tax sales revenue if you're a startup company you done have a profit. why would we put a 2.3% tax on the sales of a startup company. this on so many levels is rather disturbing when you think about it. this is an industry that already faces some challenges in terms of the regulatory approval process through the food and drug administration. this is an industry that we ought to be looking at to figure out a way to allow the tri-to work better and instead the affordable care act created this additional tax. this tax started this year in 203. it's already -- the industry collectively has paid over $1 billion through yull of this year. this is real money. real money. what we're doing is taking an industry that as i said was successful and we're saying in sopt respect -- some respects giving them incentive to move offshore. . we want them to sell hair dire their product offshore. that's how powerful this industry is to the exporting

industry. this industry contributes in a positive way to our balance of payments with the rest of the world. we've been running the trade deficit, not because the medical device industry, they've been part of the solution to that challenge of the trade deficit. and here in the public policy world, a tax has been assessed on that industry. it just doesn't make sense. i just want to close by once again mentioning my admiration and appreciation for mr. paulson who has been a leader on this issue. we've got the 260 co-sponsors on this bill. we've got the votes to pass this. the senate earlier this year, during consideration of their budget resolution, in more of a symbolic vote, but on medical device tax, had a bipartisan majority come together as well to suggest we should get rid of this tax. for all the controversy that dominates washington today, for all the partisan bickering, for all the polarization, for all the gridlock, here we have an issue where we all agree it's the right thing to do. i again thank my colleague for organizing this opportunity to

talk about this issue tonight and collectively i hope we ken courage more momentum to bring -- we can encourage more momentum to bring this up for a vote. i yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman. he made several important comments that we've heard from some of the other folks that represent districts across this country. mr. paulsen: and particular he made the reference point that 261 co-authors of this bill. mr. speaker, we can pass this in the house at any time. there's no doubt we can do that at any time. we did it last year, actually a year and a half ago when we passed the repeal of this device tax but it did get road blocks in the senate. 79 senators voting in favor of repealing this device tax as a part of their budget, symbolic vote, as he mentioned, is nothing to scoff at. and that's something where i think we need to continue to put bipartisan pressure on our leadership, on the senate leadership, to move that issue forward so we can do the right thing and see that this repeal happen before the end of this year. and i thank the gentleman for his leadership in that effort. mr. speaker, i just want to now

introduce someone who is from indiana's ninth congressional district. he has been a real partner for repealing the device tax on the ways and means committee, he's a pro-growth economic advocate for creating jobs in -- creating jobs. indiana as a state i think has 20,000 medical device jobs. this is near and dear i think to his heart as well. i with great pleasure have a chance to yield to mr. young from indiana. mr. young: thank you so much. i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, a bipartisan issue. and i am encouraged to see so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle be here with us this evening to speak out, to encourage our leadership, to encourage our fellow members to stay engaged on this. in the end, in the end this is about improving lives. this is about delivering innovation within one of our highest growth economic sectors.

so that lives can be changed in a very positive way. and to bring this sort of down to earth here, a sigh -- aside from the very important economic statistics that we'll be citing this evening, related to jobs and economic growth and losses in revenue, aside from the stories that we're going to hear this evening about manufacturing facilities being moved overseas, plans to build them no longer in the midwest, in a place like indiana. instead europe is a better place to do business. let's set all that aside for just a moment and talk about one individual. this young lady, her name is sheila frazier, now, sheila is a hoosier and she testified at a field hearing on the device tax and its impact on the individuals who benefit from medical devices and on businesses. this field hearing was held in indianapolis a document of years back and mr. paulsen helped

convene it and we appreciated that. but sheila testified that at age 10 she was diagnosed with bone cancer in her leg. she was an elite athlete for her age, playing gymnastics and track, and one day she just woke up facing the prospect of amputation of all things. at age 10. biomet, a company out of indiana, made a custom device for sheila designed to expand as she grew. and to replace the diseased bone while saving her leg. now, today sheila's much older. she lead as normal, active life. when we first met she was a nior in high school in indiana. her courses were geared for college preparation, she received honors for a g.p.a. of 3.5 or above. she's maybe of the national honor society.

now, ms. frazier no doubt has a bright future ahead of her. we have to wonder how differently her life might be were it not for the innovation that occurred at that indiana medical device company. innovation in devices changes lives. thousands of lives every year across this country. she's just one remarkable example of all the people that benefit from these devices. and without this type of innovation, let's think about what sheila's life would look like. well, sheads be physically disable -- well, she'd be physically disabled. she'd face a future of sky-high health care costs. who knows what sort of opportunities she wouldn't be able to seize as a result of the innovations that came out of biomet. just one company. now, taxing companies that rely so much on research and development and are positively impacting so many lives just

makes absolutely no sense to me. the only wayky make any measure of sense out of -- way i can make any measure of sense out of it is something that mr. matheson said earlier. this medical device surtax wasn't included in the affordable care act, what the president calls obamacare, for any sort of policy reason. it was just put in to raise revenue. there's no real consideration when this bill was passed about how to make the bill sustainable from a fiscal standpoint. instead it was an insurance coverage bill and they were going to figure out some of the financials later. and so this was one effort i think to mitigate the cost of the bill. we discovered that it's just incredibly costly in other ways, though. the opportunity costs that will be borne by people like sheila frazier if this innovation doesn't occur. so, for sheila and for millions of americans, tens of millions

of people around the world that benefit from these devices, i think we owe it to them to repeal this medical device tax, a very bipartisan issue, a bicameral issue. my constituents are demanding it , the american people are increasingly demanding it across the country. and so i just look forward to getting this done in conjunction with those here and others in this body. i yield back. mr. paulsen: thank you. i look forward to continue working with you to repeal this device tax. and as you laid out so eloquently, i had a chance to come to indiana and i heard the same exact story from a young girl impacted and affected positively by the value of medical technology and medical innovation. and unfortunately now that's under threat. under threat. for our own patients, providing that type of access. and someone who's going to share

a little bit more, knowing a personal -- having a personal reflection and a personal story about that, is the gentleman from kentucky's sixth district, mr. barr, whose father recently is the beneficiary of medical innovation. and so i yield to the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr: i thank my friend, the gentleman from minnesota, my friend, the gentleman from indiana, and i want to compliment both of the gentlemen here and my friends on the other side of the aisle for their leadership and in particular the gentleman from minnesota who has been an absolute champion in advocating life-improving and life-saving technologies that really stand a chance of declining as a sector of our economy and more importantly declining as an opportunity for americans and people all around this world to achieve a better life, a better way of life. and to actually have an opportunity to live because of

some of this life-saving technology. the medical technology industry impacts all of us, all over this country. the medical device industry is in virtually every state. t it's in my home state, the commonwealth of kentucky, as well. kentucky has over 7,500 jobs in the medical technology industry. the med-tech job multiplier factor in kentucky guarantees that for every one job in the commonwealth's medical technology sector, 1.8 additional jobs are created as a result. and these jobs are responsible for over $364 million in total personal income. and $1.3 billion in annual output for kentucky. according to the study, the medical device tax could cost kentucky over 100 jobs in this high-paying, high-tech sector. but as my friends have noted

tonight, this is not just about jobs, it's not just about economic growth or free enterprise and the opportunities that these companies create for workers and for people, it's really about creating a quality of life for so many kentucky families. this truly is a life or death decision. there's a lot of reasons why i oppose obamacare. but tonight you're seeing something happen on obamacare that we haven't seen as much. and that is a huge bipartisan outpouring of opposition to this particular feature of obamacare, the medical device tax. a tax on the revenues of medical device manufacturers, not on the profits, but the revenues, a job-killing, innovation-destroying tax that absolutely should be repealed and we should do it sooner rather than later. but there's a human dimension to this. there's a reason why we should repeal this tax and it's because it is going to compromise the quality of health care that

americans and people all over this planet receive because of the innovation of the medical technology sector. this innovation has benefited my own family in a profound way recently. benefited actually two members of my family. the gentleman from minnesota was mentioning my father, and certainly my father is the beneficiary of a pace maker. and it was just -- pacemaker. and it was just december 25 last year, christmas day last year, i got a call from my mother and she told me my father had fainted, he had a fainting spell and that obviously worried me and my wife and so i picked up the phone and asked to speak to my father and i did and he was a little shaky and encouraged him to stop drinking the coffee and call us back if he needed anything. about an hour later, again christmas morning, we were planning on going over to his home to see him later that day, i got another phone call.

