embassies abroad. >> thank you for the question, congressman. we have addressed this in many different ways. the high threat directat itself, just by the fact that we concentrate on looking every single year at our top 30 posts, the ones that we worry about the most, the vp2 process, the fact that we have written into every senior officer's job description and every officer in the state department, their individual responsibilities for security. the fact that i have officers that are attending the meetings of the regional bureaus every single week, in some cases every single day. and when we are looking at the programs, we are also talking about the security implications, therefore, i think have highlighted the fact that none of us can operate independently of considerations of security at

this point. i think there has been a culture change in the department. i think having to weigh the importance of our programs and why we're in very danger places under the vp2 process has brought a laser focus on why we're there, what the real threats are and have a clear understanding of the threats, not ignoring the threats, what we've done to mitigate those flets and then a decision at the end of that is our presence still adequate and is our presence warranted, despite all these things, i think, has brought a new culture to the department in many ways. i think i have never seen security taken as seriously as it has been in the last two years. and i say that not lightly because i've been here a long time and security has been taken seriously for many, many years in the department. but i think this -- some of these processes we have put in

place this time are new to the department and are doing exactly what the arb wanted and what you're talking about. is it working itself into the culture? >> right. and the culture is very significant. it's one thing when you have ab ragss. it's another when you actually believe in something, you're doing it every day and it becomes a part of your dna. that is, the dna of the state department. >> yes, sir. i would add one other thing, sir. the officers that are reaching the senior ranks of the department today, in many cases have spent significant amounts of time over the last decade in places like iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, yemen, cairo, other places where we have true security problems. the officers i work with today, every single day at my level and above, are keenly aware that security must be balanced with our program implementation. they've lived it.

>> thank you very much, chairman. >> thank the gentleman from maryland. the chair will now recognize the gentlelady. >> are you familiar with the 1997 oig recommendation with the need to prioritize using a methodology based on the ospb security standards? >> i'm vaguely familiar with -- i wasn't here in 1997. >> were you aware it was closed in 1998? >> i think that's right. i think that's right. >> and wasn't -- to the extent you can answer this, it was closed because the department amended its memorandum of agreement with the marine corps to include procedures for establishing the size of existing detachments and procedures for activations and

deactivations, is that correct? >> i don't recall why it was closed without looking at documents. >> well, in 2014 your office again looked at whether -- at where and houma reason security guard detachments were being utilized at the state department post overseas, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> were you able to determine whether there is a methodology for prioritizing and assigning new msg attachments to overseas posts and whether that methodology was effective? >> our auditors found in that report that there were no formal procedures to select or identify posts. they couldn't show how the marine security guard units compared with other posts. there was no formal plan for expansion. they simply just didn't have the processes and procedures that one would normally think you would have. >> so, you weren't able to make -- figure out how ds makes the determination of where these

marines go? >> we were not. >> okay. and it's the same or similar issue, to your knowledge, i know you don't seem as familiar with the 1997, but the inspector general then told ds to create a process or methodology to select posts, so this is a similar situation, correct? >> i'll accept that premise. >> so, how can we on this committee have confidence that recommendation 11 from the benghazi arb made just two years ago that the department and dod will provide more capabilities at higher risk posts? how can we have the confidence that that will be fully implemented? >> well, that's the challenge of closing recommendations. we have a compliance follow-up group that i can tell you what they do now. they do look very closely at the actions that the department takes to close recommendations. they wouldn't close it unless they felt that there was significant progress. >> mr. starr, i'm going to follow up with you on this

point. according to the oig, only 40% of the new msg detachments have been assigned to posts with high or critical rating for political violence, terrorism. in light of your last statement in the previous questions, you said you've never seen security taken so seriously in the past two years. well, how does the fact that only 40% of the high-risk, high-threat posts have these marine security guard detachments, how does this satisfy the arb recommendation 11 expand that program to provide more capabilities and capacities at higher risk posts? >> thank you for the question, congresswoman. there's actually a very clear, very simple answer for this. most of the posts that are high-threat, high-risk already had marine security guard detachments at them. that's why the 40% number is

there. of the 30 posts that we ranked as our highest threat, highest vulnerability, 19 of them already had marine security guard detachments. we've added two to those. of the remaining nine posts, five of those posts, there's no one there. the post is in name only. we don't have people on the ground. mogadishu, harat -- >> let me interrupt you for a minute. mr. linick, do you agree with those numbers? >> i haven't confirmed those numbers, soy don't know. >> and there are several other posts. there's about four posts in that high-threat list where we would like to put marine security guard detachments. the host government has not allowed us to do that. >> okay. so -- >> but the reason that figure seems very strange is that in the vast majority of cases, we've already got marine

detachments at those places. >> let's be clear about this, mr. starr. how many current high-risk threat posts do not have msg detachments? >> of the 30 highest risks, highest threat level posts, 9 do not, but 5 of those 9 are not functioning posts. they're closed, so four. >> do you agree with that mr. linick, or do you not know? >> i don't know. >> is there a timetable, mr. starr, in place for assigning the msg attachments to the -- you say four posts. is there a timetable? >> i would like to do it tomorrow, but i will tell you, i find it unlikely that i'm going to be able to assign marine detachment to those posts. >> you say because host nation problems -- >> host nation problems. >> when i talked to you last time three months ago, it doesn't seem like we've made much progress, but i asked you, you know, what's your plan with the ones that you don't, if you've got host nation problems,

are there other ways to get security there? and you said in your testimony, if we find that we don't have those types of protections, you listed adding ds agents, several other mitigating things. but you said, if we don't find that we don't have those types of protections or we think those risks are too high, then we won't be there. so, why have we not made progression on those four posts that you are stating now, we still don't have those protections in place? >> the host nation has stood up and given us high levels of protection. in some cases, i have a tremendous amount of other resources there, including diplomatic security agents and armed contractors that meet the threat. in some cases, we have made a determination that the host government is standing up and fulfilling its responsibilities. while we'd still like to have marines there, the fact we don't does not mean that we cannot

continue. this is some of the things that we're looking at as we do this vp2 process. when we weigh why we're at a post, what the threats are, what resources we have overall. and as i say, marines are one tool in our tool kit. >> mr. linick, i want to take mr. starr's answer and follow up with you. do you think that's sufficient? >> my question is along the lines of the report. what are the plans, where are the plans, where's the meth methodology? what plans are there to negotiate with host governments unwilling to take us? those kind of things. >> and you have not gotten a clearance from ds on exactly how this is going to be handled, correct? >> all the recommendations are open at this time. >> all the recommendations are open. and based on the questions from ms. brooks earlier, open means they're unresolved and there's no evidence there that they're doing anything to make it

better? >> well, actually, there are a number of open resolved recommendations, in other words, the department has agreed in principle to comply. but there are two recommendations which are unresolved which means we just disagree. >> of the six, there are four unresolved -- >> no, two -- >> excuse me. four resolved and two unresolved. >> that's correct. >> but even the resolved, you've just gotten them to say that they want to do something, but you have no actions to back up their words. >> that's correct. >> so, we still have, according to mr. starr's testimony, we have four places, very dangerous places of the world, where american lives are at stake because we don't have the proper security in place. >> congresswoman -- >> wait, this is for mr. linick. is that correct? >> i mean, have i to accept that that -- those facts because i don't know independently whether

that's true. >> recommendation 6 of your report recommends that ds marine security guard program conduct a staffing and resources assessment and then judiciously allocate appropriate resources to facilitate compliance with the benghazi accountability review board report to upgrait grade security for personnel at high-threat posts. has this been done? >> not according to the facts i've heard. >> so, in fact, the department has yet to comply with benghazi arb recommendation 11, correct? >> we believe benghazi arb 11 intended for there to be marine security guards at all high threat posts. >> so i want to hear you say -- >> yes, that is correct. >> thank you very much. i've got 24 -- 22 seconds left. i did want to touch a little bit on the local guard force. real quick, mr. linick, if i can

just get to the findings with you. a, b, regional security officers took it upon themselves to vary the vetting and approval process and failed to ensure that the security contractors provided all the required documents. that's correct? >> that's correct. >> so, did any of the security companies that had contracts fully perform all vetting required in their contracts? >> no. we looked at 87 personnel files and none of them -- none of the security contractors performed all of the vetting requirements. >> and of the six embassies reviewed, did any of them allow guards to work before being fully vetted? >> yes, a number of them allowed them to work without vetting. >> i just -- mr. charnlgs i do not understand how this can be. just two years after four americans were killed in benghazi, we have local guards

