key into the ring -- >> who's done the analysis? >> engineers. >> would you commit to making them available to us? >> yes. >> would you provide documents that support that analysis any documents in connection with

that analysis? >> yes. >> are you saying that it's wrong because this is the risk increases with rough roads. >> i think it was trying to capture the elements. is the recall notice wrong so people shouldn't draw it on rough roads you think the recall of automobiles? >> i think it is trying to be descriptive of the situation where it's most likely to occur for the testing is relating to the key. >> what would it take to cheat your view that people shouldn't be driving these unrepaired recalled cars? if people are finding that they lose power and control their

cars would persuade you? >> it would take 100 events. my understanding is with the key, the incident phenomena that caused these issues will not occur. anything more than that -- >> there are those events would persuade you? >> i'm not aware of anywhere that occurred. >> if i came to you with the death of a young woman who went to school not far from here who was driving one of these cars unrepaired and was killed when her airbag was disabled but it changed your view? >> senator, my response is if there is the key into the key ring that is the response to indicate that these are safe to

drive. >> i know you've done tha that n ..thatanalysis but would it chae your view whether you would recommend it to the customers that this car is fine to drive with no risk as long as you don't add the key to the ignition? >> i guess i'm not clear on what you're asking me. >> i am asking whether that additional information -- >> what additional information are you providing? >> about deaths or the loss of power and control over cars that have this defect and encountering rough roads. >> if i had any incidents where with just the key into the key ring there was any risk i would not -- i wouldn't see these vehicles across the country. >> have you ever been in a car that has lost control over

power, steering, brakes? >> i've been in a car that lost. >> driving privately not in a test vehicle? >> i was driving on public roads which wasn'so it wasn't a test t was a vehicle to be on the road. >> pretty frightening? >> it can be startling. >> and have you spoken to the families. on the responsibility doesn't have a moral responsibility to advise more strongly its customers about these potential risks? >> we are going in a multi-dimension communication letters to people monitoring social media. we have a dedicated website. we are working on multiple channels to make sure that we communicate with the individuals

that would own these vehicles or drive these vehicles great >> because my time is expired on the questions, this gm is not the old gm and it's not even the pre- 2014 gm. what you're doing now is brewed from legal and moral responsibility for the actions that you are taking or failing to take the more i see in the documents into the more i learned what happened before the reorganization and in connection with the reorganization the more convinced i am that gm has an exposure to criminal liability. in fact i think it is likely inappropriate gm will face persecution based on its evidence and i think the more that you can do as a leader of gm to come forward and do the right thing now that better it

will be for the future of the company so i hope to continue to work with you and i hope that you will review the legislation that offered because going forward if can make a difference. >> thank you madam chair. as i understand at this point, nobody in gm has been fired as a result of the issue that comes before us today on the switch and obviously this long pattern of having information not providing the disclosure in a recall to the public is that true nobody has been fired? >> i think it's important to do a complete investigation that we will take the appropriate action. but yes that is true. >> one thing you have hired him to conduct is an internal investigation, and i assume gm is paying him, correct?

>> correct. >> i'm aware of his qualifications and certainly i think that he is a very qualified individual. however it seems to me how will you guarantee that basically all of the individuals or maybe not all of them maybe some of them are no longer with the company that i think that we can guess many of the individuals involved in the decisions that led us to where we are today are still at gm or potentially could be at gm and we already have the situation that the chair mentioned with regards to the failure to disclose the litigation documentation that were strictly to the litigation that showed the change in terms of the par part and the failureo create a new number for the change in the defective ignition switch and i guess i am very

concerned how are you going to guarantee that no documents are withheld from not only but also the investigations that are being conducted by the government and how are you going to ensure that given the people that he's going to be focused on i think many of them are going to be worried about their own future and liability whether it is civil or criminal liability that you can actually get to the bottom of this with this internal investigation. >> he had several decades worth of experience and has the highest integrity. i know he isn't going to compromise his reputation and i have confidence based on the fact he's done investigations in the past and we have got into the truth by going to multiple sources to get to the truth and

we will act on it and we've demonstrated that we were up to discharging people. >> and i have no doubt as i have said about the qualifications have you already segregated all of the documents and put them aside that are related to this issue because as an evidence that you are aware of now so that he at least has that satisfied so that at the moment given the potential liability that we are facing it seems to me, and you are potentially facing that this is a very important issue to ensure no one can interfere at this point. >> it is a very important investigation and that is one of the reasons we only have one person doing that investigation. and there are id leave over 200 people that already have documented litigation hold so we are doing everything we can to make sure that he has access to everything he wants great

>> so you've actually already set aside to ensure that the documents are preserved and that anyone that he needs access to key is able to have access to? >> anyone he wants to have access to key will. when he uses the term set aside, any place that is remotely in connection on the litigation hold so that the documents exist and they are unnoticed. >> well it seems to me that they may not be on the notice they can't do anything in their documents, but i would hope that you would be making sure that you actually are ensuring that these documents can be interfered with before hand or takes the investigation. when this investigation is conducted user that you're going to come back to the committee

and we thank you for that. what you make them available to this committee? >> i think that would be his option, not my decision to make for him. >> you hired him and as far as i know when you hire someone to conduct an investigation as i have done it before as attorney general of the state, one of the terms i would want to work out upfront is will you be willing to present the results of the investigation and he would you be willing to present facts to? >> i would share the results of the investigation as i've already said i would share with this committee >> i think if you're going to have confidence in you has said multiple times in this hearing i don't question his credentials. and it seems to me that we would want to hear and appreciate your

testimony as the ceo and certainly want to hear what steps you are taking to address this issue but i would think it would be important for the committee to hear directly on the investigation itself and what the scope of the investigation was. >> i know if i go back and review the hearing i would say to myself you got too excited and you went too hard but the passion is real so to the extent this has been a rough day to you it is coming from the right place. it's coming from a deep commitment that many of us have to these families into automobile safety in this country of ours and you have an enormous responsibility to get this right. we appreciate you being here.