this time again from my mother, but this time it was from the emergency room. and it was very alarming and she said, you need to get over here right away. so i got in the car and sped over to the e.r. and walked in there and i was greeted by the emergency room physician and he said that my father was in a room getting an e.k.g. and i went over there and he showed me the tape of the e.k.g. and it showed his -- basically a flat line. and i said, what does that mean? he said, andy, your father's heart is slowing down. now, that is a very grim report from an emergency room physician, i can tell you. and i know families all across this country experience difficult health care emergencies in their families as well. but i asked the doctor, i said, well, what are we going to do about this? he said, we're going to call in an electrofissyoling expert, and we're going to take a look at

this. the expert came in, he said, we got good news. we can fix your father. we can put in a pacemaker in emergency cirque surgery -- surgery and we really think we can fix this problem. otherwise he's in good health. it's just that he has an electrical problem with his cardiovascular system and so my father went in to emergency surgery, got a pacemaker, a great new piece of technology put into hi his heart. when he came out of -- into his heart. when he came out of surgery, the doctor checked everything and everything was great and this pacemaker had saved my father's life. another story, my sister, emily, two years older than me, she has suffered from juvenile resume toid arthritis her entire life juvenile ile -- arthritis her entire life. you know what a disabling condition this can be. and it eats away at the joints.

and emily's a brave person. she's a very optimistic person. but she's gone through a lot. and one of the things she's had to go through is hip replacement surgery. and knee replacement surgery. and when anyone who is an athlete and gets hip replacements or joint replacements or suffers from arthritis, and has to have these surgeries, you know that this is critical in order to become functional in your life. and fortunately through the innovation of medical devices, through the unbelievable entrepreneurial spirit, american medical device manufacturers have come up with prosthetic hips and joints and knees and those innovations, those medical devices were implanted in my sister's broken and disabled body and she can walk because of that. and hundreds and thousands

even millions of americans can walk because of the unbelievable innovation of medical device manufacturers. and this summer, my sister had to have a couple of hip revisions because it had been 15 years, so she had two surgeries, new implants into her hips so she can continue to function, disabled, but still function and do all the things she can do to serve her community and her family. now, mr. speaker, i tell these stories not because my family is unique. you know what? there are families all around this country sitting at home who can tell stories just like what i told, about my father and the pacemaker and my sister and the prosthetic joints that she now has that help her in her daily life. there are all kinds of stories.

sheila, congressman young was talking about in the state of illinois, this has a human dimension to it and obamacare is bad policy for a lot of reasons, but on this particular reason, we need to come together as a country. and it was great to see our friends on the other side of the aisle come and join us in the job-killingeal this medical-device tax, which is really impairing the quality of life for so many americans and has the potential to really suppress medical innovation and improve lives. in a note of bipartisan optimism, in a time of conflict and divided government in washington, the truth be told, there's no such thing as a republican heart attack or a democrat heart attack. there is no such thing as a republican arthritis or a democrat arthritis. the human condition is such that we face our challenges in our

lives and our loved ones and families face these. why would we support a policy in washington, d.c. that limits the innovation that can better the human condition? and that's what i would say in conclusion, mr. speaker, and my friends and colleagues, here tonight, let's repeal this medical device tax. let's help american families all around this country and let's help the human condition to make sure that they have the opportunity for health and achieve their potential. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time and i appreciate the gentleman's leadership. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for sharing his personal perspective how medical innovation has helped his family members. you know what? thousands and thousands and thousands of americans have a friend or a family member that

can share that exact same story and that is uniquely american and we are exporting these around the world to help and improve and save lives. where did the medical device tax come from. my constituents ask, why would we have a tax on innovation? when the health care law was being debated, we need to find revenue. let's do a $40 billion tax on the medical device industry. we won't make it $40 billion but $20 billion but it is $30 billion and despite all of our best efforts, bipartisan support on the floor, this tax is in effect. it is being collected. first payments began being collected in january. every two weeks they get collected, same amount of time companies do payroll every two weeks. what do the company owns have to

do? are they going to hire more workers and they have to pay that tax. close to $2 billion has already been collected. like bleeding a patient every two weeks in the hopes of making them stronger. it just doesn't make sense. the reality is this medical tech noling faces the highest tax rates in the world. we have a high corporate tax rate. but this tax alone, this new tax, it's killing jobs. literally about 10,000 layoffs that happened across the country because of the tax on sales and revenue and not on profit. and the federal government usually, when they do an excise tax, they apply that type of a x to sin goods, alcohol or tobacco, when you are trying to discourage consumption. why are we discouraging the

development of medical technologies. this is about competitiveness. innovation is about providing cutting-edge technologies to patients. i want to share more statistics. between 1980 and 2000, new diagnose gnostic and treatment tools increased life expectancy by more than three years. medicaltax is hampering innovation at a time when our population is aging. and innovation can absolutely help reduce the burden of chronic disses which represents 70% of all health care costs. mr. speaker, the larger companies, they'll cut back on their research and development. as i mentioned earlier, there are a lot of smaller companies in my district and congressman young's district in indiana, because i had a chance to visit these companies in indiana, and ny of these -- 88 % of these

companies employ 50 employees or less. many of these companies when they start out, it becomes eight to 10 years to become profitable. they need to attract venture pital and investors and when you tax revenue. many of these companies are burning $500,000 to $1 million a month to bring their product forward, go through the clinical trials, get approval in the f.d.a. and have success in the market. that's a big challenge. and eight to 10 years to become profitable, sometimes even longer, we have raised the hurdle because of the tax, we have raised the bar and made it that much tougher to become profitable. there will be fewer investors in these companies and less of them. when you have small companies being developed, what does that mean? you aren't going to have

break-through technologies or backyard inventions. and a lot of medical device companies, they look for the small companies, the innovators and acquire them and grows their operations larger. that's a challenge as well. mr. young, i remember when i was in indiana with you, we can share some more stories, but this is clearly something an ongoing frustration. mr. young: this hits close to ome because for every zi mmp mer or biomed there are four or ve small businesses that merire to become the next zim of the world. the lean years, when they are

trying to get a product approved into market. with entrepreneurship at a 15-year low, we need to be doing everything conceivable for people to start businesses, grow jobs, increase personal incomes, which is exactly what this medical device sector has done in recent years. but it's all in jeopardy as a result of this surtax. i'm in the mood to tell stories. you have opened the door there, my good friend, mr. paulsen from minnesota. let me share with you another story about innovation. a young college student out of northwestern university, he dreamed one day of becoming a doctor and studied incredibly hard. when he graduated, the u.s. military came calling. and he was brought into the service against his will, drafted, served his time as a

medical technician. well, he got married later and they had children and one thing led to another and after moving my hometown of bloomington, indiana. this inspiring doctor, he didn't give up. he and his wife, they decided to try and make a difference in the area of medicine in their own little way. he started tinkering with some wire guides in a spare bedroom of their apartment in bloomington. this turned into a small business, a profitable business and were able to hire people and move out of the spare bedroom and in later years, this company would grow to become the largest privately-held medical device company in the world, the cook group, head quartered in bloomington, indiana. his founder is bill cook and wife gail who survives him.