that are not fully vetted that clear -- that clearly, mr. chairman, show that we have a severe security threat in very dangerous places where american lives are at stake today. thank you so much. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> thank the gentlelady from alabama. the chair will recognize the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for being here. appreciate your service very much. mr. starr, i just wanted to ask you for historical perspective, because i think many americans may be under the impression that what took place in benghazi was extraordinary in the sense we've never had attacks on our diplomats or tragedies. i wonder if you could shed a little light on the last 20

years. how many times have our facilities been attacked? how many times has that resulted in injuries or fatalities? is the problem getting worse because the world is now more unstable? it seems like there are more high-threat posts now than ever. is that just an impression or is that the reality? and what does that mean in terms of the prioritization you mentioned at the outset? and that is, the priority is for a diplomatic post to implement the policy of the united states. that has to be done in a way where we can protect our people. but they're there for a reason. and there are many posts where we are, where we could ask the same questions. why are we in yemen? why are we in iraq? why are we in any of these places that are inherently dangerous. there are foreign policy objectives in these places, as there were in libya. we have increasingly difficult

calls to make about where we post our people, what risks we're willing to undertake in furtherance of our policy. that's why i have such great respect for the people in our diplomatic corps because they're at risk. there's just no avoiding it these days. but can you set a little of the historic trend for us. what has been our experience with violence at our facilities? to what degree is that phenomenon changing and is it changing for the worse? >> we have more posts today categorized at high or critical threat for civil disorder or terrorism than at any time in my service in the department. i think we are seeing a lot of different threats emerging. i don't think that's a surprise to anyone. we are challenged in many ways,

but again, going back to what we've been doing since nairobi and dar ra salam, which is when al qaeda first came in our view full face, that we had to recognize, that we had a determined nonstate enemy against us, a lot of the programs we put in place and the buildings we built have helped make us and balance that security. congressman, as you say, over the last ten or more years, we have had multiple, multiple attacks on our facilities and people in iraq. many, many attacks in afghanistan. in harat last year, we had a horrific attack with two truck bombs, eight suicide bombers trying to kill our people at the consulate in harat. our security systems worked. we killed all of them. we lost tragically some

third-country national guards on -- security guards and afghan police officers, but no americans were killed in that. as has been eluded to here, at the same time as the benghazi attack, we had huge crowds and mobs that were coming over our facilities and attacking our facilities in cairo, in tunisia and in sudan. and in the last two posts, 8 1/2 hours before the host country came to our support, our facilities held and no americans were injured. we have had and lost certain foreign service officers in one-off attacks, lone wolf type attacks, including john granville in sudan, not too long ago. we've had rpg attacks, truck bomb attacks, car bomb attacks, car bomb attacks on our motorcades, we have had aircraft that has been shot at. we have had almost innumerable attacks on our facilities over the last 20 years. and you are right, they are

going up. it is a challenge. i would first say that it's a testament to the foreign service that our officers still want to get out and implement the important foreign service goals that we have to. it is a testament to their willingness to take new types of training and for the department to take on these security risks. congress has been a very important partner in how we have met these risks, particularly since the 1998 bombings in dara salam and nairobi and we appreciate that. we'll continue to work on these things. i don't think it's a surprise to anybody that we are living in a world where there's a high degree of instability in many countries. there's a lot of open discussion about how extremism is drawing inqzqíño new youth, disaffecte personnel and has a calling that is being heard by certain people. we have our challenges cut out for us.

we'll do the best we can to meet those challenges while still implementing the foreign policy of the united states government. >> thank you, mr. starr. let me drill down on a couple specifics that i think have manifested themselves in light of this increasing threat environment and increasing number of high-risk posts. and that is, more people that are on temporary assignment. and people that are of short duration in some of these high-security threats. many of us that have visited our diplomatic facilities overseas meet people that are there for short tours. you talked about one way of trying to fill the gap with retirees. why is it -- it may be desirable to bring in the retirees on who have great experience, but why is that necessary? are we having trouble to attract enough personnel to go to these

high-threat snoes is there a mutually reinforcing cycle where people who go to a high-threat post, therefore, get recommendations from people in those posts for future assignments and are kind of locked into high-threat posts? what is the impact on our personnel of the proliferation of dangerous places where they work? >> congressman, the situation that we face is that most of these high-threat posts are unaccompanied. we're asking more and more of our personnel to take unaccompanied tours away from their families for longer periods of time. generally, these have been one-year tours, but we're now at a point where we're asking more of our officers to serve two-year unaccompanied tours overseas without their families. we have rotated many of our foreign service officers and many of my security agents and security personnel through multiple hardship tours without their families at these high-threat posts at this point. the foreign service has a certain amount of personnel.

we have not had to rely particularly on very many tdy personnel. some of the other personnel available rat our posts overseas have greatly relied on temporary duty personnel. not so much the department. we have had officers that stood up and continue to stand up and serve at these places. but it is not without, you know, cost. it is not without, in some cases, fracturing families or, you know, are we putting people -- asking them to serve tour after tour in high-threat posts? multiple times at these places do we have behavioral problems and other things coming out of this. the answer in some cases is, yes. so in many cases where we have a need to put our best people in some tough places, where we're asking sometimes for temporary personnel, but sometimes for longer periods of time, the department is asking to bring back some of the retired people. somebody's going to use that

vast experience they've got and they're going to pay them for it. we would like to avail ourselves of that as well if possible. but i do think that the state department's been at the forefront of filling our positions with mostly full-time assigned personnel, although we, too, rely on tdyers occasionally. >> just one last question because i only have a minute left. i wanted to follow up on -- i think we all recognize the importance of having high-level attention paid to the arb recommendations by the top principals in the state department. and i feelly concur that secretaries clinton and kerry have embraced and even established this is a best practice. you had mentioned it was codified in the foreign affairs manual very recently, but the embrace of that by those top principals, that was from the very beginning. in fact, that was a standard they set, was it not?

>> i think it was very evident from the statements of secretary kerry and our principles that we were in this together and everybody had to get on board. what we're now doing is bringing it around to putting it in the policy. as steve point out, that's important, we need to codify this going forward and we need to do that. but i agree with you, i have spent many hours in many meeting with the deputy secretaries and many others. and i've had discussions with the secretary about what security means to us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from california. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr mr. roscum. >> thank you. secretary starr and mr. linick, thank you for your time. i find your argument inconsistent in this sense. i just want to bring to your attention statements you made to my colleagues, some of the realities that i perceive and walk you through my thinking.

a couple of minutes ago you told ranking member cummings there has been a culture change in the department. and if there has been a culture change in the department that presupposes that you basically offer everything up that's an obstacle and reflect, look, this is a problem and we're going to rid ourselves of every single problem that was an obstacle to a remedy. a couple minutes ago, you made the argument to mr. schiff -- not an argument, but you made the point, increasingly dangerous world. nobody here disagrees with that. it was compelling. you used words like extremism, disaffected youth and these posts are unaccompanied because they're miserable places to go, presumably. and yet one of the things that is the remedy to that is the waiver authority and recommendation number 13 that the department continues to cling to. so, the recommendation of the best practices panel in number 3

it is says, it says waivers to establish security standards should only be pursued subsequent to the implementation of mitigating measures as agreed by regional bureau or other program managers advised by ds and informed by the department risk management model. that is a great idea. now, here's the problem. the department -- and i don't know where you were in the discussion, but the department has said, we don't think that's a great idea. in fact, we think this, in certain cases involving national security -- i'm going to come back to that, because that's such an ambiguous term -- an exception can be approved based on the mitigating measures already in place. presuming there are mitigating measures, i might add. even though future mitigating measures may be planned to bring the facility even closer to or in con for answer with the standards. in such case when time is of the essence to further national security interests the

department requires flexibility to grant exception of the planned mitigating measures. so, here's my point. that is a gaping exception. that is an exception, mr. secretary, that anything can get through. and i mean, anything. so if it is simply, look, this is national security. all of a sudden that becomes a laminated hall pass for someone at the department of state to say, we're declaring this a national security. yeah we've gone through the whole process. the process you described, that is, identifying the high-risk, high-threat posts, going through vp2. so far, there's no restraining include. then there's two choices. either recharacterize something as a special mission compound or something else, or go through another process. and even within the other formalized process, there's still this waiver authority and people around you, mr. secretary, are saying, give it up.