i can't promise the next time that you're here i will not get as aggressive as i have today but i do think it is important that we point out that the many problems the facts present to you and your company into the legacy of general motors going forward this is an incredibly important moment and you're in charge and have to make some tough decisions going forward and we will be monitoring those decisions and look forward to having you back to testify and i would ask that you make sure that your investigator looks at a pattern of the legal counsel already cooperating in the litigation and why are they requiring the settlements that is something that we need to understand.

mr. cooper and his engineers did what they did because they performed a valuable service to the country that should have been performed by the company and by the federal regulators do you think yotothank you very mug here. >> richard blumenthal has called on genera general motors issueda warning not to drive cars with bad ignition switches because he says they are not safe. he made the comment on the senate floor yesterday. >> what will it take, what facts

or evidence would be required to persuade them to do the right thing? i think there is more than ample evidence and abundant evidence now what the path should be. and i urge that yesterday. gm should very simply do the right thing now is to push a compensation fund sufficient to make the victims hold to ease the pain and grief suffered by these families and loved ones but justice has its own virtue, and gm has the rare opportunity in american corporate life to do justice and not wait for its consultant and its investigator to, quote, work through" the

issues here. work thingworking through the is doing right by those victims. yesterday i asked about the safety of the vehicles that are still on the road, and she assured me that they were trying to drive as long as the key wasn't overloaded and as long as the ignition switch was used alone. she assured me there was no risk to drive those vehicles and any other in use today. i asked about the contradiction of the statement with a recall notice itself and i'm going to display it here which says that

these vehicles are risky to drive in effect if your key ring is carrying added weight or, and i emphasize or there are rough road conditions or jarring impact related events or rough road conditions. unfortunately, too many of the highways have rough road conditions or provided the opportunity for jarring events. ms. barra maybe leave the test and an analysis done in the company and these defective

vehicles as safe as long as they are done with the ignition key. they would drive with additional keys on the ignition switch. in fact thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of americans have no idea that driving these vehicles with added keys provides that kind of potentially fatal risk when these cars lose power they lose steering. they lose their breaks and they lose their airbags are you losing power, brakes, steering is terrifying. but airbags are essential if the power is lost in the car crashes

as victims of these crashes have discovered 2 degrees of their family. a rough road conditions and a potentially jarring events, how common today. in a beautiful town along the coast of connecticut i could take hundreds of these subgraphs from connecticut which has better roads than many other places in the state and the country. they are as common as the roads themselves. those risks are gm responsibility. it has failed to do so. i asked ms. barra what evidence

or fact would persuade her to issue a stronger warning. the recall notice itself says the risk increases if your key ring has additiona additional wh as more keys or the key font itself if it adds additional weight. or your vehicle experiences rough road conditions or impact related events. what would persuade her to issue the warning to consumers to stop driving these cars until they are repaired. and specifically i asked her whether evidence about the drivers who have in fact experienced the power loss without adding additional weight to their key ring if they encounter these kind of conditions and their cars shut

down would persuade her to change her view and she answered jimmie, quote, senator if i had any data where just the key where the key and the ring there was any risk i would ground beef vehicles across the country. ms. barra, let me tell you in march of 2014, video and a 2007 chevy cobalt that received a letter instructing her to remove all items from the key ring leaving only the vehicle key. as the recall notice instructed, she continued to drive her vehicle using only the vehicle

key. yet while driving with a friend she lost power. fortunately she was on the side of the road on the right side of the road, and she was able to pull the vehicle to a stop. there will be other instances that will come forward to me and my colleagues and lawyers that represent them. today i called on gm to issue that warning. there is more than ample evidence in the data incidences where the key or just the key and the ring led to the vehicle stopping it because it was added weight because they encounteredy encountered rough road conditions were jarring events

which could consist of simply leaning the wrong way, moving. these vehicles create risk that are unacceptable before they are repaired. the advice gm should give to people is bring these cars to be repaired immediately stop driving them and in the meantime use the loaders that gm has offered. gm has the opportunity to avoid another business decision. it may be more costly to provide the loaders, but in the long run, they will save lives and dollars. finally, i would ask gm to do the right thing by supporting the legislation that we have introduced. this legislation is critically important to the future.

it can't correct the past. but it can make sure that accidents are reported in the defects are made known to the highway chance patient safety administration, and that there are not only incentives for reporting that there is increased accountability for failing to do so. and to require ntsa to establish a publicly accessible searchable database that will allow the drivers and consumer safety advocates to connect the dots, and companies that are not willing to connect those dots will be brought to justice and will be required to recall these vehicles and to find out about the defective models in time to save lives. ms. barra hasn't committed yet to supporting this bill.

it's her responsibility in my view to do so. it's the responsibility of gm to take this action now. we have the opportunity to change corporate culture are not only enough company, but in others by setting a model, leading by example, not by their words in a senate hearing or other policies, but by action. actions speak louder than words. actions speak louder than the appointment of a consultant or investigator whose report may not be made fully public and she was unwilling to make that commitment yesterday. it's a corporate culture that refused to make a 57 cents change or $2 change. even though that change would have saved lives. and now is a tim the time to hom

accountable or to issue that warning that will help save others from the faith knows only too well to those families who came to be with us yesterday great i look forward to working with ms. barra, with gm, with my colleagues, with all who are interested in improving car safety and to using this sad and tragic unfortunate experience as a turning point and a teaching moment, a rare moment of bipartisan action to make the roads safer. thank you madam president. i yield the floor and the absence of a quorum. >> the labor department says employers added 192,000 jobs slightly below the february