ey have created thousands of jobs not just in bloomington and all over the midwest and creating them in europe. not because they want to. there were plans i'm told for a number of manufacturing facilities to be built in america's midwest. but because of our regulatory burdens and more importantly this medical device surtax, the plans were changed and those manufacturing facilities are now going to be constructed and jobs created in europe, because that's a better place to do business when they looked at their financials. they tried hard. they resisted making this decision, but their federal government pushed them in this direction. you know, there is still an opportunity to salvage so many jobs, to rescue this great american industry that's really

in its early stages of development. we must repeal this medical device tax. this is a no-brainer, as my oldest child says. it's a bipartisan issue. so i'm really encouraged to see republicans and democrats down here this evening trying to ensure that the next cook group can be created, the next cook group won't be strangled in the cradle during its early years when it is trying to get cash flow positive and i'm glad we are getting the word out to the american people on this important issue. mr. paulsen: i remember being in indiana and having a chance to talk to cook medical and great success story without a doubt, located right there in the heartland. and i do remember, though, their concerns of the looming tax that was on its way and they were

pretty clear and they said we have the opportunity to build new factories, new innovative head quarter operations and not going to do it in the united states with this tax facing us. we are going to expand elsewhere and unfortunately tonight we heard how other companies have oved to costa ric arch and spending jobs offshore, jobs that should be here in the united states. remember in my hometown in minnesota, and this is a very all and early stage med-tech companies. and others are in the same category and the c.e.o. said the device tax has put our hiring on hold. so now, sunshine heart officials, they have to sit back and determine how much or what the levy -- how it's going to affect their cash flow. it's all about cash flow as they

try to achieve that profitability. we have someone who is a member of the energy and commerce committee, which has oversight over the f.d.a. and congressman gardner has been a champion for streamlining and modernizing the f.d.a. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from minimum sote and gentleman from indiana and sharing your experience with the medical device industry in your great state. i want to walk through the experiences that i have had in colorado when it comes to innovation and medical technology and some of the things i have seen firsthand. couple of weeks ago i went to a usiness in colorado that developed technology to do surgery on people's spinal cord and insert a a tool into a person's back like a ratchet you use in your garage but a precise

ratchet you develop to put into a person's spinal cord and to tighten a bolt if they had a break or something that needed to be fastened to save someone's life or put someone's life back together. and the neat thing about this technology is that you could actually view on the monitor as you are doing this surgery, you could view as the tool is inserted into the back, you could see where it was on this screen and it immobilized the patient so there -- it minimized the side effects and injury to the spinal cord. . . this tool had an electric current running through it so it would also be allowing a surgeon to cotterize tissue as they were able to perform life-saving surgery. but these tools cost millions of

dollars to invent. they cost millions of dollars to research and to develop. they cost millions of dollars to get into surgery rooms around the country, to save life. and as we talk about innovation, as we talk about the need to create opportunities for businesses in colorado and indiana, in minnesota, around this country to grow. we talk about the need to keep that investment happening. but the company told me that over the 10-year course of their business, the medical device tax will run them somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars. because of the nature of the medical device tax. when i ask what the device that we were looking at cost, they said, tens of millions of dollars. so, take that tax, take it out -- that money, that revenue that could go into investment, to creating the next life-saving technology, that take out of that business -- take that out

of that business and you no longer have a life-saving technology because they didn't have the money available to develop that life-saving tool. and so what the medical device tax is doing is it's removing money from the private sector. it's removing their ability to invest money and to innovate -- into innovative technologies that safe lives. and as we talk about the future of the president's health care bill in this country, we talk about the need for quality care, to reduce the cost of care, to increase the quality of care, but it's not doing that through the device tax. because it's penalizing innovative businesses for their success, it's taking away their opportunities to develop new technologies, to create that next cotterizing tool, the next spinal cord tool, to build a better life for people. and so as we debate the health care bill, as we debate the future of health care legislation in this country, i hope that people will realize that we shouldn't penalize opportunities to create better

tools in health care. that we shouldn't penalize success for innovation. and in a state like colorado in a state like ours, indiana, yours in minnesota, i do hope that we can come together in a bipartisan fashion, to repeal the medical device tax. so that we can actually allow that money to be invested where it matters. and that's in saving lives. and so i thank my colleague from minnesota for his tremendous leadership, the gentleman from indiana for your leadership in making sure that people understand it's not just about a tax, but it is indeed about the opportunity to invest in saving lives. mr. paulsen: thank you very much for your leadership as well on the energy and commerce committee. and for understanding the value of keeping these life-saving and life-improving technologies alive and well and in a state like colorado, i know your heart goes out to some other challenges in colorado right now, with the flooding, etc., but i know that innovative and

entrepreneurial spirit will see colorado through that situation as well. thank you. mr. speaker, i want to mention one other thing and my colleague from the ways and means committee i think can comment on this a little bit as well. there's no doubt this is about less invasive technology. this is about keeping people out of the hospital. it's about keeping health care and lowering health care costs and this is a very complicated tax. this is not just a simple tax. it's collected every two weeks. every single two weeks. and so a $30 billion tax, it's actually very extremely challenging for companies to figure out how they're going to collect the tax, it's pretty onerous. so, it's more complicated than a typical excise tax. it's regulated by the i.r.s., of course. the complexity and the difficulty in developing these regulations for the tax actually underscores an excise tax, it's a very blump and -- blunt and danieling instrument that's being applied to -- damaging instrument that's being applied to a very good strifment the ompliance costs are very hard.

>> they are indeed and the numbers add up quickly. right now we're looking at, you indicated we're looking at a semimonthly payment of this tax by our device companies. mr. young: roughly $100 million is due to the internal revenue service semimonthly as a result of this tax, and those numbers add up quickly. the r in fiscal year 2013, taxes already cost device manufacturers nearly $2 billion. and next year is looking even worse. next fiscal year, starting october 1, the device tax is projected to cost manufacturers over $2.5 billion. so, you know, this -- once again, these taxes are not just being pate by the large companies -- paid by the large companies, they're being paid by companies that are drawing on all their financial wrble, all the venture capital they can find, all their personal savings

, all the community bank loans they may be able to get during these rough times. those moneys are being used to -- with a thread-bare budget, to research and develop these technologies into something that can finally make their way to the market and all the while, uncle sam is taxing away any profits they might be realizing on another product that may lready be at market. so this is absolutely something that's a disincentive to innovation. it undermines job creation at a time that all politicians are .alking about creating jobs these are good jobs, manufacturing jobs. we need to be creating more manufacturing jobs here in the united states so these pay better than your median or your average wage in a given state.

this is why we have 79 supporters in the united states senate. republican and democrat, and i think perhaps an independent in here, one never knows. here in the house we have 260 co-sponsors for rel poo -- for repealing the device tax. republican and democrat. so let's get it done. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman. i have to share a story as well. because this is about high-valued manufacturing, without a doubt. and there's a story just in an editorial in the detroit news just the other day and it see essentially highlights, you know, a successful michigan business, fortune 500 company striker. it's based in kalamazoo. and they were pretty clear, talking about how the new 2.3% medical device tax will cost the company $100 million this year alone. that's going to reduce its research and development, budget by about 20%.

which is the equivalent of the loss of 1,000 workers. 1,000 workers. that's something we should not be -- we can't afford to be talking about laying off thousands of more people when the economy is struggling as it is. we should be flying at 30,000 feet after we came out of the recession and we're bumping along at 10,000 feet and there's a lot of reasons for that. but the medical device tax is really crippling an industry that could help lead the way out of that recession as well. mr. speaker, i just want to mention one other thing that i think is important as well. and that's that, as my colleague mentioned, 79 senators, we know the senators support -- 79 senators support this device tax. the problem is with the senate leadership. we need to pressure the senate leadership to bring this for a vote. we can do this in the house at any time. we'll likely be doing that sometime this fall as a part of the other budget negotiations and discussions. but we've got to make sure that our bipartisan efforts continue to pressure our leadership to

act on this and convince the white house, this is a top priority. my colleague would agree i would assume. mr. young: i would absolutely agree. i throw another wrinkle into this conversation. we need to be identifying ways to control health care costs. whatever one thinks of the patient protection and affordable care act, as the president's health care law is known, we're not here to discuss the larger law, but to the extent we figure out, or can incorporate into our policies cost-saving measures that still maintain the quality of care that americans have grown to expect from our medical system, that allows us to reduce the burden of taxations. so, i think those who are enamored of this law need to reflect on this litany of different taxes that has been put into place in order to pay

for it. many of them i believe unwise. but this one is particularly unwise. and that's why we have so much bipartisan support behind its repeal. mr. paulsen: i want to thank the gentleman for joining us tonight and all of our colleagues for taking the time to express our frustration but our optimism that we can repeal this tax because it's about protecting economic growth, it's about protecting innovation and it's about protecting global competitiveness. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. paulsen: do i, mr. speaker. i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorro

further from the truth. we recognize protection is not possible and fine men and women and come forward to serve risk their lives on the frontline of danger. we should do all we can to protect them as they go about

such challenging tasks. that was the soul of our report. >> this weekend, house oversight obamaes the administration's response to the terror attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. of the national book festival with your chance .o talk to the authors saturday-span 2 morning starting at 10 a.m. eastern, and on american history tv, life for the nearly half- million german pows detained during world war ii.