and by your own argument, i might add, you're making the argument you should give it up. there's a culture change so big you're describing it to ranking member cummings and a world that is so dangerous that you're using all kinds of words that we all agree with. so why in the world hang onto this thing? >> for a very specific technical reason, sir. we pick a place. sometimes the best that we can get in a short duration if we're going to go back in. we have to make decisions on what needs to be done and what level of things we can't possibly do. i can't create 100 feet of setback when there isn't 100 feet of setback and we may have to accept that. at a certain point we have to make decisions, are we going to accept that? do the rest of the things we need to do. or are we just going to say, no,

we're not going to accept that? and then continue looking until we find a place. by the way, i've never found a place to lease in 30 years in the department that actually had 100 feet of setback that was available. >> secretary starr, what is different than the reasoning you just articulated to me just now from the reasoning that put us in benghazi and that allowed four people to be killed? what is different? >> there is -- i will admit that there is some measure of risk in what i am saying, but -- >> huge risk, based on -- >> no, i don't agree it's huge risk. >> you just told them it was a dangerous world filled with extremists and disaffected youth. that was five minutes ago. >> true. but i think we have to be able to make decisions to progress. in some cases, if we're going to lease a new facility, we're going to have to admit that

we're going to have to get give waivers in order to fulfill -- >> what is the difference between -- >> the difference is, we have to do the waivers. there has to be a decision process. >> yeah, but then why don't you -- why don't you agree to the mitigation? that was the key finding of the best practices -- >> because in some places we can't get the mitigation. i can't -- >> if you can't -- >> i cannot get a blast-proof building unless i build it. >> then why do we ask people to go to these places? >> because in some cases the foreign policy imperatives of why we need to be there mean that we're going to take reasonable levels of risk. now, what we have to be careful is that we don't take unreasonable levels of risk. there has to be an open and fulsome discussion about why we need to be there, what risks are we really running? do you really understand the threats? as you -- >> best practice panel recommendation is trying to codify that risk discussion. and if you rewind the tape today

and you listen to the answers that you gave, and i was carefully listening to this, earlier in the last -- in our last discussion time, the last hearing, ms. robey asked you a question and you and i had an exchange about your answer. but just to refresh your memory, she asked, is it possible for the state department to open a temporary residential facility. you said, we don't have any at the moment i can't imagine we would or that i would approve it. you, singularly, mr. starr. earlier today in part of the exchange you said, i am committed to keeping our people as safe as possible. now, i get it. that's opening statement language. there's nothing wrong with that. you then told ms. sanchez, i turned that down. you then told mr. joer darngs i have access. your bristle was up a little bit because he was pushing you around but you were saying, i have access to the secretary of

state. now, here's the problem. when you're gone, that next person will be confronted with the same discussion that you admitted is basically that there's nothing really different about the thinking that went in on benghazi, to your knowledge, because you told us you weren't there. i'm telling you that i think it is very similar, that line of thinking that says, yeah it's dangerous, we have to get them, we've got to go, there's no time, we have to check these boxes, yeah, yeah yeah, and you have this national security exception that the exception like i've described is this big and we're right back into this situation. notwithstanding the culture change that you've offered up. do you see where this is going? which is why people around you are saying, give it up. offer it up. you don't need it. >> i think that that -- relying on one recommendation -- >> this is not one recommendation. >> no, that's one particular recommendation we don't agree with. because of a technical reason that we have to be able to say

in advance and write the waivers and say, we're going to accept wavering that security standard gives us the ability to do these things. >> look, in your answer -- >> but the larger issue, though, is things like vp2 and having processes in place. and i recognize that this one particular one is confusing in terms of, it seems like we don't want a process -- >> oh, it's not confusing to me. >> it doesn't seem like we want a process -- >> there's nothing confusing about this. you're basically saying we're not going to mitigate -- you're not basically saying. you're saying we're not going to mitigate. the answers the state department offers is presoefs mitigation in place and relying on a speculation of possible mitigation. in fact, it says it may be planned. may be planned. that's speculation beyond speculation. it's speculation upon speculation.

do you see how it is people are coming to the conclusion that in a post-starr era that like it or not is coming, in a post-starr air remarks when special committees are not around, there's going to be every bit of possibility and pressure based on the national security exemption which as i described it, is this big. all of a sudden, we're right back into this situation and we're grieving the loss of life. i ask you to revisit this. i ask you to reconsider this. this is something you're clinging to and that you ought not. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from illinois. chair now recognize the gentleman from maryland. >> the -- you know, mr. starr, ms. robey asked mr. linick about the vetting of local security guards. i'm really -- i thought she had an excellent line of questioning. i want to make sure i understand what's going on here because

when the dust settles again i want to make sure what people are saying. in june -- when we talk about the vetting, can you tell me why there is no vetting in those -- i think it was four countries? >> six countries. six contractors. >> congressman, the answer is that it is not true there was no vetting. what the report points out is that they didn't fully comply with the vetting requirements. there are places around the world where we work that our normal vetting requirements, things like requiring a police check, can't be accomplished. there are places where we are or the contractor is not allowed to perform a background investigation.

this is of all places -- one place in italy we cannot vet contractors in italy because of statements they have in law. it does not mean we don't do our best job to vet the people that we bring on board. now, i will -- i want to say one thing clearly. when steve and his inspectors go out and they find a circumstance where they say, hey, we don't think the contractor's living up to the vetting requirements, i want to know that. and we take that seriously and we go back and say, okay, what's happening here? in some cases we may find there's a reason the contractor isn't fully vetting the people. he may have to use alternate methods. but there are -- there may be cases and steve's people may find out that he's trying to put some shortcuts in place and doesn't want to pay for the vetting and we need to know those things. that's valuable guidance that inspector general's teams are bringing back to us. so, i think it's a dual answer.

one, i want to know what they're finding because these inspections are part of our backstop and they're important to us. second, there may be reasons in some cases that there may not be a full vetting. there may be certain work-arounds. we can't do police checks or they don't -- you just buy a police check, essentially, we're looking at family ties, you know, does everybody know this person? does this person really want to work at the embassy? and people have known his character for a long time. there may be work-arounds. and finally, there are places where we know that we have significant issues hiring locals to be guards. in those places, we bring in third-country contractors at tremendous expense because there's no other way to get the vetting done and we don't trust the people. so, it's a holistic answer. i don't want to say that we don't value, and i necessarily

disagree with the ig on some of these things. they play a really important role. the inspection process is important to us. and when steve's people come back and say, hey, something's not right here, we look at it. we try to correct it as fast as possible or we have an understanding it doesn't quite meet the needs and we'll have an open recommendation and we'll go back and forth with the inspector on that. i would note, sir, that our guards have stood by us through thick and then. some of them have stayed years after we've closed our facilities and protected them. we have never had a green i don't know blue incident with any of our guards. in many cases, they have showed loyalty to us far beyond what we could ever do. are our programs, are our guard programs perfect? no. we strive to keep them up to snuff every single day with the

highest compliance of the rules and regulations we put in place. steve plays an important role in keeping us there. so it's -- all told, i need those guards and we're going to continue doing it. and i think we're doing over emgly a very good job. are there some things we need work on? yes. when we find them, we'll work on it. >> are you familiar with the june 2014 inspector general's report with regard to an audit of the department's oversight of the vetting process, used for local security guards. you're familiar with that audit? >> yes, sir. and he reported and explained that contractors are challenged in vetting local security forces because of local privacy laws, lack of credit reporting services and difficulty in obtaining official records. in the host country. and how do you operate within those kind of constraints?

you get -- you do as much as you can and then -- i mean, how do you -- you want to vet. and so is there a certain point you say, well, there's just not enough vetting we can do that we can hire these folks or -- i mean, how does that work? >> when we make a determination that we really can't do any vetting and we have no confidence in the guard force, that's when we may turn to this alternative, third country nationals we bring in from another country we vet if we can get permission from the host country to do that. in many cases it's more subtle than that. as i say, sir, when the police check may not be worth the piece of paper it's printed on or where there are privacy cases, in many cases we look at who knows this person? what recommendations have they got? are they family? are they tied to the embassy in some place? we've got to have guards. we have to have people manning the posts and checking the

people coming in and checking packages and inspecting the cars. and even when some of those vetting procedures may not -- may not comport with what we do as a security clearance back here in the united states, we have a great deal of faith and confidence in them, even in some cases we may not meet every requirement. we may not be able to cross every "t" and dot every "i." at some point we have to take some level of risk. >> mr. starr, we spoke extensively about risk management. during our last hearing you spoke about how important it is to assess both the willingness and capability of the host country forces to provide local security. how does the state department consider the potential issues with local guards today when considering whether to operate in a certain country? and how has that change the since benghazi?

i don't know that that has actually changed since benghazi, sir. i would say it's been an ongoing issue for us. there are some countries that will not allow us to have guard contractors. in some cases we can hire them directly. there are some countries where we have made that determination that because of counterintelligence issues or because we may think that the guard force is -- could be infiltrated and we don't have faith and confidence that we may use third-country contractors. this has been an ongoing issue since 2002. we look at every country very carefully. we make a determination how we can best fulfill the security requirements in that country, whether it's a contract, whether it's a pas, district hire guard force, whether it's a third-country national guard force.