total than the rate was unchanged at 6.7%. but half a million americans started looking for work and most of them found jobs. the job matches last year's average monthly total. speaker john boehner released a statement in response to the jobless numbers. i'm glad more americans have found work that our economy still isn't creating jobs for the american people at the rate they were promised. he goes on to say the past job skills but the senate hasn't considered them. the democratic leader harry reid said today this continued job growth is encouraging that we need to do more to ensure everyone in nevada and across the country has a fair shot at the american dream. he then mentioned a bill coming before the senate and urged republicans to support it. former acting cia director dean either that there was a cover-up in the 2012 would be a consulate

attack. he testified this week at a house intelligence hearing on capitol hill. hearing focused on talking points but then united states ambassador susan rice did on the talk shows in removing some of those points. this is about three hours. today we continue the committee's investigation to the 2012 attacks against u.s. facilities in benghazi with the testimony from the former deputy director. the committee has heard from these attacks several times before but in closed session. today we receive his testimony in open sessions of the american people can hear from one of the most senior intelligence officials involved in the lead up in response to those attacks. we are all interested in the role in developing the talking

points. we expect he will explain for the public how the controversy developed into a understand you will do some of that in your opening statement as well. want to first acknowledge the courageous heroes on the ground in benghazi both of those that lost their lives, chris stephens, information officer sean smith and tyrone woods and those that risk their lives to save their colleagues. they served on the front lines defending americans interest to the rest of us could sleep safely at night. we lost some of the best among us on that terrible night. many of the brave officers that came to the rescue testified in closed session before the committee. these men took extraordinary measures to save their fellow americans. without their courage and their skills the terrorists would have killed other americans in benghazi that night for sure.

and many still defend america aa into dangerous locations around the world. i think him for volunteering to testify once again. a terrorist attack against u.s. facilities as a serious event and the committee has been conducting a thorough detailed investigation over the last 19 months to understand exactly what happened. we have held over 17 events and reviewed thousands of documents mostly classified and interviewed the men on the ground that night. i want to focus on how this committee received inaccurate talking points at how the administration used those talking points to perpetrate a false narrative about the attacks. after the attacks, the canadian committee sought to the briefing with the director and then the cia director petraeus on september 12 and september 13 respectively. after the director then petraeus briefing some members of the committee sought guidance about what could be said publicly in

the unclassified form. the constituents the american people certainly needed to know the truth about the attacks. unfortunately the talking points did not reflect the best information available. they didn't mention that al qaeda terrorists were involved through briefings and intelligence reports assessed they were involved. the talking points suggested that there had been a demonstration and that there had been none and the officers on the ground said so. talking points were so void of the facts and information that i dismissed them and didn't use them in fact on september 12, 2012 i made a public statement that the attack had all the hallmarks of al qaeda. i don't believe they used the talking points after the attacks as the director described they were useless. you indicated that you didn't know susan rice would appear on the sunday talk shows on september 16 and the statement

implies he would have returned different talking points if you knew that she would use them in that particular day. but she did use them you asked a spokesman for the government she used them to tell the american people that there had been a protest spawned by the anti-islamic video and made no mention in the file qaeda and focused on the protest. you told the committee on september 15 the day before she appeared in public that the chief of the station reported that there was no protest. public records to hear the public needs, excuse me, to hear what those talking points, how those talking points were created and the american people should understand your role and the role of the intelligence committee in that process. i must conclude the white house used the points to perpetrate its own misguided political agenda. i belief the white house wanted america to believe al qaeda to be on the run. thus they needed the attacks to be a response to an anti-islamic

video and so the white house used your talking points to say so but we knew that al qaeda and other organizations and groups participated in the attacks, officers on the ground knew there was no protest. if the american people knew what the officers knew and the administration told the truth the public would no know the terrorists were to blame into the public would better understand the threat we are facing today and our intelligence and defense professionals could have been mobilized with greater speed to take these terrorists off the battlefield. i don't believe the administration learned the lesson of the failure unfortunately. the ambassador stated she had no regrets she still believed the talking points represented the best information we had at the time. that is wrong by the materials and documentation in the position of the committee. the white house wants to ignore reality and the fallacy that al qaeda and other extremists are

on the verge of defeat and this is a very important issue. i'll qaeda is growing and planning operations against americans and their safe havens in libya, syria, iraq and elsewhere yet the administration continues to talk and act as if al qaeda is on the run. ..

we disagree. we argue, but we are only at data-gathering each of us, all members of this committee respects and gets along with each other, even though we disagree on many issues. the leadership fosters resolving the committee was not parallel track record and the

authorization ask every air in the legislation of proposing bipartisan and metadata and increases civil liberties and preserves a capability. the committee will miss your leadership, but we still have you in the congress to know you will continue to row appears these and do the work the american people have come to expect. today as we turn our attention to benghazi on september 11, 2012, we will and other of many heroes in people who suffer great loss. reminded us of ambassador cristina's, sean smith and leon are the other men and women who acted courageously that day to save the lives others. no one left a comrade behind. we are to them to campus others to risk their lives to defend america to find out what went wrong and make sure it does not again. this is what were doing today. the independent accountability review board by mike mullen had a comprehensive review of the

situation. the government is implementing recommendations especially when it comes to increasing access security. we in congress have also gone through every aspect. we've run down every allegation i matter how many far-fetched at this committee alone has reviewed thousands of classified and washed frame after frame of video to interview the intel of the ground. we've also found areas that cannot must be approved for a further tragedy. today we found absolutely no inappropriate motivation. we have also found no conspiracy is. the editing of the talking points in the never-ending conspiracy theories. i was the one who asked the talking points today following the tragedy. i asked for them to aid our ability for this committee to communicate with the american people without reviewing classified information and what we now would be a very neat feature of an issue. the exhaustive review we have