>> the house will consider a bill tomorrow that would fund the government at current levels through december 15. over the next hour you will hear what congressional leaders had to say about that legislation. coming up in 10 minutes, nancy by senateollowed wh democrats. our coverage begins with house speaker john boehner. >> good morning, everyone. tomorrow we will protest -- pass a plan to protect people from the president's health care law while keeping the rest of government up and running. when it comes to the health care law, our position is clear.

the law is a train wreck. it is going to raise costs, destroy american jobs, and it must go. move to the senate, where it belongs. i expect my senate colleagues to be up for the battle. out, we engage in another set of challenges -- the deficit and the debt itself. let me be clear. republicans have no interest in defaulting on our debt. we just want to find a way to pay it off. that's why the house will act n on a plan that will reduce the deficit. there is a commonsense principle. if you are going to raise the debt ceiling, you should work to reduce the deficit and grow the economy at the same time. get it,e house may not but the american people get it.

every major deficit reduction plan over the last 30 years has been tied to the debt limit. in 1985 president reagan signed the deficit reduction bill, increase ined an deficit. when president bush reached a deal in 1990, it included an increase in the debt limit. president clinton reached similar agreements, both tied to the debt limit, and i would remind president obama himself that in the summer of 2011, there was a major deficit reduction bill enacted with an increase in the debt limit. this time should be no different. i think it's more important than ever. week makes its clear our debt is set to grow rapidly in coming years if we take no action. that's why it's so troubling that the president has decided

to sit out this debate. he says he won't engage. most residents refer to their bipartisan efforts to reduce the deficit as achievements. the president sees this as extortion. while the president is happy to negotiate with vladimir putin, he wanted gauge with congress on a plan that deals with the deficits -- won't engage with congress on a plan that deals with the deficits. reform tohout any lower the deficit is not going to cut it, not when under this president the united states has racked up $6 trillion in additional debt. you can see it right here. overat what has happened these years. look at what will happen in the future if we don't do something about our spending. so a bill that does nothing to

do with the deficit is telling the world we aren't willing to deal with our spending problem. the president needs to recognize we have a shared responsibility to govern. he can try to stay on the sidelines, but here in the house, we are going to lead. [indiscernible] they are upinced for the battle next door? the fight here has been one. the fight over there -- has been won. the fight over here is just a getting. >> [inaudible] >> i expect my senate colleagues

to do everything they can to defund the law. going to get into the if's, aunts, and buttocks. ands, and buts. >> [indiscernible] or is it incumbent? what's i'm not going to speculate on what the senate will or will not do -- >> i'm not going to speculate on what the senate will or will not do. we're going to have a conversation with our colleagues about how we will proceed with the debt limit. we will probably have more to say. >> senate republicans are saying almost universally, don't do this. is there any chance you are going to change your mind? >> to do what?

>> to get the government to amacare.b >> it is a train wreck. it has to go. we have done everything humanly possible to make our point, and we are going to continue to make our point. >> they think republicans are going to get blamed. >> we are having the fight. it is time for them to take up the mantle and get the job done. they said they would not use the nuclear program in iran for nuclear weapons ever. the deflection of the holocaust he denies, saying he is a politician, not a historian. do you have any comments? >> actions speak louder than words. it's time for the iranians to take actions to show

the world they are not interested in producing nuclear weapons. >> on the debt limit, how do you expect these negotiations to proceed? you said you didn't want to go back to shuttling over the white you want themdo to proceed? >> the house is going to pass a bill. would guess the senate would deal with the majority leader. >> who were you listening to, and who do you think is running the republican congress right now? diverse caucus. so do the democrats. republicans by nature are a bit more independent than our colleagues. i have seen that since the day i got here.

whenever we try to put together a plan, we have members with their own plan. >> when are you going to get around to the farm bill? >> as soon as i can. >> are you going to put him on the conference? >> i love the editorial comments that come along with the questions. after we passed the nutrition bill today we will send it to understand,and as i the senate will have to reappoint. when they asked for a conference we will appoint as well, and the sooner the better. >> [inaudible] >> we will see. >> are you willing to violate to pass this?

>> we expect to have votes and wew to pass the cr, will take it from there. i am not going to speculate on what the senate is going to do or not to do. we will have plenty of time next weekend. >> during nancy pelosi's briefing, she talked about federal spending and the debt limit. this is 20 minutes. >> it seems we are always expressing our sadness. our thoughts and prayers remain with those injured in the tragedy at the navy yard. yesterday we were during --

from aurora and across the country who lost people to gun violence. our commitment remains the same. we must honor the memories of those lost, not just a moment of silence, but by using our time to pass legislation to reduce gun violence. we need more than that moment of silence. republicans will hold their tea party continuing resolution. that is to shut down government, to double down on a republican oneester that will cut down million jobs. this is a job killer -- by the end of 2014, and that is a conservative estimate. it could be $1.6 million -- jobs

-- 1.6 million jobs. it is a terrible appropriations bill, but it is also a bill that puts insurance companies back in of medical decisions for american families. this effectively eliminates strongly bipartisan children's health programs. you might recall it was a vetoproof majority. it was a 70% cut in the program. disruptingvoc by payments and medicare. it costs billions of dollars

from the national institute of health. i call to your attention a ,etter from the ranking members mr. waxman and mr. lemmon, about the impact. alternative toan reduce the deficit in a responsible way, to end the devastating cuts of the sequester and to make investments in the future and to key the government open and working for the american people. it is my understanding something is being prepared for us to vote on next week. shutting down the government is a bad inc.. you shut it down, and you do not

get it back again. torrent, aeashing a river of no return. it is beyond cataclysmic. the republicans -- i do not like to use the word republicans, because this is a word that has been hijacked by a segment in congress. republicans are determined to the united states of america hostage to their radical agenda. refusing to raise the debt limit danger, butclysmic don't take that from me. shutdown and a failure to raise the debt limit

could have serious consequences for the financial markets and for the economy. what does that mean to you? what does that mean to the average everyday, wonderful american. if we were to not lift the debt , just a conversation about it lowered our credit rating -- credit rating, but if we were to the debt limit, it would raise interest rates on your credit cards, your mortgage, your car payment, your student loans, and on your business loan. jeopardizing the market would , your your 401(k) account pensions and retirement

accounts. the impact on the markets would have a devastating effect. intereston to raising rates on families and harming , even the talk led to a downgrade which dramatically slowed economic growth, impacted the markets, and cost consumer confidence to plummet. -- caused consumer confidence to plummet. to make sure americans can pay its bills and prevent another debilitating crisis. the votes are there. we will provide votes for racing of the debt limit. it only takes some republicans to do that. this is playing with fire.

our country cannot afford another republican manufactured crisis. it's time for republicans and democrats to join together to strengthen the middle class. we will address what we are doing today, and that is to reduce the funding. in houston, he said to be careful about praying in church on sunday and not praying for other people during the week. this is exactly what this legislation does. our children, our seniors, our returning vets, so many people are affected by this cut in the program. on the floor, we have a republican majority ready to do

the debate said, and today will share the real faces of hunger in america, chief among them our children, our seniors, our veterans, and their families. one in five kids struggles with hunger. those aref of children. nearly 4 million americans over the age of 60 rely on nutrition assistance. nearly 3 million veterans and their families do not get enough to eat each month. this bill would jeopardize food aid for many vets and their families. it's time for republicans to end in this dangerous bill. a comprehensive farm bill is necessary for our farmers, and itrs, food security, strengthens communities.

year farm bill should not a pass hard, and to have taking food out of the mouths of babies is deplorable. called on theyou house violence legislation. would you like to see the house vote again before the end of the year whether or not they are absolutely certain? >> as you know, the reason the bill did not pass in the senate required 60t votes, and while it had a majority voting for it, it did not have a 60 vote margin. see is ford like to us to pass legislation, not to not pass legislation. we have no right to have a

moment of silence unless we are going to spend our time trying to reach a legislation that will reduce gun violence. it is in the agenda to restore confidence to the economy by stopping the foolishness and not lifting the debt ceiling. it's about who we are as a , a nation of immigrants. let's pass comprehensive immigration reform. taken a note to protect bypassing passing the background check legislation. i would like the senate to take another shot, and i don't know what changes they can make, but certainly we believe if the senate bill that did not prevail

would come up in the house, it would pass. it would pass in the house of representatives, so i think the support is there. supportmerican people background checks. how come that is not reflected in some way? giving up on this. we are not going away, and as you saw yesterday, we owe it to those families. for such a long time we have had the problem with violence in and now we see aurora and the kindergarten in connecticut. everyone is at risk. this is really as protected a facility as the navy yard -- 12 people being killed by a lone gunman.