we rely in great part on the experience of the rsos in the field and the contracting officers and the general services officers to give us advice here in washington and listen to them. and then make recommendations and decisions based on the best knowledge we have. >> well, let me say this. i want to thank both of our witnesses for being here today. we really do appreciate it. and we appreciate your willingness to work hard every day to make our people safer. as i know, mr. starr, that we've -- i know we pressed you hard today. please recognize and understand we do so to ensure the department's feet are held to the fire because it's important for all of us that we do this right. and i remind you again, it is our watch. your testimony in september and october update, the updates you provided us.

we appreciate. and your testimony today shows continued progress. and we appreciate your willingness to work with us and anyone else who helps to make our embassies safer. so, i want to thank you for that. and i want to thank you, mr. linick, for all that you're doing because you, too, help us keep these feet to the fire. with regard to the arb, i think we're making good progress, but i want to make sure everything is done. and i noted there are some arb recommendations, quite a few of them from past arbs. i think we need to take these opportunities and and try to address as much as we possibly can even back then because those things are still ongoing, right, mr. linick? there are still problems? >> yes, that's correct. i want to thank both of you. mr. starr, don't forget we want to know when those other

recommendations of the arb will be completed and to let us know when they are, in fact, completed, all right? okay. thank you, gentlemen. >> yes, sir. we'll get those answers to you. sir, i expect to be pressed pretty hard. this is tough business and it's important business and you can press as hard as you want. myself and steve, we're both pretty tough guys and we appreciate even the tough questioning. the opportunity to put these things on the table with you in an important committee like this is important to me, too. >> thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman from maryland. secretary starr, i was going to pursue a line of questioning, and i will get to that at some point, but when jimmy jordan asked you, why we were in libya? and i'm not going to ask you the same question, because you made it clear, you're not the right person for us to ask. and i'm going to respect that. but i want to make sure you understand why jimmy would ask you that question and why all of

us are asked that question with alarming frequency in our districts. the last hearing we had, you did a very good job of explaining to those of us who are not in diplomacy that you have to weigh and balance. i think you said, you have to weigh and balance the policy with the risk to determine whether or not you should have a presence. and it just struck me there's no way you could possibly weigh and balance policy versus risk if you don't understand what the policy is. and then i started thinking what jimmy was talking, i wonder where the question came from? and i knew i'd seen this somewhere. do you know someone by the name of ben rhodes? >> i don't know ben rhodes personally. i know the position he was fulfilling. >> i don't know him either, but there was a memo three days after four of our fellow americans were killed in benghazi. and i will skip over goal number 1 of his communications memo --

actually, i won't. it says to convey the u.s. is doing everything we can to protect our people in our facilities. it just struck me, if you were doing everything you could, we would not have had 50 separate recommendations after he wrote that memo and this now the second hearing to make sure that those recommendations were implemented. but i'm going to skip over that goal to get to the second goal. the second goal, secretary starr, was to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy. so, i'm going to skip over the video part of that for now and get to the second clause, the dependent clause in that sentence. not a broader failure of policy. how can we judge whether or not a policy has failed or succeeded if no one tells us what the policy objectives were? i mean, how can we do that? how can you weigh and balance the risks? jimmy's gone through the risks. members on the other side have

gone through all the escalating episodes of violence in benghazi. and it may well be that the reason for us to have been there supercedes all of those episodes of violence. but how -- i mean, how can a committee of congress know that if no one tells us while we were there? so, you're not the right person to ask. who would you ask if you were us? who should we bring to explain why were we in libya? >> the policy questions, i think, should more properly be directed to the nea bureau that had responsibility -- >> i'm looking for a name, preferably. who would be able to tell us what policy we were pursuing in libya was so important to skip over all the things that roscum pointed out and to weigh and balance the episodes of violence in such a way that the presence

outweighed the violence? >> at the risk of having her never talk to me again, the assistant secretary for nea, ann patterson, i think, is the highest ranking person in the nea bureau. and at the time of the attack was the u.s. ambassador in egypt. and i think ann or one of the deputy assistant secretaries in the nea bureau could give you the best answer on that. >> well, i thank you for that name. and i want to make sure you and i are on the same sheet of music. do you understand why we would have that question? i mean, do you think that that is a fair and legitimate question for us to ask, what the policy was so we can then weigh and balance it, as you instructed us to do? >> i think that's a reasonable question, sir. >> well, thank you. now, secretary starr, last time you were with us, we not only discussed the most recent arb recommendations but we went back and highlighted some from the past. and one in particular from 1999 caught my attention. the secretary of state should

take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility for ensuring the security of u.s. diplomatic personnel abroad. it is essential to convey to the entire department entire department that security is one of the highest priorities. secretary, just in case somebody missed that part of the 1999 arb, the authors reiterated that point with this. the secretary of state should personally review the security situation of embassies and other official premises, closing those which are highly vulnerable and threatened. to previous arb recommendations that you could essentially lay on top of one another. they are identical. and i don't think they're identical because they forgot that they put the first one. i think they're identical because they were trying to send a message to us, this is really

important and it is deserving of the attention at the highest levels of the department. so here is what i want to do. i want to specifically with respect to benghazi, in october of 2011, there was a specific request for a machine gun to defend our facility in benghazi. in august of 2012, just a month before the attack on our facility, a document again lists a machine gun as equipment needed and requested. do you know who denied the request for those machine guns and why? >> no, sir, i do not. >> who should i ask? >> you can ask me and i will research that. >> will you do that in is. >> yes, i will. >> have you watched the video surveillance from the night of the attack? >> i have. >> without going into great detail, would you agree with me -- do you at least see why somebody on the ground might have asked for that piece of equipment given what you and i have seen in the surveillance

video? thinking back to the video, can you see how that might possibly have come in handy that night? >> in my review of what happened and looking at that, i think the agents made the right decisions at that point not to engage. i think that they were equipped with fully automatic weapons, not quite the rate of fire power of a machine gun. i agree that, you know, machine guns can be very menacing and have a tremendous affect. >> they wanted them for the rooftop. i want you to go back if you would and watch the video and see whether or not you conclude the same way that i concluded or not -- i appreciate if you could go back and with specificity i want to know who reviewed that request, who denied that request and is there an appeals process within the state department in

light of these two previous arb recommendations that the secretary of state should take a personal and active review -- that the secretary of state should personally review the security situation, is there an appeals process where someone hypothetically could say, you know what, you are giving me a no but i'm going to take this up the food chain? does that exist? >> yes. >> all the way up to the highest levels of the state department? >> i will tell you that the one thing that the department has that very few other agencies has is the decent challenge. it's a channel that we prize. if you disagree with the decision or the policy that officers in the department of state at all ranks and locations have the ability to send something in at the highest level and say i disagree with something. and it goes to the highest level. >> in june and july of 2012, months before the attack on benghazi, the ambassador himself

requested a security team be extended to stay longer. >> the security team in tripoli. >> yes. but it doesn't take much to imagine him traveling from tripoli to benghazi with an increased security presence, does it? if there is more security in tripoli and he is traveling ii benghazi -- >> when he traveled, he took additional rsos with him. there were additional rsos that could have gone as well. >> for a grand total of how many? >> five at post. >> and how many were there before the footprint was reduced? >> three. >> no, no, no. how many were there before their deployment ended? >> i don't think there was ever more than five at that post, sir. >> in tripoli? >> i'm sorry, in benghazi. >> i'm talking about that the ambassador would have had access to.

because you and i agree the number that he had access to was reduced, despite the fact that he asked for me. >> the military team, the sst team deported -- additional agents were put into post. >> what i want you to find out for me is this. this say presidentially appointed ambassador who made a pretty plaintiff pleading. i will quote it to you. our efforts to normalize security operations have been hindered by a lock of security -- host nation security support, an increase in violence and neither compound meets osbp standards. do you know who said that? >> from your context, i would think it was the ambassador. >> it was the ambassador himself in what i would describe as a pretty plaintiff pleading for some help. this is the response he got. no, i do not -- not want them to ask for the team to stay.