found evidence that the talking points are edited to ensure accuracy to check classification and safeguard the investigation and eventual prosecution which has to be our ultimate goal, holding accountable those that committed this terrible act. this is the third time i've had mr. morell before the committee to talk about benghazi. maybe let's pretend he's been forthcoming and i expect he will be today. after today hope we get back for more pressing work of overseeing the intelligence community come intelligence operation that's going to prevent cybersecurity. in the meantime, let me say thank you him and mr. morell for coming before the committee come even after you retire. your service for the country over 30 years of exemplary and we owe you and the people at cia that, especially those in plain hotspots around the world. mr. chairman, thank you and i yield back. >> thank you for the kind words, mr. wrappers berger. and the remaining months i know you'll be ranking member david

chairman. before turning to the witness, this is an investigative hearing. we are going to share the witness him before he testifies. this is the prerogative of every committee chair. it has not been the custom here at the intelligence community. so while it is always against the law to provide ultimatums to the congress, the gravity of the preceding and the need to tell the full and complete truth. so what not, i would ask mr. morell if he would please the end. hold on. not too much longer. could you please raise your right hand? do solemnly spread that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect the

witness is answered in the affirmative. mr. morell, please be seated and i do want to thank you for your 30 plus years in the intelligence services. you've had a highly decorated and certainly distinguished career for those 30 years and the opportunity to provide testimony today in front of the public. what i would recognize you for your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman -- mr. chairman and members of the committee -- mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. as the chairman knows, he asked me a few weeks ago to testify today on benghazi, my response was a quick and decisive yes. and he also knows i specifically asked for an open hearing.

why was i so decisive in why did i want this to be an open hearing? because much has been said and many allegations have been made about the handling of benghazi by the cia and its leadership, including me. much of this discussion has been an accurate and the congress and the american people deserve to know the facts. i want to start by making my most important point of the day and it repeats something that both the chairman and our ranking member said. i want to take a minute to honor the peachtree is that america lost on that tragic night in benghazi. chris stevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and glenn dougherty, they died serving their country and it is

paramount that we never lose sight of their service, their dedication and their bravery. mr. chairman, i have submitted a comprehensive and detailed 23 page written statement. i respectfully request that it be placed in the record. it covers the development and evolution of cia's classified analysis of what happened in benghazi and my role in that process. it also covers the preparation of the unclassified talking points in my role in that process. and it covers the specific allegations that have been levied against me. time does not permit me to go into all this detail during the oral statement. so i urge anyone who is concerned about this issue to read the full, written statement in order to put a complete

understanding of what transpired. in fact, i would ask with respect that the committee make my written statement available on its website. mr. chairman, i want both the committee and the american people to know that i take very seriously the allegations about how the cia in general and how i am particular handled the analysis and the talking points. as this committee knows, the ethical code under which intelligent officers carry out their responsibilities calls for total objectivity. call it like you see it. no matter what the audience wants to hear, no matter the implications for policy and no matter the political consequences. in short, speak truth and power. i served the central intelligence agency for 33 years

and i always abided by that code. i served six presidents, three republicans and democrats. i served as president george w. bush's first intelligence briefer and i served as president of office deputy director and acting director of the cia. during this entire service, i never allowed politics to influence what i said or did. i believe the facts in my written statement made clear that neither high or anyone else that the cia worked to alter the analysis or the talking points in a way that compromised our responsibility to the american people. we did not deliver late downplayed the role of terrorists and the benghazi attack in our analysis or in the talking points. and neither i nor anyone else in the agent these deliberately

misled anyone in congress about any aspects of the tragedy in benghazi. mr. chairman, none of what i just said should be interpreted to mean that we at the cia to do everything right. no organization never does. there are things that we should have done differently. there are areas where the cia's performance and my own performance could have been done. none of our actions were the result of political influence of the intelligence process. none. let me touch on three specific issues. one, cia alan, the most highly trained analysts and our government concluded less than 24 hours after the attack that the protests have preceded the results on the state department's facility in

benghazi. they are with good reason and without any input. the state department for the cia leadership. their judgment was coordinated across those communities with a judgment of the entire community, not just cia. as he now, subsequent information revealed this judgment should be incorrect. but let me emphasize this, our analysts reached their initial judgment because that is where the best visible information at the time but then, not policy. indeed, our analysts did what they are trained to do. take a judgment based on the best information at hand. make clear that the judgment might change when new information becomes available and then adjust the judgment is necessary. that is what i expected of them.

it is what you expect of them and it is that the american people expect of them. it is exactly what they did. two, the cia's then the senior analyst on terrorism, not a standing officer in this committee knows well, wrote the first draft of the classified documents. neither the white house, state department nor i did so as some have alleged. after a top analyst wrote the first draft, and many changes were made to the talking points over a period of time, including some by agency officers, some by other these and some baby. process inside the cia to produce the talking points could have been better in several respects and i discussed this in detail in my written testimony. but to be very clear, the white

house did not make any substantive changes to the talking points, nor did they ask me to make any substantive changes to the talking points. and while the talking points could have been better, the judgment that the attacks evolved from a protest was wholly consistent with the intelligence community's classified analysis at the time. three, on the morning that i edited the talking points, our station chief in tripoli, talented operations officer for whom i have a great deal of respect sent his daily at day to cia headquarters addressing the ongoing security situation. this e-mail has rightfully received some attention and let me address it. there is a line towards the end of the e-mail that claimed the attack in benghazi was, and i quote, not/not the escalation of

a protest, end quote. this e-mail was received by my staff and by a number of other officials at the agency. as the record indicates, by action in response to the e-mail were appropriate and consistent with my responsibilities as deputy director. i wanted to get the analysis right and to make sure the right people knew. upon reading the station chiefs e-mail, i immediately recognized the discrepancy between the station in the judgment of our analysts. i asked for more information from the station chief and i give policymakers a heads up on the issue. i asked our analysts to revisit their judgment based on the comments and to do so quickly. they did that and based on the

totality of the information available to them, they stuck to their initial conclusion. mr. chairman, i did not hide, nor did i downplay the station chiefs, as some have suggested. in fact, i do just the opposite. i addressed the critical difference of opinion immediately and appropriately. mr. chairman, i want to make two final points. first, i take what happened in benghazi very seriously and very personally. as deputy director and acting director of an agency that lost a number of brave men and women on my watch, no one wanted to know more than i exactly what led to the attacks, how he could have responded better and what we could do to minimize the chances of a tragedy like this from happening again.