we really have to act upon it. many other factors are involved, but all of them come to a place where background checks would be the answer. >> the president of iran recently said perhaps they would not use -- they would not try to develop any nuclear weapons, that they would be open to reopening their country to more freedom of the internet, and when he was asked about the holocaust denial of mr. ahmadinejad, he said, he is a politician, not a historian. do you have any faith that he could tbe a better person to ?ork with than ahmadinejad >> i hope it is an accurate reflection of what their views are. see aays want to

and itic path, salute the president for his courage to say, we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons. as a message to iran, the to dealtion about how with chemical weapons in syria will serve us well as far as as far asncerned something they advocated for to have it under international inspection and custody. my daughter received one of those e-mails. myally i am bragging about grandchildren. when christine responded to the the foreignster --

message, rosh hashanah and she said, interesting, sir, but how about stopping the denial of the holocaust, to which he responded, saying, that is not iran. that is one person, and he is not here. that is encouraging. more encouraging is coming from the president of that country. with the meeting united nations, i don't know if but any reality, engagement, any diplomatic efforts are welcome. i already called on him before. .> the bill has been written

they said they would try to get as high as number as they could. if they strip out health care, , or doesr side take it it have to be higher? >> we are not demanding 1058 or whatever the score is, but we do think there is a compromise that could be reached. i cannot tell you what we will take until we see what the bill is. the democrats can supply votes of the democrats have a say in -- if the democrats have a say in what the bill is. to see be interesting

them restoring, putting your house in the hands of insurance company -- if they strip that out, we will see what happens, but if they want democratic hass in the house, our with been very forceful, and i think he speaks for our caucus almost across the board when he says we cannot have that number, which less, plus the perpetuating sequester could be something we could monitor, but let's see what the bill is. we suggested splitting the difference. that didn't seem to work from alwaysse side, but we stand ready to try to work together to reach a solution and

to raise the debt limit because what it means to households across america. back,l see when it comes but right now the mood is not favorable. yes, sir? and that is it. i want to ask something else. >> i will decide. >> you and other democrats have suggested boehner lost control of his caucus. could you explain the difficulty of trying to make a deal with with the rebellious caucus he has got and there is often a perception he is not in charge? he has lostt said control of his caucus.

maybe he is in full control of his caucus. i don't know. let's just say i wish the speaker well. the house.peaker of we have a responsibility. for example, the debt that has been incurred that we had to raise the limit to was encouraged by the congress of the united states, so we have a responsibility to lift the debt ceiling, and that is not for new spending. that is for spending that has already occurred, so i think it is not just up to the speaker, but the outside has to weigh in and say, we understand the consequences of not lifting the debt ceiling. even if you don't, let's explain that to you -- let us explain that to you, car payments, student loans, mortgage payments, small business loans across the board, what that means for my 401(k) -- anyone

out there with a 401(k)? it is very much in danger. nationalto be a discussion, because i am not sure people know the pyrotechnics going on in the thatlican caucus and what means to them. i wish the speaker well. i respect the speaker. i wish him well, and i hope it doesn't hurt him too much that i said i respect him. you, goodbye. leadersenate majority harry reid told reporters that the house to defund the health law as part of a federal spending bill will not go anywhere in the senate. this is 15 minutes. >> it was late last week. i cannot believe it.

there are some who say we don't need to be here, because my republican colleagues are doing a great job of explaining the plan. senator burke said, it is the dumbest idea i ever heard. yesterday he reconfirmed that. i don't know if this is a direct quote. today that said, i may not be a graduate of princeton or harvard, but i can count, and i know we are heading into a canyon with no way out. if there is any doubt in the minds of our house counterparts, i want to be crystal clear. any bill that the funds obama care is david -- defunds obamacare is dead. it is a waste of time.

i told the speaker last week. i am disappointed that he has decided he is going to move forward with the full knowledge it is a futile effort. they are simply postponing the inevitable choice they must face. pass a bill to fund the government or shut it down. the writing on the wall is clear for anyone with eyes to see. house republicans are wasting time. we have wasted more than a week trying to get the bill. i believe it is important, doing something about energy. these are not just games to middle-class america. will republican washington use these stunts to grab headlines? people in nevada and around the

country are going to feel the real pain of this economic shut down. the consequences of this shutdown are deadly serious. commerce is not usually a horrible organization. that is an understatement. they just issued a letter that said among other things that republicans should step back from the brink. they shouldn't even consider closing down the government with .he cr they should forget about trying to tie this to obama care, and they pointed out what the disaster it would be for our country. putting thelly nation's economic recovery at risk and making an ideological point, so i am glad to see more republican colleagues speak out against the vocal minority within their ranks.

remember, people speaking out against the absurdity of the republican plan and the house are not just tea party activists. people who feel this is wrong what they are trying to do, and i agree with them. if congressll tell will prevail. >> i have been in washington for over 30 years. in all the years i have been in the house and senate i have never seen a group the more extreme than the far right republicans. always been extreme members of congress, but they have been gadflies who come and go without much of an impact. this group of extreme republicans is not just having an impact. they have been handed the keys to the republican party by a reluctant leadership.

may have nearly handcuffed republican leadership so they are forced to pursue an extreme agenda that defunds obamacare. the my way or highway approach carries the day. that leads to a shutdown or default, either of which would be devastating to the economy. republican leadership has been dragged kicking and screaming into a fight they know would be bad for their party as bad for the country, and they should know it is a fight they will not win, and the whole country has been dragged closer to a government shutdown and close to default on the national debt, but it doesn't have to be this way. the fact is the far right doesn't have the numbers to run the show on their own, but it is a refusal by house leadership to openedp to them that has the doors to gridlock and economic disaster, and when you look at the body language and faces of speaker boehner and

know whattor, you they are doing is wrong for the country and politics, so if enough mainstream republicans will come together with democrats, we can make the hard right in relevant. democrats want it, the white house wants it, and in their heart of hearts, republican leadership wants it, too. we democrats are standing strong. we are standing together. a strong message to the house. we will not link. blink. we won't. we are unified. we are together. you're not. cannot negotiate one iota when it comes to the debt ceiling. this country is going to come to notrealization of how bad

funding the government is, and speaker boehner will end up doing the right wing sooner or later. -- the right thing sooner or later. it would need better for him and .is country >> right now house republicans are hard at work mocking senate republicans on twitter and double daring them to try to shut down the government. they are so consumed by internal divisions that they have no idea how this looks to families across our country. people are watching the news at night, and they cannot believe our country is cruising towards a completely avoidable, absolutely unnecessary crisis. they are tired of these political games. of working together to

avoid this, republicans are actively pushing us closer. instead of having a clean bill while we negotiate to get a sequester replacement, they are pandering to the tea party, and why six months after the senate passed the budget, which they ask us to do, and we did, republicans still refuse to join us at the table and instead are lurching to the right. the chamber of commerce, which does not often side with us on fiscal issues, is getting nervous republicans have dug themselves into a hole that will end up hurting businesses and the economy. important congress not shut the government down, not fight, and not to play games

with the debt limit. i think this pressure is going to continue. takes speaker boehner this to heart. we are not going to delay or andnd health care reform, we are not going to play games with the debt limit. we stand ready and willing to work with republicans to keep our government open while we continue critical budget negotiations, and i want to work in aanyone interested long-term deal that tackles our debt and deficit responsibly. that's what the american people are expecting. it's what they want to hear. it's what we are fighting for. i can only hope eager boehner will ditch the tea party and get to work with democrats and many republicans who are just as frustrated as we are today. for the sake of the economy and

families across the country, i hope the point comes before we fall into a crisis the tea party is actively pushing us toward. >> is there a way for you to just wait out the obamacare provision when it gets to the summit -- senate? >> let's wait and see. target.moving we have heard all sorts of rumors they don't have the votes, so let's just wait and see what they come up with. it is clear. obamacare will not be touching anything they are doing. >> are you prepared to endure the public backlash in order to protect the health care law? >> yes. if you look at the recent , thery of the debt limit