do you know who said that to the ambassador, the presidentially appointed senate confirmed ambassador? >> i believe it was referring to the sst and that might have been ambassador kennedy. >> it could have been. but it was actually charlene lamb. she is not and has not been and is not likely to ever be the secretary of state for this country. so when i see her responding to a presidentially appointed senate confirmed ambassador who is making a pretty plaintiff pleading for some extra help and she says do not not make that request, i want to know whether the ambassador had the ability to go above her head and go straight to the top. and if not, why not? >> the ambassador certainly did have the ability to go over her head. sir, i do think that the one

point that must be discussed is that there was quite a bit of discussion about relieving the sst, the military team that was there and only provided static security at the compound with additional diplomatic security agents who could provide static security and mobile security. i think that was why the decision was made to release the sst. we were replacing it with personnel that actually had more capabilities. >> well, my time is up. but sometimes when everyone is to blame, no one is to blame. and part of the frustration that i believe was so eloquently remarked on was the designation of the facility itself and then you have our heretofore failure to understand what policy would have been so important -- you testified that we have how many

unpersoned posts right now? five? did i hear you correctly, five? you were going through a series of numbers. you said five of those you can discard because they are actually -- there's no one there? >> correct. >> so we do close facility sies? >> yes, sir. >> i'm assuming someone did the weighing and balancing on those five and decided through the miracles of technology or whatever, we don't have to have a physical presence there. you can understand why we would like to know what weighing and balancing went on with respect to libya. and i want to know who saw these requests for extra equipment and personnel, who denied them and whether or not you believe in -- you believe there is a culture in the state department where there would be any consequences for following the dissent channel? because some companies do say, sure, i have an open door policy, but sometimes when you

walk through that open door, your career takes a hit. with that, i want to thank the ranking member and all the other members, thank both of you. you and i can get together pry have a vatly. you discuss a reasonable timetable for getting answers to the questions. with that, the members would have five additional days to put whatever they want, any questions in the record. thank both of you for your time. in your case, twice, if you would convey to the women and men who work for the state department how grateful all of us, irrespective of politics are for their service. with that, we would be adjourned.

if you missed any of today's ben saturday xi hear, watch it in its entirety as well as all of the other ben saturdhearings to today on the website. we have been asking you today, should more resources be put toward diplomatic security? join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. capping weeks of back room talks, house republicans filed a $1.1 trillion year-end spending bill tuesday night. a giant package that's both a last marker for this congress and a first step forward gop control in the next. the action followed a fretful 24 hours of delay and fine tuning

by top leadership who added a la late breaking provision related to the financing of presidential conventions. the abundance of policy writers shows the gop's new clout. but the giant measure reflects a give and take with senate democrats in hopes of avering a government shutdown veto fight with president obama. again, that from politico. the house will meet on the bill this afternoon. almost all of the federal government is funded through september of 2015 except for homeland security had is funded through february of next year. live coverage at 3:00 p.m. eastern today here on c-span3. here are a few of the comments we have received from viewers. >> caller: i'm very interest ed

in the program on the american indians. i didn't watch the whole thing. i came in and found it on when i turned the tv on and watched what i could for about an hour and a half or two hours. this program is absolutely wonderful. and if it's going to be on again, i will get you an even bigger audience by notifying all of the local people and asking them to spread the word. something i've never seen before, and i do watch a lot of c-span. thank you. >> caller: i am calling from pennsylvania about american history tv. i love that channel. every weekend i watch it almost religiously. i love all the history stuff you

have. poli please give us more history programs, history in the sense of, you know, like something before 1950 or 1960. if you want to have these political commentary-type things from the 1970s on, that's fine later or during the week or something. but not during the history weekend. and i really love your history lectures. i like to have another chance to hear that or even see it again several months later. like today instead of what you have on here ranting about how bad the government is. >> caller: i love c-span. i love the non-fiction books. and i love when you have the book fair. i'm always elated on the weekend

watching c-span. it's the best thing i do and it's most fun. my friend teaches history at a junior college. and i never used to be interested in a lot of history. now i am. so thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. today's white house briefing, josh earnest responded to the release of the report on cia interrogation tactics. he talked about the omnibus spending bill in congress. the briefing is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning, everybody.

nice to see you all. appreciate you accommodating the schedule today. we are experimenting with the time a little bit and trying to get ahead of the president's remarks that are slated for 11:50 or so. if we want the briefing to continue, i'm happy to do that. if there are those of you who need to leave, i will not be offended if there's a few people who run to the back of the room at 11:20. let me do one thing before we get to the questions, if you will indulge me. healthcare workers on the front line of the ebola fight. the president could not be prouder of the brave men and women who have committed themselves to the effort in a foreign land. you had an opportunity to meet several of them when the president welcomed them to it the white house in october. several have returned and we have continued to honor them

through measures big and small. we must not forget that in order to bring this epidemic under control on the front lines, the only way to prevent additional cases here in the united states, we need more of these medical professionals. usaid and partners inside and outside of government have sought to recruit and train more. in west after africa we have th capacity to train several hundred per week. efforts are facilitating the work of thousands more on the front lines throughout the effected countries. because of these efforts, we are seeing signs of hope and progress, especially in liberia. these are men and women who deserve international recognition. today we are pleased they are receiving more of it. add that piece of good news. let's get started with the questions. >> a couple of topics. yesterd yesterday, regarding questions about the legality of the

actions discovered in the torture report, you said that that was up to the justice department to make those determinations. i'm wondering if -- does the president, given the content of the report, believe the justice department should be evaluating whether there were any laws broken? does he plan to meet with eric holder to discuss it or with his nominee loretta lynch to discuss the contents? >> i would refer you to the department of justice on this. i do that because it's my understanding that the department of justice actually did conduct a review of the actions of cia operatives that are mentioned in the report, that there was a career federal prosecutor who is assigned to this case and that this individual conducted an extensive inquiry and upon looking at the facts in evidence decided not to pursue an indictment. for questions about what that investigation included and how

and why that conclusion was reached, i would refer you to the department of justice. these are the decisions that should be made without any sort of -- without even the appearance of political interference. so we have been very clear about the proper role for the justice department in this matter. in addition, i understand that there were inspector general investigations, at least one, maybe even two, that were conducted along these lines. the inspector general is something who operates independent of the executive branch. again, for the conclusions of those reports, i believe some of the conclusions have been made public. i would refer you to those reports. those were reports done absent -- aside from any sort of presidential directive. >> does the president agree with former cia officials that the interrogation techniques did result in actionable

intelligence, or does he agree with the senate conclusion that they did not? >> well, jim, you are acknowledging that there are a couple of sides of a very vigorous ongoing debate. this is a debate that occurred around the announcement of the successful mission to take osama bin laden off the battlefield. there was a similarly rebust debate that occurred around the release of the movie that talked and examined issues around the bin laden mission. the conclusion that this president has reached is that these differences, which are held by well meaning patriotic americans, many of whom have detailed knowledge of these programs and of our national security efforts more broadly, is that there actually is one

thing that both sides do agree on, and it's something that the president agrees, too, which is that the most powerful -- one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal to protect and advance our interests around the globe is the moral authority of the united states of america. and the commander in chief concluded that the use of the techniques that are described in this report significantly undermines the moral authority of the united states of america. and that's why the president on his second full day here at the white house issued an executive order ending those tactics. the other thing that the president did -- there's not been a lot of discussion of this lately. did i want to call it to your attention much the president also, through an executive action, asked that the department of justice and a couple of other relevant national security agencies, conduct a review of our -- of the way that the u.s. government intear gates those individuals who are in u.s. custody.

he urged this task force to conduct a way that individuals who are in u.s. government custody are handled and in some cases transferred to other countries. the outcome of this led by a career prosecutor identified a couple of things. the first is he concluded -- this is in august of 2009. he concluded that it the army field manual and law enforcement techniques were sufficient guidance for u.s. personnel who are conducting interrogation, that that was clear guidance that they could use. he also suggested the creation of something that we have used to great affect on a number of occasions, something called the high value detainee interrogation group. this is another terrible government acronym, the hig. that acronym does not accurately describe exactly what this group is. what it essentially suggests is that there should be an interagency group of expert

intear gators convened where they can share best practices and that they can be deployed on very short notice to essentially anywhere in the world where a high value detainee has been taken into custody. and these expert intear gators can use their skills and training to that's useful for national security but in a way that doesn't prohibit our ability to bring these individuals to justice in the u.s. court system. and this is -- the hig has been deployed on a number of occasions to great affect. the other reformed included in the review included specific guidelines that u.s. personnel should use when transferring individuals from the custody of the u.s. government to other countries. and this included getting certain assurances from other countries about how the individuals will be treated when

they are detained. it also provides guidelines for u.s. personnel to provide -- conduct oversight and ensure that the other countries are living up to the commitment they have made in terms of the detention and treatment of these individuals. so this is just one example. this is the result of a task force that the president created on his second day in office to make sure that proper guidance and oversight and reform was implemented as it relates to interrogation and detention of individuals in u.s. custody. this is important because the senate report that was released yesterday highlights that there was not good guidance, that there was not good leadership and there was not proper oversight of a lot of these programs. and yet that's exactly what the president sought to institute on his second day in office. it demonstrates the president's commitment to taking seriously -- very seriously the need to show some leadership and