as washington discusses this important issue, we are to leave politics out of it, plain and simple. since leaving government, i have had the opportunity to speak with many americans around the country about this very serious national security threat facing the united states and the essential role our intelligence community plays in protecting americans. very often, i am asked about the tragedy in benghazi. while those who engaged me on this issue want to know how this happen, they have made very clear to me that there is no room for politics in any discussion about the deaths of four brave americans. i could not agree more. mr. chairman, that concludes my opening statement. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you are a much, mr. morell. i asked several of his questions in closed session previously. i think it's important to ask again now that you are before

the american people in open session. our committee has in our possession some 4000 pages of cable assessment highlighting deteriorating security environment in benghazi prior to the september 11, 2012 attack. are you familiar with those? the reported in benghazi? >> yes, sir, i am presumably familiar with the attempted murder of the ambassador at june 20 shilled by islamic militants in benghazi? >> yes, sir. >> are you aware they pulled out all the officials in response to that attack? >> after my aunt. >> the intelligence community is actively tracking down terrorists in benghazi prior to the attack. were you aware of that? >> yes, sir. >> we have received testimony that security upgrades were made at the cia and ask in response to the threatened condition. for you aware that? >> yes, sir. >> committee has informed the cia officials on the ground of

libya had concerns about co-located with the state department that the temporary mission facility given the physical security gaps at the facility in the threatened environment in benghazi. are you familiar with that? >> i'm familiar with that now. i was not familiar at the time. >> so you are not familiar that some of those assessments happened in august? >> i think it was a little earlier than that, but yes. >> were you aware that the state department officials had a discussion of cia officers about overnighting at the nx the week of the attack as a threat to the physical security concerns as a temporary admission? >> i was not aware of that. >> are you where the terrorist attack in benghazi at september 11, 2012 involved military style students, rpg is inaccurate fire that required extensive training and preconditioning? >> yes, sir. >> in your role as cia deputy director, did you value the

opinion of your station? >> you bet you. >> inner city said the station indicated you on september 15 that there was no protest in the attack was not opportunistic. the juice assessment was based on his conversations with eyewitnesses, security officers in benghazi, the regional security officer on the ground and the political officers who were in tripoli. i understand how maybe a low-level analyst making a mistake. but what concerns the committee and the investigators is the very fact of your distinguished career rose through the ranks as one of the best analysts, the best intelligence agency on earth because of your expertise and your instincts he became director of intelligence analysis, top analyst at the cia. you are with president bush in florida on september 11, 2001 and told him immediately take your gut instinct was osama bin laden was responsible for the september 11 attack.

help me understand, help our investigators understand if you will, knowing all the information you could possibly come to the conclusion that this coordinated assault at september 11 that killed four americans was anything other than a terrorist attack. >> mr. congressman, i would say a number of things. first of all, the analysts on the third team of september produced a piece of analysis that the attack in benghazi evolved spontaneously from a protest issue. that judgment eydie analysts -- by the analyst was based on a number of press reports and intelligence report saying there was a protest, including one intelligence report from our station in benghazi. at the time the analyst made

that judgment, there was not a single piece of information available to the analyst, so they made that judgment on the 13th. when i received the station chief e-mail on the morning of the 15th as i said i noticed the discrepancy. on the station cheat in his e-mail says that there were two reasons why he thought there was not a protest. the first reason he gave was that there were press reports saying there was no protest. i personally did not find that reason compelling because they were quite frankly press reports say that there were protests. the second reason he gave, the second reason he gave in that e-mail was that his officers from benghazi pays, when they went to rescue their state department colleagues at the

state department facility did not see a protest when they arrived. i was not compelling to me either because they did not arrive until an hour after the attack started and it is quite possible, quite likely that any protest would have been made back then. third, in my mind was the report from the previous day spent in day sent in by station saying there was a protest. so i felt that if the analysts were going to relocate their judgment day just two days before, that they needed more information from the station chief on why he thought what he thought and that's what i asked where that morning, was for him to go back and produce a piece of paper that provided more detailed on why he believed there to beat our protest. he did that in 24 hours. now the other thing i did that morning given the importance of that issue is to let my colleagues on the deputy committee meeting note that the station chief had a different

view, that the view is different from the analyst and that we were working to sort it out and that we would get back. that is what happened, that's what they did. >> at november 15, 2012 when he appeared before the committee with director clapper and director olson to discuss the benghazi attacks, i asked at that time by the talking points had been changed to remove any references to al qaeda. clapper answered to the panel that he did not know. it's curious you were sitting on the same panel certainly had the question, but he didn't say anything. can you tell me why? >> first of all at that time, i did not know who removed the reference to al qaeda. and i have a similar exchange with senator burr on the senate intelligence committee on this issue. at the time i did not know. but to be fair and in retrospect, what i wish i would have done was to say to you,

chairman, i do not know who to al qaeda out of the talking points, but you should know that i myself made a number of changes. that's what i should've said. i didn't. >> he said earlier there was no coordination with you or the white house on what those talking points looked like. is that correct? >> so the talking points were sent to the white house. the white house national security staff actually, the white house national security staff suggested three changes. all of them editorial in nature. of them were sensitive. >> i have a chart i'd like to put a period i hope you can read that. were going to give you a copy just to refresh your memory here. maybe you can help us understand this. this is in a large copy of the draft with your handwriting in your notes on the memo itself and has a list of names in the bottom right corner.