filibuster comes when you had 60 votes. they knew it would go forward. do you think if you put a clean debt limit you would eventually see republicans crack? >> right now i am focused on the cr. becomet ceiling does not active until the middle of so we can wait and see, and then we will deal with the debt ceiling when that time comes. >> at some point you will need cloture on the cr. how confident are you you can get at least six republicans to join? >> my concern is whether republicans are going to be going pell-mell to support what republicans have done or will do

in the house. i think with all senator murray there is really some wrangling among the ranks, not only among the republicans of , but also among the senate, so let's wait and see if they have a stomach for closing the government. year you haves worked with some republicans on various issues. on this issue will you have to work with them to get the six or more votes? do think there is a widespread view among republican mainstream that this is a dumb strategy. many of them have voiced that to me, but we will have to wait and

see what happens. the hard right has a huge amount of weight in the republican party and the house but also in the senate, and it's up in the air right now. >> you got this from senator mcconnell? pre-k's yes. -- >> guess? pre-k's given the recent history on debt limit, obama negotiated with senate ceilings on the debt and republicans in 2011. he negotiated the fiscal cliff, of mcconnell in december 2010. why should republicans believe you now when you say you will not negotiate? >> the president has made very and we have followed that are notying we also

going to negotiate on the debt ceiling, and we are not going to. that's very clear. we can nit pick how it came about. it was the right thing for the country, and i'm glad we did it. we will have to wait and see what happens with republicans. obama is not going to change. he has got a country to worry about. >> what about if republicans attach instructions -- [indiscernible] speculate all we can, and we can come up with ideas as to what they might do on the debt ceiling. and they don't know, so it's silly to talk about this at this stage. have ander if you

message. >> he is running for president. time i was running in high school. i lost, and i am not going to do it again. >> congressional republicans also spoke with reporters about the continuing resolution and the health care law. >> let me thank you for being here today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] andave been in discussion, number one is to protect our constituents from the harmful affects of obamacare. we want to thank the leaders for moving forward in such a bold fashion. we want to thank them for listening not only to our conferences but also to the voices they represent, and that is our constituents. i expect we will have a strong showing, and i encourage house republicans to support the bill, but as we turn to the senate, make no mistake that it turns to harry reid. will he protect the american people from the harmful effects ?f obamacare the other question is why is he

willing to protect big business from theal interest dangers of this health care law, yet not protect hard-working families in america? we are making it clear we are here to protect the american people. now the question turns to harry reid. what will harry do? now let's turn it to the senator from utah. >> yesterday was a great day. it was a day of victory for the many americans speaking with a sustained voice on this issue. i want to thank and congratulate -- speakerner boehner for making the courageous decision to stand with my other colleagues that are here today, and most importantly, standing with the american people to bring forward this legislation. everything funded while defunding obamacare.

polls, 56% of americans believe congress should pass a resolution that funds government while defunding obamacare. we look forward to the passage of this resolution, and once that happens, we look forward to this resolution coming over from the senate, where we hope to have an up or down vote so people selected representatives in that body can have an opportunity to weigh in on whether they are willing to protect the american people from the undo, and from risky consequences of this unwise health care legislation. >> everyone knows this law is .ot ready you listen to republicans. you listen to democrats. howard dean said it is going to lead to rationing of care. hurt workingo

americans -- including the president. the president knows. that's why he delayed it for big business. and the chicago tribune, the president's hometown newspaper said, delay the entire law, so everybody knows this ring is not ready. i don't think it will ever be ready. that's due at the american people expect us to do. i want to commend my colleagues for the work that is done and the folks appear and our leadership for understanding that we want to be on the side of the american people. do what's best for this country and fund our government and make sure this law doesn't happen. ago, conventional wisdom in washington said the state was impossible durin. commend speaker

weiner and the american people -- speaker boehner and the american people. it is a terminus victory. that is where this bottle will -- where this battle will be resolved. biggest job killer in this country and it is hurting americans, millions of americans losing their jobs, who are forcibly being pushed into part- time work, 29 hours a week, who're seeing skyrocketing insurance premiums and losing their health insurance. obamacare isn't working. with the house of historictatives' leadership, the ball mount goes to the senate and harry reid. this is for every senate republican to stand shoulder to shoulder with the gentlemen here and republicans in the house would have been courageous doing the right thing. and this is ultimately for harry reid and the democrats to decide for whom is it they work.

in my view, every elected official should listen to the american people and the american people are united that obama care isn't working. it is killing jobs and the people who will be hurt the most by obamacare are the most rollable among us. they are -- the most vulnerable among us. they're the ones losing their jobs and being pushed to 29 hours a week. to celebrate the historic leadership of the house of representatives, today is the day to continue to get ready to move forward for every elected official in washington to listen to the american people. >> many of you today will be writing about what happens. washington, d.c. -- what happens here in washington, d.c. town hall, i heard real stories about jobs that were lost. health-care coverage that was

promised but now is not being delivered. yet what we see is that we focus on the fight here when the fight really is about working with the hard-working american taxpayers back home. has said that this is a bill that needs a little bit of tweaking, as if it were an app on an iphone. appthe problem is that an on the iphone, when it doesn't work, game over has one meaning. game over has a totally different meaning when we are talking about health care and it is time that we fight together. i just want to applaud our leadership, speaker boehner, and challenge those in the senate to stand with the american people and make sure that we turn the tide on what shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. >> this is the reason that i came to congress. the reason i came to congress after a 12-year hiatus was because this bill is so

oppressive and so hurtful come a both too small businesses, individuals, and i believe the american economy. i decided to come back. i am proud to be part of this fight. what's more, i am proud of my republican leadership. i am proud of the speaker for standing up and listening to the american people. i think it's wonderful. i don't know that it is democrats against republicans and sometimes i think is more washington establishment against mainstreet americans. and i think that ultimately mainstreet america has to win. one other thing i want to comment on, if the president knows that she knows that this law is not really for prime time. that is why he has postponed 41@of 82 provisions of obamacare -- postponed 41 out of 82 provisions of obamacare. the exchanges are supposed open on october 1 and none of them are ready. in arizona, we are several

months away and one of our community college districts in arizona, the largest one, has already reclassified 1300 full- time employees to part-time status. this is bad stuff and we have to do everything we can to halt it, stop it, and i hope that the president and harry reid care more about the american people and keeping government open as we do down there stubborn political pride and that is all this is about. >> i can tell you, after august, it is clear where the public in my district is. they want obamacare repealed. they want it defunded. they wanted dismantled. they wanted to go away. i talked to businesses. just recently, cut to a business where they have 57 employees. their turn to get down to 49. other businesses are moving full-time workers to part-time workers. this is not unique.

this is happening across the country. if you look at the jobs report, that is what you will see. that is why it is so important to our economy that this lobby halted and i would like to double down on the thank you to the leadership in the house of representatives from listening not only to the mac and people but also to the people in congress as they have come and express their views. -- not only to the american people but also to the people in congress as they have come to express their views. these two gentlemen have been out in front on this, winning the argument, day in and day out. the american people are with them. so are many of us in the united states congress and i am looking forward to tomorrow's vote. brief.ll be very most of you have written stories about how important it is for washington to compromise. i would dare say that every person who is here at this podium who has spoken to you today and who will speak to you today would want to get rid of obama care completely.

but the reality is that we have realized that the president and his party won't get rid of obama care. so we are thinking that the best thing that we can do is delay this law for the american people just like president obama has done for his friends and the people that have his ear. that is all we are asking for. i think it is a reasonable approach. you all asked us and the american people asked us to reach a compromise. i think this is a reasonable compromise. we get the government -- we get to fund the government for an entire year by only delaying obamacare. nobody wants to shut down the government cared we just want to be reasonable and we want to give the mac and people what they are asking for, which is relief i'm obamacare -- the american people what they are asking for, which is relief from obamacare. thank you. morning, i just want to say thank you to each member appear for -- number up here for

their work. leadership,ank the too, because this is what the american people are asking for. as i traveled home throughout the august recess, this was the number one issue until the syrian arose. and now that that issue is hopefully resolving itself, this is again the number one issue. americans are feeling the hurt and the pain and the decisions that they have to make regarding obamacare. as i talked to a mother of a son who has autism, who lost his insurance, she was asking what do i do now/ this is the story we heard over and over again. i believe that this is our time. this is when it really matters. yes, we voted to repeal obamacare 30-40 times, but this is when it really counts.