to reform some of the shortcomings of the programs. >> on the question of effectiveness, he is going to remain agnostic? he's going to let the debate play out without him playing a role? >> the conclusion that the president has reached -- again, it's two things here. the conclusion that the president reached is a principal that people on both sides can agree to, which is that the moral authority of the united states of america is one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal to protect and advance u.s. interests around the globe. it's the view of the president that the use of these techniques, regardless of whether or not they elicit national national intelligence information, undermine our ability to use this powerful tool. that's why the president outlawed the techniques in his first or second day in office. >> on the omnibus, will the president sign it? >> it's lengthy, isn't it? this is something -- >> has he read it? >> he has not. neither has everybody in the

administration. it's something that the administration is reviewing. there are a couple of things i can say about it though that we know generally. as a general matter, i can tell you that we are pleased that democrats and republicans on the hill do seem to be coming together around a proposal that will avoid a government shutdown. we have talked in the past about how a government shutdown is bad for the economy. particularly at this point where we are starting to see some head winds from the global economy at the same time that the u.s. economy is demonstrating signs of real strength and resilience. the last thing that we need are additional headlines -- head winds emanating from capitol hill. so we certainly are pleased that they seem to be coming around to a proposal that would avoid that. you will also recall, jim, that over the course of the last several months there have been a couple of specific requests that this administration made for funding key national security

priorities. that includes funding for our effort to destroy isil. it's our understanding, based on the top line review that's been done of this agreement, that there is -- there are substantial resources that have been committed to that effort. we are gratified by that. you will recall that the administration early last fall made a request for resources to deal with the ebola fight that i talked about earlier, in terms of making sure that we have the resources necessary to stop this outbreak in its tracks in west africa as well as improve readiness at medical facilities here in the united states. again, a top-line review of the agreement does indicate that there are significant resources that are committed to that effort. we certainly are pleased by that. there are also some key funding proposals related to domestic priorities that will benefit the middle class. to take one pertinent example, there's funding in there that is continued for early childhood

education programs, something the president is going to talk about across the street in less than an hour. we are gratified there's a commitment of resources for that important priority. on the other side, republicans had identified as their priority to try to undermine the president's effort to reform our broken immigration system using executive actions and to cut carbon pollution. based on a review of that agreement, it does not appear republicans were successful in that effort. that's something we're gratified by. this is a compromise proposal. democrats and republicans have signed on. that's why we will review -- i'm confident there will be things in here that we're not going to like. we will have to consider the whole package before we make a decision about whether or not to sign it. we will keep you posted on that. >> the bill contains some pretty significant roll back for

dodd-frank reforms. i'm wondering what the white house makes of that and whether that will lead to wall street being move involved in asking for rollbacks on the measures. >> i can't comment on some of the specific proposals. this is a piece of legislation that is 1, is600 pages long. we are conducting a review. we are looking at all the puts and takes included. i'm going to reserve judgment on the individual provisions. let me say as a general matter that one of the president's principal domestic policy achievements is the passage of wall street reform that ensures middle class families and small businessowners have a voice in our financial system, that their interests are represented and protected. that is good for middle class families, good for our economy.

and i think it represents a significant departure from wall street interests that are used to walking around town with their lobbyists getting whatever they want. and i don't think the american people -- i don't think the vast majority of democrats or republicans are going to look too kindly on a congress ready to go back and start doing the bidding of wall street interests again. that will be a decision that republicans will have to make for themselves. i think it's clear where the president stands on that question. it's clear where the american people stand on that question, too. >> you have no specific comments on the rollbacks? >> that's correct. we're still reviewing the broader package. >> back to the report for a second. does the president foresee any repercussions for the cia as a result of the release of the report yesterday? >> i can tell you that the president has strongly supported the release of this report.

and the reason for that is that he believes that transparency is important in this matter. it's important for people to understand that the united states is willing to face up to its shortcomings. and is willing to be honest about the shortcomings and willing to be as candid as possible about our commitment to ensuring that those shortcomings don't occur again. that, i think, the president believes is an important measure of accountability and it's a way for us to demonstrate to the american people, to our friends and allies around the globe what it is the united states stands for. i mentioned in response to jim's question that the president is concerned that the use of those enhanced ed interrogation techniques undermined our moral authority around the globe. one way to rebuild that is to be honest about that, be as

transparent as possible and to demonstrate a commitment to ensure that those things don't happen again. again, regardless of which side you are on this, regardless of which party you represent and which administration you served in, the strengthening of that moral authority is a very substantial way we can contribute to america's national security. >> the president thinks that moral authority, as you put it, can be regained without holding specific individuals accountable for actions they may have taken during that time period? >> i don't think moral authority is something that you rebuild overnight. this is a process. certainly, the release of this report is a critically important step. because it demonstrates a commitment to transparency, accountability in terms of fessing up for falling short. and it also demonstrates a commitment to making sure these kinds of shortcomings don't happen again. that's why the president acted quickly and unequivocally to

outlaw the techniques. it's why the president asked for this task force to review the policies related to interrogations and detentions. and it's why they came out with these specific proposals that again ensure that we are doing everything we can to strengthen our national security and live up to the values that we hold so dear in this country. jim? >> josh, can we get a general reaction from the president when he found out some of the details that were in this report? because there are details in this report -- you mentioned eric holder, justice department looked at this. but there are details that the american people have not seen before. water boarding at levels that were not known before. some of the treatment that was -- the detainees were subjected to. rectal hydration is one term that jumps out when you read this report. did the president just have a general gut reaction when he saw some of the details in this?

>> well, let me say the first thing is that this is a report that was released publically for first time yesterday. the president, as i mentioned a minute ago, the president was supportive of the release of the report. it's not the first time the president has been briefed on these matters. the report has been done for some time. there has been an ongoing effort to declassify it. the president was not in the position yesterday of reacting for the first time in the way that many of you and many americans were. >> is he appalled by this? >> i think the president's views on this are made clear by looking at the specific actions that he has taken to unequivocally outlaw them. the president does not believe these are consistent with american values. he does not believe that this is consistent with the strategy that will strengthen national security or promote our national interests around the world. he thinks it's the opposite. it makes it harder for us to

work closely with our allies and partners around the globe. the release of this report coming clean about what exactly happened and demonstrating a continued commitment to ensuring it never happens again is a critical part of rebuilding that moral authority. >> you said yesterday that the president does stand by his claim that these techniques in some cases amounted to torture? >> he does. >> is that -- isn't that a violation of u.s. law? >> questions about what violates u.s. law and what sort of impact that has on prosecutorial z impact. they looked at it several years ago and reached a conclusion that there was not enough evidence tro pro prosecute any individual. for questions about how it was conducted and how it was reached, i would encourage you to check with the justice

department. >> does the president believe that the new details that the american people are seeing for the first time and people around the world are seeing for the first time, do those details warrant going back and re-examining whether people should be prosecuted? that's a fair question. >> it is. but it's a fair question for the department of justice. >> is the president going to answer that question? does he believe that that should be re-visited? >> that's a -- >> he's the president. >> he is the president. but decisions about prosecution are made by career federal prosecutors at the department of justice. this is something that they have had -- that they looked into it. i think it's also important to -- for people to understand that this report, as important as it is to release it, as far as i know at least, doesn't include a lot of new information that wasn't previously available to the prosecutors. you can ask them whether that's the case. they conducted a review of this already. >> the cia misled the bush administration. president bush did not know about some or all of this until

2006. it's quite -- >> that's a point of contention based on the public comments of some administration officials. >> you're not sure that's the case? you think president bush knew about this before 2006? >> all i'm saying is that there are some people that said that's not true. they would be in hey betta bett position to know than i would. >> you are saying career prosecutors saw all the details that were provided in this report yesterday -- >> you should check with them to find that out. >> okay. let me ask you this. in "the wall street journal" there was an op-ed that said that this intelligence helped lead to the killing of osama bin laden. can you answer whether that is true? >> what i can say is -- >> this is a key question.

it seems that the whitehou hous should have an answer on that. >> i agree with everything until the very end. because simply the president's views on this are that even if this information did yield important national security information, the damage that it did to our moral authority in the mind of this president means that those interrogation techniques should not have been implemented in the first place. the other thing hadthat is true it's impossible to know whether or not this information could have been obtained using tactics that are consistent with the army field manual or our law enforcement techniques. and that essentially enhanced interrogation techniques were not necessary to obtain that information. that is something that is unknowable. what is knowable --