[inaudible] >> you absolutely can. can you just go down the list of names. some of the questions the investigators had is the list of names at the time you are drafting it would indicate you are at least in some context or concerns or would have to run it through these individuals. can you walk through the list and tell us who those individuals were at the time you are editing those talking points? >> can i get a little bit of background, mr. chairman? >> sure. >> so, i was made aware of the talking points late in the afternoon on friday the 14th. when i was made aware of the talking points and i was shown the current draft of the talking points, i reacted very strongly to the inclusion of the warning language in the talking points.

and i reacted strongly to the warning language because quite frankly, i thought it wasn't responsive to the committee's request about what happened in benghazi on the 11th and more importantly, i thought it was an effort by the central intelligence agency to make it look like we had warned and shift into laying responsibility for the attack at the state department and it did not give the state department and the opportunity to say what they did as a warning. i didn't think the warning language should be in there. i made a decision at that moment when i got this talking points are scored to take the warning language out. so the next morning, saturday morning i come in and my executive assistant tells me at the state department is very upset about the language as well and as a result the talking point are stuck. he also tells me that because of

that, then deputy national security advisor dennis wants to talk about the talking points at the deputy meeting that morning. so we have a deputies meeting and dennis never raises the talking points. at the end of the meeting, dennis goes around the table. he gives everybody around the horn, gave everybody the opportunity -- >> excuse me, dennis? >> denis mcdonough. white house chief of staff. tv show that's an opportunity to say one more thing. what i said at that point was look, i am aware there are interagency concerns with talking points. i have my own concerns with the talking points. i will edit them and send them back around for a final coordination through the committee. so what you are looking at here is what i did. i am responsible for the changes on this piece of paper.

the names you see are the names of the individuals who i wanted to spend the talking points to one more time before we sent them to you. and they go them. first you see at ces ndi. i wanted to make sure the final version of the talking points were okay from the perspective of our operations officers and from the perspective of her analysts and i was most interested in knowing that they were a parent perspective of the director of ota, but you and i both have great respect for. then let's go to the names. pockmarked alow was and is the number three in the office of the director of national intelligence. he represents the dni. alan p. noe was the national intelligence officer. he was at the deputies meeting. matt olson was and is the

director of the national counterterrorism center. jake sullivan was then the head of policy planning at state department and is now the vice department national security adviser. mark juliano was head of the fbi's national security division. lisa monaco was head of the department of justice national security division and ben rose was a spokesperson for the national security council staff. >> so during any of those conversations, with anyone on the list, no one including the spokesperson for the national security council indicated they needed changes for any reason whatsoever? >> so, i never spoke to many of these people. we only sent them an e-mail. the changes that were suggested by the national security staff

was at that point, at that point they'd make two suggestions earlier in the process before i was even aware the talking points existed. at that point in the process, the only change the national security box suggested was a change suggested by ben rose to change the word counselor diplomatic post and suggested the change for accuracy purposes of this technically not a conflict. that is the only change suggested at that time. >> did anyone tell you that the talking points were going to be used for susan rice? >> no, sir. >> did anyone tell you that in the subsequent days on september 15, once he realized there is a fairly extensive description of why the conclusion was not a protest on the 15th, did that information make it in the hands of the

individuals who would have provided those talking points to susan rice? >> september 15, your chief of mission sent a very detailed communication to you and your staff, indicating all of the reasons he believed this was an extremist attack that had some level of preplanning. did that information make it to the individuals on the list? did they ever hear about this conversation for a viewer from the agency? >> gas, said the detailed e-mail sent by the chief of station on the morning of the 16th, what i did with that was two things. the first thing i did without was immediately sent it to the analysts and say, so now what do you think? and the analysts responded to that e-mail hours later, same look, we are sticking to her judgment. the second thing i did was to send a document to director petraeus and i think my note to

him said something like sir, i don't know what to make of this discrepancy to the station sheet and analysts. about the analysts to look and i believe his response was let's see what the analysts say. i do know that either monday or tuesday at the following week, just as i given the deputy had said that this is an issue, i told the deputies or relieved that the analysts had looked at the issue and they were sticking with their judgment that there'd been a protest. >> so with all of your training, all of your experience, your gut reaction coming to jubilees that was the right decision? >> so i believed what my analysts said that there was a protest. i also believed it to be a terrorist attack. you see, we never saw those two things mutually exclusive. and so, i believe both of those at the same time. >> knowing what you know now,

would you have been surprised that many of the eyewitnesses we talked to said they were surprised by the narrative runs than they the 16th? they were shocked. members of the organization i believe the word was shocked. >> of a little surprised by that quite frankly because if they were members of my organization, then they would've seen the analysis written on the 13th that said there was a protest in the attack spontaneously from the protest. they were shocked on sunday when they heard that. they should have been shocked on thursday the 13th when they read it. >> you're familiar with the executive -- on the 12th, something i received and bad did state that is likely not an opportunistic. it was because of the description of the armed attack on the 12th was in fact on that day.

there was a different narrative from the focus on the ground and there was in the analysts here. you can imagine how that creates confusion and why some might draw that conclusion in the height of the political campaign that may be something doesn't look right here given the folks on the ground in the testimony on the ground were completely different from at the analytical product was come including the 15th, which was a very detailed e-mail, highlighting the differences of opinion on this particular case from the folks on the ground during the event. >> chairman, let me actually read you what pat said. is that the presence of armed assailants for the incident outside suggested this was an intentional assault and not a peaceful protest. very interesting. here's what really happened though. so the analyst who the piece in

a very, very early morning hours of the 12, mind you the attack had just occurred in the analysts were putting together what we call a situation report, when the analyst finished with the piece and then the analyst went home, that sentence was not in there. that sentence was added by one of the editors after the analysts left. the editors said that she thought their needed to be a bottom line. she was a trained military analyst and she wrote that. when the analysts came in the next morning, they were very unhappy that sentence had been added and they complained about the addition of that sentence. so that's what happened. it was a bureaucratic mistake. no politics. i can certainly understand the confusion that created and in retrospect, what we probably should have done was when we

wrote the piece on the 13th was to make it clearer how the language evolved from what was said on the 12th to give it up that confusion. i agree with you 100%. >> i'm not sure i call it a bureaucratic mistake as the analyst was right. >> that analyst was not in analyst -- not a counterterrorism analyst, not an analyst at benghazi, not looking at the issue. she was acting as an editor and she added a judgment that she had a right to add. >> maybe got training. i just want to ask again and we have a lot of questions here and i will pass up and unders and i have some at the end. at any time, did you have any verbal conversation with anybody at the white house about what the nature of this talking points were and what they needed to look like?