this is when it is time to put up or shut up. because this will be a law that we see is already hurting people . it is affecting families. and it is hurting the american economy. and i think -- i appreciate our leadership being willing to put this on the floor for a vote. let's get it over to the senate. that's -- let's have our senate colleagues have the fight. if president obama and senator harry reid want to enforce a law that we know by the nbc wall street journal polling is so unpopular by the american people, if they want to and -- want to force it on the mecca people, that is their choice. but for us, we will stand with the american people. that is why we're on the right side today because the american people are with us here in thank you -- are with us. thank you. >> to me, this is just about fairness. on july 3, the president unilaterally delayed the employer mandate for big is this. --ovice, they cut a special

in august, they cut a special deal for members in congress. and even though we had news on friday about unions, i bet the bottom dollar that at some point the administration will cut a special deal for unions. so what you have is a situation in which the harmful left x are aresed -- harmful effects imposed on society and those who have political connections with the administration relieve those burdens from themselves and leave the rest of the american people holding the bag. so we had the power of the person congress. if we can't use it for this basic principle of fairness, then i don't know what good the power of the purse is. yesterday, a senior house republican aide said that it is disappointing to see that wendy davis has more guts than ted cruz now. he used different words than guts, but others call you a phony and a joke. how do you respond to that? >> i am always impressed by the

courage of congressional aides. [laughter] it is very easy in washington to make this about personalities, to make this about (this is not about any of us. this is about the american people. this is about the people who are struggling because they can't find a job. this is about the people who are having their hours forcibly reduce to 29 hours a week and they cannot feed their kids on 29 hours a week. so there will always be the back and forth of politics. but i can tell you, one of the reasons i am proud to stand with these gentlemen appear is that -- judgment up here is that they are focused on the problem which for theg things american people. obama care is the biggest job killer in the entire country. and if you want to understand this issue in one sentence, it comes down to the following -- president obama has granted waivers for giant corporations and members of congress. why is president obama

threatening to shut down the federal government to deny those same waivers to hard-working american families? today -- we will give me some names. yesterday, congressman tim griffin of our consent -- of .ongress -- of arkansas even sean duffy said that cruzan whiterefused to raise the flag. will you filibuster this on the house floor? is that the only choice you have right now? >> i will do everything necessary and anything possible to defund obamacare. >> filibuster? anyes, and anything else, procedural means necessary. this is the most important fight in the country and it is easy to focus on the political back and forth. this will be an iterative

process. in all likelihood come it won't be easing will shot crn everything is resolved and that -- and done. as soon as the house passes this into law, it will be in harry reid's court. and he may well be able to hold his 54 democrats to not listen to the american people, to threaten to shut down the federal government, to deny american families the same special treatment to that big corporations and members of congress are getting. happens, then it goes back to the house of representatives. what we need to do is we need to be making the case every day and in every way to the american people. not about the petty political bickering. americans don't care about teddy political bickering in washington. that on the substance. i will tell you this, if and when we win this fight, it will be because house republicans have stood up and showed the courage that they are showing

right now that they continue to stand up. the house is the one branch of government that republicans have the majority. >> [indiscernible] >> that is a good question. it is worth underscoring that the continuing resolution has nothing to do with interest on the debt or a default. yesterday, the president made reference to a default. we are not talking about the debt ceiling. to filibuster the cr, is there also a pledge to filibuster the second proposal? >> we will not support a continuing resolution that funds obama care. this is a fight over the continuing resolution. i thought it was unfortunate in the president's comments yesterday he tried to distract with an issue of the debt

ceiling witnesses about the continuing resolution and this is about congress using the constitutional power of the purse to rein in an overreaching executive and to stand up for the american people and stand up and say, look, even among those who thought this law might work, we now know it isn't. that's what he had the labor unions running for the hills. because we are seeing in goodice that the stated intentions of obamacare are not working and the losers are the american people. and we need to focus on the substance of this policy, on bringing back economic growth, bringing back jobs and expanding opportunity for those struggling to achieve the american dream. >> thanks again. >> there was a lot of back and forth about what senate republicans might do. houseyou characterize why republicans were nervous, why there was tension and has that

been resolved to your satisfaction? >> we would hope that today you would see unity from the house republicans and the senate republicans. we are unified behind funding the government and stopping the harmful effects of obamacare. 100% unified behind that. clearly, there are differences in strategies and there are a lot of different personalities. but we are focused. we have 11 days to have laserlike focus and we will not be distracted. so we will continue pushing forward. >> i guess this was an centered cruise's statement last night -- in senator cruz's statement last night. >> we are unified behind those of the actives. there has never been a doubt. >> [indiscernible] >> you need to ask them. i thought the senator addressed it very well. haveld recommend that you

comments from them. >> you know what happened. there wasn't 218 votes for the other proposals brought forward. this is something that i believe you will see a strong majority for him frankly, you might even seasoned democrats. voted withemocrats us to delay the individual mandate. as i said, democrats understand how harmful this is. i want the votes for the alternative and this is where the votes are. >> a little more clarity on exactly [indiscernible] >> i was wondering if you could -- after he goes back to the house, do you believe speaker boehner should abide by the rule if this comes run a second time and you have a majority of republican votes. a sign of hands, maybe? >> that is clearly a question for the speaker, something that he has been very forthright with

him he will operate the house you i heard that question asked to him earlier today. he was danny right about right here. i guess you weren't -- i was standing right about right here. i guess you weren't satisfied with his answer. that is what he clearly stated in the past. i saw yesterday and i think our colleagues in the house could share this as well, a result in the speaker of the house that was very reminiscent of his early days of being in the house and he is totally committed to keeping the government open and protecting american families from the hardships of obamacare. and it was a very powerful resolve with much constitution. >> i have been the guy in a house that has been driving the signatures on the letter to get codified within the

conference. i will echo what mr. gray said. i served with speaker boehner before. he was the chairman of the education committee. i sat in that committee. i thought he was a firebrand. i said this in conference yesterday. i stood up and i said i haven't seen this kind of fire in the belly with the speaker since you are part of the gang of seven and i do believe that this is boehner 2.0. i taken at face value that this is a fight that he will fight. he believes that, by years end, we will have defunded or postponed obamacare for a year and i think he means it. >> if the government happens to thatdown -- i realize that is not the goal here -- is there any way that republicans can escape big picture blame from the mccann people or is -- from the american people or is there plenty of blame to go around? >> his political stubbornness is

so intense that he is willing to throw it all away to preserve a bill that -- or a law that is not ready for prime time. even he knows that. i would hope that the american people and the press out there would posture it as it really is. we all said we want to keep the government open. we will do everything we can to keep the government open. ultimately, i would hope that they would understand, in this kind of a situation, the president has to determine what is more important to him. >> when this comes over to the senate, i do predict that republicans will stand solidly behind it, to fund government, while defunding obamacare. i would hope that maybe a handful of democrats, some of those who were up for reelection in red states, might consider joining us as well, especially in light of recent polling suggesting that 56% of americans

think that something like this is what congress should in fact do you especially can sit -- duke. -- should in fact do. this will makee their health care situation worse rather than better. the point is that this will be a real opportunity. you need an up or down vote. with that, think we will keep all the republicans and i hope that we might get some democrats joining with us. if they reject it, if democrats in the senate reject it, then they have to come up with a proposal. they don't have a proposal. we haven't seen a proposal from them. we haven't even heard of an outline of a proposal good he onus is on them at that point. yes, once the house passes something to keep government funded, once the republicans in the senate have the opportunity to vote on that and any democrats who might join with us , if the democrats choose to reject that at that point and thereby open this great

possibility that you describe, they have to come up with something. >> is there a point when real world consequences of a shutdown are too great for this particular fight? people may be -- people may have fears and there may be uncertainty. >> we don't want to shut down and we don't need to shut down. we should avoid a shutdown. and obama is a law that will harm people here in desk harm appeared and it is not a good -- obamacare is a law that will harm people. said he will not follow the line he has made substantial changes without constitutional or statutory authority to do so. shutdowns urbana not worth it. are law is not -- shutdowns added and not worth it. this law is not worth shutting down the government. >> for more clarity on what will happen when he gets to you all in the senate, most of the time

we interpret up or down vote as a 50-vote threshold. senator reid can probably do that, not to get down in the weeds. if it is 50 and democrats kill it, the question is are you all going to line up 12 or 14 deep and talk this into september 30? because the 50-vote threshold, harry reid can make you lose that. we want is an up or down vote. referring to an up or down vote, what i am talking about is a vote on the merits as opposed to a motion to table. a non-debatable motion to table that simply comes up and goes straight into a vote on that 51- vote threshold, not on the merits of it, but on the merits of the motion to table. that is what i am talking about. >> thank you. >> thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] republicansouse decide to go forward with this government funding bill, the continuing resolution that also includes the defunding of the health care law? >> the simple reasoning is that they could get 217 votes for a plan last week that's your boehner and the house majority -- last week that speaker boehner and that house majority leader couldn't get. so now they do leave they have the votes, 217 votes, for a bill that would include the defunding of obamacare inside the text of the cr. they were able to win over the very right wing of their party.