>> he's not short of what senator feinstein's report concludes. >> i understand there are people who have views on both sides. >> the president has concluded that -- there's one thing the president knows. the president knows that continuing to employ the techniques described in that report would only undermine one of the most powerful weapons in our arsenal to protect american national security, and that's the moral authority around the globe of the united states of america. the president believes that that moral authority, that tool is worth protecting and strengthening. that's why he outlawed the techniques. that's why the president directed the department of justice and other members of the national security team to conduct this broad review of the guidelines and interrogati interrogation. and it's why the president has advocated for the united states senate to release this declassified version of the executive summary. because it demonstrates a commitment on the part of the

united states of america to be honest about our shortcomings. when we have fallen short, we should be straightforward about that. we should demonstrate to the world that we made a mistake and that that mistake is never going to happen again. >> on the omnibus, very quickly, does this deal that was cut on the omnibus, does that set up an immigration cliff, a homeland security cliff? you may not have an agreement on funding this department come february or march. >> i would be surprised -- it wouldn't be the first time. but i would be surprised if republicans take the position that they are going to withhold funding from border security, from people who are conducting criminal background checks, from other elements of our federal government that are critical to homeland security just in protest over the president taking an executive action consistent with the actions that democratic and republican presidents have taken in the

past. okay? mike. >> so there was -- the head of the aclu made a proposal the other day, article 2, section 2, does not give the ability to pardon to the -- what does the president think about offering some sort of pardon for people who have conducted the torture of programs? is that something he would think about? >> well, it's hard for me to -- i haven't had an extended conversation with him about this. i'm not sure i can give you a lot insight into his thinking on this. the thing that i can say is that this is something that has been considered by the justice department that they did their own investigation in terms of whether or not crimes occurred that could be prosecuted. essentially, a pardon would

absolve anybody of punishment based on those -- on a criminal finding like that. since a criminal finding like that hasn't been found, it seems premature at this point to talk about a pardon. >> pardons have been used in the past by presidents to absolve people of crimes where charges haven't been brought. i guess kind of the question that it gets at whether or not he would ultimately ever do it or not is has the president decided, notwithstanding whatever the justice department has said, has the president decided in his own mind whether there were crimes committed? >> as i mentioned to jim, that's a decision for career federal prosecutors. >> it's not. because if the president were to exercise the pardon power, he would have to make a determination in his mind. the justice department can't decide whether or not to pardon anybody. he would have to come to a conclusion yes or no in his own

mind. i'm asking -- maybe the answer is he doesn't know. >> i don't know whether he -- i have not had this specific conversation with him. i can't shed much light on his thinking as it relates to a pardon. justin. >> a senator went to the senate floor and discussed the so-called review, which is a classified document. he said the findings of the review were that the director and the cia are continuing to misrepresent torture. he says the cia provided inaccurate information to the senate and he accused the white house of not having any moral concern about the issue. is the concern that the cia is continuing to misrepresent what they told the committee and your

response. >> i put me in an awkward spot because i haven't seen what the senator has said. if he's citing classified information, that's not something i'm going to discuss from here. as it relates to the thing i feel like i can speak authoritatively about, i think it's a clear sign of the president's leadership on the issue that after he had been sitting in the oval office for two days, he issued an executive order unequivocally banning the techniques described in this report. at the say the time at the same time, the president urged or called on his members of his national security team to conduct this review of interrogation policies and of our detention policies in a way that has yielded reforms to the program that report itself says were badly needed. and you have seen the president take the position of strongly encouraging the release of the declassified executive summary of this report. that is an indication that the president has very clear views

on this. he spoke about it on a number of occasions. and i think the president is pretty proud, as he should be, of his efforts to try to rectify many of the shortcomings included in this report. >> you said yesterday that the president retains confidence in the director. does he retain confidence that the cia has not misled congress or lied to congress? >> well, justin, you are asking me to account for a lot of people. we would have the expectation that everybody in this administration, including everybody who works for the central intelligence agency, would be truthful and honest with members of congress, particularly when they are under oath. but it's hard to react to what the senator said without seeing exactly what he said and without being able to discuss the classified report that he says he is relying on. >> quick then, for the omnibus, you said earlier that you have -- there were a couple

provisions i wanted to run by and see if you had any reaction on. there's a provision that kind of rolls back the first lady's school lunch program, cutting out requirements on sodium, whole grains. there's a provision on home rule abortion and marijuana legalization and cuts to the epa. all of these seem like policies that the president or the white house has discussed in the past. i'm wondering if any of them are deal breakers for you. >> they are things the white house is continuing to review. that report, 1,600 pages long. we haven't had 16 hours to review it yet. we will look at those things. i'm confident there will be tlipg things that we don't like. we will review it. as soon as we have a position to articulate, we will let you know. >> coming back, i know you referred a lot of questions on the justice department, but i'm asking about the president's view.

does the president accept the justice department's decision that there is no crime that's prosecuted? they have decided not to prosecute. that's a fact. but does the president accept the conclusion of his own justice department there are no prosecutable crimes committed here? >> that's the way that our criminal justice system works, which is we have career federal prosecutors insulate from political interference, even the appearance of political interference, and the president accepts that's the way the system works. >> so he -- i understand how the system works. career prosecutors aren't -- i'm asking about the president's personal views as being somebody who is so opposed to this program and seeing what he has seen and what he has known about for a long time, does he personally believe there were no crimes committed here? >> that is a question, again, that is -- that's not a question for the president of the united states. it's not the president of the united states who conducts a

criminally inquiry into the actions of somebody who works at the cia. that's the responsibility of a career prosecutor, can do so without any political interference and can conduct an investigation and reach a conclusion based on their own view of the facts. that's the way that our criminal justice system works. the president has confidence in the criminal justice system. he has confidence in the professionalism of the prosecutors who reviewed the matter. that's a conclusion for them to draw, not for the president. >> it's yes or no. i think you are asking question. the president accepts the decision of the justice department, the finding of the justice department that there were no prosecutable crimes committed by the cia? >> this is something that a federal career prosecutor has looked at carefully. they did so without any political interference, as they should. that's the way our criminal justice system continues to work. the president has confidence in

the justice system and the way it was deployed in this particular situation. >> he accepts no crimes committed? >> the president, again, is confident that we have had federal career prosecutors who took a look at this, they used extensive resources to review all of the relevant materials. i suspect they interviewed witnesses. this is part -- >> no crimes worth prosecuted and the president accepts this in. >> there's a process in place administered by professionals who did who they were supposed to do in taking a careful look at this. they reached their own conclusions. the president believes firmly in their competence and in the system. >> i want to ask you a direct question. >> i will try to give you a direct answer. >> i would appreciate a direct answer. >> i will do my best. >> the president nominated john brennan to be his cia director. >> yes. >> john brennan -- >> nailed it.

>> no further questions. john brennan, the president's cia director, has said that this program, these harsh interrogations, what the president has called torture, provided valuable and unique intelligence that helped save lives. a point bla-blank question. does the president agree that this program saved lives? >> john, this is the thing. the president has been very clear about what he believes about these programs. >> he hasn't been clear on this question. has he? >> he has been clear about the most important question. the most important question -- >> did it save lives? >> the most important question is should we have done it. the answer to that question is no. the president does not believe that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques was good for our national security he does not believe it was good for our moral authority.

he believes it undermined our moral authority. that's why he banned it. the other thing the president has been clear about, and he talked about this at some length in the interview did he yesterday, where he was asked about -- i believe -- he was asked specifically if he were president of the united states at the time in the aftermath of 9/11, would he have made the same decisions that president bush did. the president was clear about how difficult an environment that was. that there was intense pressure that was put on the federal government and members of our national security team to keep the american people safe. the president is very sympathetic to how difficult it was for everybody to operate in that environment. all the more reason that we can be clear and unequivocal now about how the united states will never again implement the use of enhanced interrogation techniques because it undermines

our moral authority, which the president views, and i think everybody can agree on this, is one of the most powerful tools to protect the interests of the united states of america. >> john brennan has come out and provided specific examples of where this program saved lives. i'm trying to get at -- i understand the president thinks it was the wrong thing to do. but did it save lives? >> john -- >> continuing to mislead the american public and congress as the senate intelligence committee -- >> the president has relied on the advice of john brennan. he is somebody the president relied on on a daily basis. mr. brennan worked here in the white house for four years as a homeland security advice. he has continued his service as the director of the cia. the president believes he has done an exemplary job.