>> no, sir. >> at anytime that you have any conversation with anybody at the white house, and i mean anybody, it had anything to do with cooper. susan rice are going now to be in the face for america on september 16th? >> no, sir. in fact, i didn't even know she was going to be on the show. >> the wenatchee purveyor talking points? neither through the directory yourself to preparing documents? >> no, sir. >> was she briefed by the agency or have information or material available from all of the materials we discussed, did she have any of the materials? >> i believe she is talking points. >> just the talking points. >> she would've also had access to all of the intelligence information she had received in the days before. >> what that included a september 15 analysis from a cheaper station on the ground? >> no peers he met why not? >> was not disseminated outside

of the cia. >> don't you think that was an important document to get in the hands of someone who's going to brief the country and what was happening on the ground? >> like i said, he gave two reasons why he believed what he believed. like i said, i did not find either one of them compelling. like i said i asked him for more information. it took a 21st to produce that. want to produce to that, i asked the analyst to re-look at their judgment. they did within hours. and like i said, i did get the deputies and oral heads up and the station chief had a different view. >> i've more questions. i know there's a lot of folks that want to ask questions. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, mr. schiff has to go to a hearing. i would like to be in regular order and then back to regular

order. >> i think the ranking member and i also want to take an opportunity to thank the chairman for the way he has led our committee and brought a real commitment and security to this job. even very thorough in your preparation for the hearings and that we have allocation is former fbi agent as foreign prosecutors do, never diminish my respect for you and want to wish you every success in the future. and mr. morell, likewise i want to thank you for your decades of service to the country. really appreciate all you've done and regret that it's necessary for you to come in today coming out again on this issue. very grateful that you are more than willing to do so and have the opportunity to i hope with these issues to rest. they detailed enough that you can't from the chief of station

on september 16th did not include any reference to terrorist attack. in that terminology, or did it? >> i don't recall, sir. >> is that terminology was not used, would it be other terms like extremist or militant were used in its place? >> sera, one of the things we've learned in this process is that the words we use in terms of the cia aren't always words people outside the cia understand. so to us, the word extremist was a synonym for the word terrorist. not only for the mls, but also for our operators. so when we said the word extremist, we may terrorist and clearly that is not true for everybody. i think from here on out will be more careful and thinking about

what the audience is going to hear when they hear the words we say. >> is to choose the stations on report did not include the term terrorist or terrorist attack, was not because he necessarily included that is not the case, but otherwise often used as a proxy? >> that's correct. he thought this was a terrorist attack. >> similarly, do you recall whether the chief of station was willing at that time to describe this to al qaeda per se? >> so it has detailed e-mail on the 16th, he said regarding motivation. he said we don't know what motivated the attackers. but he said i think there are three possibilities. the first was an attack on the anniversary of 9/11, to use 9/11

as the 9/11 anniversary as a reason for the attack. the second reason -- the second motivation was the call for revenge by ivan somewhere heery -- somewhere heery -- just days before. the third motivation that he described as a possible motivation was the youtube video. >> so when this detailed memorandum, the station chief did not discount the possibility even then that the video played a role of the attacks on the facilities? >> that's correct. >> now, a couple of the reasons that the chief station cited for believing there was no spontaneous demonstration were

that he discounted certain intelligence? >> that's correct. >> signal intelligence was that there was a demonstration initially at the consulate? >> that's correct. >> and even a few discounted that particular signals intelligence, was that the only signal intelligence pointing in the direction indicating that there had been a protest? >> sir, there were roughly 12 report. some of them press report. some of them intelligence report, indicating that there was a protest. the intelligence reports included reporting from the national security agency and the central intelligence agency and the department of defense. >> indicating what? >> indicated there was a protest prior to the assault of the state department.

>> so when the chief of station gave another reason why he believed there was a no protest that they're a couple press reports indicating, those are nonetheless in contrast to other press reports indicated there had been a protest? >> that is correct. >> at this point we know there was a protest though it's not any more about what actually happened. it's about what we do at the time. >> correct. >> said the analysts, perhaps unlike the cheapest station would have to press reports. the other intelligence products make their assessment whereas the two stations might have some of that, but not necessarily the whole collection of intelligence? >> that is correct, sir. >> is that part of the reason why his e-mail on the 16 you went back to him to say, can you give us more substantiation as it's inconsistent with some of the other reporting?

>> it was his reporting on the 16 that i went back and asked for information. >> that's the last question. thank you very much. mr. westmoreland who is the chairman on the investigation. mr. westmoreland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. morell, for coming. with all your years of the cia, who is the one person you account on the most to get your information from anything that happened in a country where he was the station chief? >> address the question again? >> who did you go to to get the most accurate information if you're going to find out about an incident that happened in the country? >> if i were looking for the cia's judgment about what happened in a particular case, i would go to the analysts. >> that two people on the

ground. >> the cheapest station's view is very important, but not determinative. >> said the analyst is not there. >> there were two sides to the central intelligence agency. as an operation site that collects agents in an analytic side that makes analytic judgment. >> okay. this analyst, was he the gentleman that was that the brand stable with director petraeus on the 13th? >> senior analyst i spoke about who did the first draft on the talking points, the director of our office of terrorism analysis is a one-man and yes i believe she was with director petraeus in front of this committee. >> okay. so on september 14, i think the general -- i mean, the director was there and at 4:42 p.m. on september the 14th, officers and the cia office of public affairs deleted the phrase with