the president is pleased that he is able to rely on the advice of a dedicated professional like mr. brennan to protect the united states and our interests. >> but is he right on this? this is not a small question. >> it's not a small question. but it's a smaller question than whether it's worth it. because of the way they undermine the moral authority of the united states and because the moral authority of the united states is such a powerful weapon, the president does not believe that those kinds of techniques should be used. >> but the cia -- >> that's why he acted to unequivocally outlaw them. he did so in his second day in office. >> the cia said yesterday that these tactics provided information that helped prevent another mass casualty attack. if that is true, if these tactics helped prevent a mass

casualty attack, lots of american lives, lives of our allies, how can the president say they weren't worth it? better to see the lives lost? >> of course not. >> that's what the cia is saying. >> but what the president believes is that our moral authority it's critically important to representing our interest and protecting the united states of america and that the use of these techniques undermines that authority. it degrades our ability to coordinate with our allies and partners all around the globe. it hurts our standing in the world. that's why the president is committed to rebuilding that moral authority. one way we can do that, one important step is releasing this report, acknowledging our shortcomings, being as transparent as possible and being just as clear about the commitment that this president and his administration has to ensuring that they are never used again. >> last question, mark udall in

speech, he said there should be a purge of senior leadership at the cia. what's your response to the suggestion there should be a purge of top cia leadership? >> well, i spoke at length about the director and his credentials and the president's confidence in him and the role he played in protecting the united states. the president continues to believe that the men and women our intelligence community are dedicated professionals. these are patriots, show up on a daily basis, work behind the scenes and don't get the recognition because of the nature of their jobs about the contribution that they make to our national security. the president is grateful for their work. >> thank you. you talked about american moral authority around the world and the president in one of the interviews last night said willingness to admit mistakes, he held that up as a good thing.

the president saying it's contrary to who we are, this interrogation is contrary to who we are. is it notle also contrary not t prosecute those guilty of crime? >> well, i will just say as a general matter, mike, that the united states is committed to complying with its domestic and international obligations and we believe that the united states justice system is the appropriate place for allegations about conduct by u.s. officials to be handled. and as we have discussed here at some length, there was an independent department of justice criminal investigation that was conducted. there have been at least two independent inspector general vexes that have been conducted. and -- >> all the facts -- [ inaudible ] >> the white house doesn't have any position?

>> the department of justice, because the white house was not involved in the investigation these conducted would be able to tell you whether or not they learned anything new through the senate report. ed? >> josh, following up on john's questioning about john brennan, you also have as the fbi chief, james comey, who served in the bush justice department, and helped endorse the legal memo, the legal memo blessing water boarding and other enhanced techniques. how could the president appoint john brennan and james comey to two of the most sensitive jobs in this administration, cia and fbi, if he believes they endorsed un-american arctics? >> well, ed, i can tell you that mr. comey falls in the same category as mr. brennan in terms of somebody who -- whose advice the president is pleased he can rely on to keep the country safe. mr. comey is somebody who does have a strong track record and there have been other instances, even in his service in the previous administration, where

he stood up for and advocated for important civil liberties protections and this is somebody -- >> you're attacking bush administration policies but you have two of the architects of those policies serving in two of the most -- >> i don't think that's fair description. i don't think that is a fair description. >> john brennan, served in the bush administration as well. >> i don't think it is fair to describe him as an architect. >> you don't see any contradiction between him endorsing the policies the president attacking -- >> what i can tell you is the president of the united states has complete confidence in the professionalism of these individuals and complete confidence these two individuals who serve in important leadership positions on his national security team are following the law and doing everything necessary to protect the american people. and the president is pleased with their service. >> the two days ago, you very directly said these policies did not make us safer. former vice president cheney says that's crock and a bunch of hooey. how do you respond? >> this is not the first time and probably not the last time

that this administration strongly disagrees with the views articulated by vice president cheney. he is someone who said that deficits don't matter. also somebody who predicted that american troops would be welcomed as liberators in iraq. so he's got not a particularly strong track record when it comes to articulating a policy that this president believes is in the best interest of the country. >> vice president cheney has such a weak crack record on those very issues, why, as john said, why does this president, not president bush, but this present cia director basically agree with dick cheney that these tactics save lives, your cia director agrees with him. >> for questions on mr. brennan's position on these issues, i would direct you to the cia. they can explain them to you. i don't think he would say that he agrees wholeheartedly with vice president dick cheney. you have should ask him. >> the program saves lives. >> again, i don't think their views are the same. >> you have repeatedly talked about moral authority. so, can you explain how the president believes that it is

un-american to use these techniques but it was okay to ramp up the drone policy and basically thousands of people around the world, innocent civilians were killed? what's moral equivalency there? how do you have moral authority when innocent civilians are killed by drones? >> well, i think that the difference here, ed, a stark difference in the way that the united states conducts our policy and the way that terrorists around the world conduct their policy, that there is significant care taking and there are significant checks and balances that are included in the system to ensure that any counterterrorism action taken by the united states of america does not put at risk innocent lives. >> they do in the end. i understand there are safeguards, in the end, seen many case around the world where u.s. drones have killed innocent civilians despite those safeguards. how do you have moral authority? >> i'm saying that is a spark difference from the tactics employed by our enmoyse seek to use car bombs to target innocent

civilians. >> no one's defending the terrorist tactics. >> but you're asking about a moral authority, i think there is a -- there is a very clear difference between the tactics that are used by terrorists and the counterterrorism tactics employed by the united states of america that go to great lengths to protect the lives of innocent civilians. many of these terrorists that we are talking about again, many of these counterterrorism activities that are used against terrorists are targeting terrorists that themselves are targeted local populations, targeted fellow muslims in some situations. so the efforts that are taken by this administration to limit or to prevent inspect civilian casualties are consistent with our values and are consistent with our broader strategy, protecting the american people. last one. you have said many times that secretary kerry, secretary hagel, concerns u.s. installations around the world are on high alert right now.

related to that today, republican trey gowdy and his benghazi committee citing an inspector general report that said many installations around the world, beyond the benghazi installation, are not completely safe now and that there are real security gaps. agree with that, disagree with that and do you plan to have any senior officials here testify to that committee or -- 'cause previously you said if there's fair oversight on the hill, we will send people up there >> that's right. >> susan rice, others, will they testify? >> i will say a couple things about that. the administration, i think, has been pretty clear about our desire to dedicate significantly more resources to ensuring that we are protecting u.s. facilities around the globe. it's my understanding that there are a number of occasions where republicans on capitol hill have actually blocked funding for those kinds of priority and that's something that we have been pretty frustrated by and i do think it raises some questions about the political motivation of some republicans

who are criticizing the administration. i will say as a general matter that the administration will continue to cooperate with legitimate oversight. i think it remains to be seen whether the eighth inquiry into the benghazi matter coming on the heels of a republican-authored report that actually absolves the administration of any involvement in the many conspiracy theories floated by those on the right-wing, but we will have to wait and see whether or not there is any legitimacy to the questions asked by this particular committee. okay? april? >> as it relates to the torture reports and findings, when there is ever something wrong, especially when it's relationships between this country and islamic people around the world, there seems to be an outreach. did the president reach out to the leaders of any of the countries that have a large population of muslims there to talk to them, to apologize, to say this would never happen again, et cetera? >> well, april, i can tell that

you i don't -- i'm actually not in a position to read out any specific presidential conversations about the potential release of this report with other heads of state. the president obviously has an open line of communication with many world leaders, including the king of jordan, who was just here last week, i frankly don't know whether they discussed the impending release of this report just because i'm not in a position to read out any presidential conversations about this report. >> this is a very big issue, when this president first came into off, he really made a point to reach out to many of the heads of these nations to say, look, we are trying to tamp down any kind of escalation of jihadist activities and to show you we are not the country that may have been -- may have perceived us as. so, where is this white house when it comes to possibilities of continued outreach efforts of

the report? >> let me say a couple things about that, we have talked quite a bit about the -- about the success of the united states has had and the president has had in building a broad international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. some of the members of that vñ muslim countries. and to have those muslim countries working closely with the united states to go after a group like isil i think speaks volumes about the suck that the president has had in strengthening our cooperation with regional partners as we confront this shared threat. we even have muslim countries flying fighter jets alongside american pilot and dropping bombs on isil targets in syria, something that i think even a few months ago was, if not up thinkable, at least a proposition that many impartial observers viewed scentically.

they didn't think that these muslim countries would ever join the united states in effort, but yet we have fighter pilots from the uae and from jordan and from other muslim countries in the region who are flying along side american pilots and dropping bombs on isil targets. that demonstrates the success that this president has had in strengthening our relationship with countries in this region, this volatile region of the world, but also in building strong ties with other countries around the world. we have also gotten significant cooperation from other more traditional al like allies likew france, the uk, belgium, the netherlands, canada, australia and denmark. these are countries that are actually flying combat missions over the skies of iraq, again, alongside american military pilots. that is an.emy indication that have strengthened our relationship with countries in the region and around the world and we have done so in a way that