ties to al qaeda. so your analyst, the one that knew what was going on, they took their analysis, used the word al qaeda, right? >> yes, sir. >> the officers who made this change stated they were trying to ensure talking points contained no information that would hinder the fbi's investigation. the same cia officers changed the word attack so this analyst that you're counting on originally used the word attack, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and it says then that he was changed to demonstrations. >> yes, sir. >> were they demonstrating rpg's, mortars, heavy machine guns, is that what they were demonstrating? >> said they don't remember exactly why they changed the

demonstrations. >> your analyst, the one you've given so much credence to originally had attack and al qaeda. >> yes, they did. one of the reasons they say they made that change is because it did make a lot of sense to say that attacks evolved into assault. >> you are relying on this latest analysis. is that not correct? >> yes. >> and they said they also changed the phrase they participated in the attack to the extremist participate in violent demonstrations. now, where these -- i'm having a hard time with why you would want to say what for americans did, set on fire, that it's a demonstration rather than an attack when rpg's, heavy machine

guns, mortars and others were used. how can you call the demonstration? >> sir, the change he just mentioned and attacks to demonstrations was a change that was actually made before the senior analyst sent the talking points to the office of congressional affairs. it was a change that was recommended by the operations officers who she was scored hitting at the shoe is okay with that change. >> to my point is you're not counting on the analyst and what she analyzed. you were counting on what other people said was wrong. >> not on the third change, sir. she made that change before she sent it to the office of congressional affairs as my written testimony made clear. >> so she thought they needed to change it. not somebody else. >> she agreed with the change. >> when is the first time he

hurts in the cheapest of station in tripoli that this was a planned, coordinated attack? >> so the first -- this is complicated. let me walk you through this. the first indication that there was not a protest with a disseminated intelligence report from our station on that friday. and what that report said is that our officer who went from benghazi days and try to dispute the state department policy did not see a protest when they arrived. that was the first indication. our analyst discounted that for the reasons i explained earlier. the second time -- the second time was the saturday morning -- was a saturday morning in which the chief of station sent an e-mail with a very short reference to i don't think there was a protest, let me give you

two reasons why. in the third time is on sunday morning when he said a much more detailed note explaining why he thought that. >> two points. one, the information you said the analyst had was a news report and i think it came from some calls that were from around benghazi that were made to another country by somebody. the other thing is a demonstration. we all saw this demonstrations in cairo and all around the world these demonstrations. you're saying you have a problem with this grs team that got there. i don't think it was an hour. >> it was an hour, sir. >> i think it's more like 40 minutes. when you see those demonstrations, they don't just last for 30 minutes and everybody goes home. you would see people meandering

around and doing things. they did not see that. what they thought was the end of an rpg and heavy machine guns and, you know, being shot at. they didn't see anybody meandering around with a sign protesting something. if you watch any of the videos that come from demonstrations, those people are there for hours. not minutes, but ours. >> sir, i'm just telling you what the analyst thought. the analyst thought if there was a protest, they believe outside the state department facility and the attacks start that most likely the protest is going to break up, dissipate. that's what they thought. it is not an unreasonable thing to think. >> mr. ruppersberger -- >> i'd like to thank mr. westmoreland and also james

had three for your oversight investigation that matter. two areas that want to get into quickly so people can have a chance to answer questions. first, when i was asked for the talking points, i was asking for some a symbol to give some of our new members talking points that were unclassified, knowing this would be a media issue. i am very can turned right now that it got to the level where we got him we didn't get the talking points back in a day or two. it just goes to show you some times where we go when we need something basic, it goes beyond where it should be. i hope we can learn from the situation. i never expected more than a year and a half after the attack that would still be talking about this. who changed the talking point? protester or no protest. i think the focus of where we need to be now is to find the bad guys who killed americans. that should be the focus and also make sure we have learned from what happened in those areas and in ghazi to make sure

that our facilities for the american state department and intelligence community are safe and know what to do. now, we need to focus again on tracking down the people who did this and i hope we are close to that. now, i have a letter from the department of defense that said he is responding to six congressional congressional investigations in this case has participated in 50 congressional hearings, briefing interviews and dedicated thousands of man-hours to the task, costing taxpayers millions of dollars from the cia has responded in a similar bind to. how much money do you feel the cia has spent on this issue right now? >> sir, i really can't speculate on that. i don't know. >> is close to the department of defense. >> despite all this, no evidence i've seen and if you have any, please tell us the motivation that there's no evidence of political motivation that's been uncovered. but yet it still continues. can you tell us what kind of

threat terrorist groups like al qaeda and others were a share is still as two american world as you see right now. >> so i believe that the terrorist threat to america today is very significant. the way i talk about this is that we are still at war with al qaeda, very much at war with al qaeda and did not war, both sides have had a great victory. our great victory has been the destination near defeat of the al qaeda leadership in pakistan. but al qaeda is great that tree has been the spread of ideology across a very wide swath of the muslim world from northern nigeria into this a, across north africa, in east africa, in

syria, iraq. and so, both sides have had this great victory and the threat to americans remains very, very significant. and congressman, i am deeply concerned the threat is going to grow in the years ahead. >> and you think back to whether or not in the beginning it was inspired by the news media from the protest or whether it was a planned attack at this point? ..

we never leave an american behind. we always stand up for our people. there have been allegations of debt i have heard often on that we let our americans fall behind in the situation. can you please discuss the longstanding security expectation and procedures sca stations and bases, particularly in remote and dangerous parts of the world? does the ca expected military assets of the above to provide immediate protection the matter where they are in the world? what i'm getting to is a you have your own security, and they're well trained. even in this situation if it were not for the smoke, hopefully looking back it does happen, but we hope the your people trained and it would there were supposed to