>> how about a democratic votes? what will that look like for final passage friday? 20-35re have been between democrats who have been willing to vote against obamacare. the bill has not passed unanimously when it was first enacted in 2010. so there could be some defection. but there is pressure from nancy pelosi and minority whip steny hoyer to vote against it. >> what is ahead in the senate? number of different procedural maneuvers that senate majority leader harry reid can do. one would be to bring up the house cr and see if it can pass. it is assumed that it would fail and then there would be an attempt to amend that. there are different combinations , motions to table, motions to proceed, and the 50-the threshold. we will have to see -- 50-vote threshold. we will have to see what they

do. >> have we heard anything from house republican leaders on what if the senate strips out the defunding language and sends it back to the house after they are done with it? >> speaker boehner said he wouldn't speculate on what the senate will do. conservatives have been asked about this and they say that nfl coaches don't plan out three or four plays ahead. so it seems like they are really not willing to engage in what will happen. what could happen is that speaker boehner will have to --ng up a clean cr andreotti and rely on democratic votes. then they would push a much higher spending level. >> stripping the funding of the health care, there is concerned about spending levels in the continuing resolution. why? >> it continues the sequester level of the $986 billion a year

on an annualized basis that is currently in effect. the 2011 budget control act calls for a lower level, $967 billion. but that is enforced by sequester which would take the remaining $19 billion out of defense. the sciquest -- the sequester is a big problem for defense for both parties. tom coburn and jeff flake are calling for the cr to be at the lower level. on the higher-end, senate democrats and many house democrats, including steny hoyer, are calling for a much higher level, as much as one 1.0 $58 as much as point -- $1.058 trillion. will the government shutdown?

the president would have to use the veto pen. >> looking ahead into next week, said thatntor is also he will unveil a bill dealing with the debt limit, the debt ceiling, that will also include defunding language for the health care law. what is ahead there? >> there will be a meeting tomorrow of the whole house republican conference where they will work to finalize the debt ceiling approach. indicated theeady approval of the keystone pipeline from canada to the gulf coast would be included. some sort of instructions on tax reform might be mirroring what the house passed last year with the 25% top rate instead of the 39.6% top rate that individuals face today. termsl as a delay in the of obamacare, as it's called, the oh 50 -- the affordable care

act. there are additional spending cuts that have not quite been determined. you can read his reporting at open -- at thehill.com. thanks for the update. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow. gina mccarthy will be at the national press club to talk about climate change. that is that 9:00 eastern on c- span two. also, at 10:00, the house education sub or force committee was a hearing on technical education and training programs. then president obama travels to a ford auto plant in kansas city to talk about the auto industry and the economy. you can see that at 1:45 p.m. eastern. china's foreign minister will be at the brookings institution to

talk about u.s.-china relations. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, reefing zen conferences and offering complete dabble to gavel coverage of the u.s. house , all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable industry 33 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. >> members of the house oversight committee are continuing to look into last year's attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya, that killed four americans. today, they heard from leaders of the state department's accountability board about their report that found the stomach inlures that resulted inadequate security at the conflict. near the end of the six-hour hearing, members also hear from the families of seven of the americans were killed.

>> the meeting will come to order. the oversight committee exists to secure two fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know the mannish -- the money washington takes from them as well spent. anond, americans deserve efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. for what they know is important for how they decide. in fact, our job is to work tirelessly in our partnership with citizen watchdog to deliver fax to american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is our mission. i now would ask unanimous consent to read into the record statements from two witness -- witnesses who will not be available.

, so ordered.tion first, a letter from kate. she says in a letter to the ranking member and myself -- for your invitation to participate in the hearing. concerning the attacks on the u.s. facility on september 11, 2012. four americans, including my brother, were killed. because i am unaware of the answers, these answers have been provided. first, my understanding is it took eight hours for the rescue team in tripoli to travel 200

miles to reach their destination in benghazi. there were no dedicated transportation assets in place. the team received no help getting through barriers like the benghazi airport and checkpoint in the city. why was itcorrect, so given the urgency of the mission, recognizing the difficulty. hadver ask those conditions been different, would the outcome have been less tragic? glenn lived his life to the fullest and took pride in teaching others how to be their best. he died serving with many respected, protecting the freedoms we enjoy as americans and doing something he loved. he is an american hero to those

who did not know. , he isse of us who did a best friend who leaves behind a giant hole in our hearts. my thanks go out to those in congress and the administration who strive to learn what mistakes were made that made the night so that u.s. personnel can be better protected in the future. secondly, a letter signed from chris stevenson's family. he died the service of his country. he died doing what he loved were -- most. bridges ofbuild understanding and mutual respect between the people of the united states and people of the middle east and north africa. he was loved by many more

libyans than those who hated him for being an american. a few dozen fanatics penetrated his compound but more than 30,000 people in benghazi ament stated -- demonstrated in -- protest over his death. he embodied the traits that have always endeared americans to the world. a commitment to democratic principles and respect for others regardless of race, religion, and culture. each personand like he met as in individual and respected their views, whether or not he agreed. one of his friends told us a tale that reflects his success on a small scale. picnicking in libya and, they met a local family.

chris immediately greeted them and suggested they be photographed together. son of a solemn -- patriarch family, refused to participate. with continued chatting the others. when it was time to leave, the initially suspicious son presented chris with a bouquet of flowers. young, this is because were so respectful to my father, he said. chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would strut around in fortified compound. he amazed and you were so respectful to my father, he said. impressed the libyans by walking the streets with a lightest of escorts, sitting in sidewalk cafés, chatting with passersby. there was a risk to being accessible. he knew it and accept it.

but he would never have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes. there were security shortcomings, no doubt, both internal and outside investigations have identified and publicly disclosed them. steps are being taken to prevent their reoccurrence. he would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. he was and accepted working under dangerous circumstances. he did so, just as so many of our diplomats do every day. the work was vitally important and would have wanted

the critical work he was doing to build bridges of mutual understanding and respect, the kind of work that made him literally thousands of friends and admirers across the broader middle east to continue. rather than engage in endless incrimination, his family is working to continue to build bridges he successfully began.tical one year ago this week, in response to a tremendous outpouring of support from around the world, we launched the j christopher stevens fund. the mission is to support activities that build bridges between the people of the united states and those of the broader middle east. this was the mission to which chris dedicated his life. we are grateful to each contribution received from friends and family, from the

government of libya and from people near and far removed -- moved by chris and his story. we will launch a number of innovative programs and initiatives. the focus is on young people here in america and across the middle east and north africa. chris served in the peace corps in morocco. his death was felt began. by the family. last year, in response to we encouragedes, return volunteers to fan out across america and speak with you about their experience abroad. we are now working with the peace corps to expand their reach into schools and communities across the country. the center for middle east studies at the university of california berkeley where chris studied as an undergraduate announced on september 11 the ambassador j christopher stevens -- endowed by the j

christopher stevens fund. our purpose is to encourage and a spot -- inspire students in middle eastern and north african scholarship. in coliform you, where he spent his teen years, the unified school district board of education has voted to name the high school library the ambassador christopher stevens memorial library. he was inspired by the high theol -- he achieved honorable. later this year, together, with the coalition for public and private partners, we will launch the virtual exchange initiative. this initiative will embrace the power of technology to fuel the largest ever increasing -- increase in people to people exchanges between the united states and the broader middle east.

that is increasing the number and diversity of youth who have a meaningful, cross-cultural experience, as part of their formative education and reaching 2020.ne million youth i later this year, the university of california hastings college of law, from which chris graduated in 1989, will host the ambassador j christopher stevens symposium. the event will emphasize law and public policy, as used in the practice to advance global understanding and peace festivals, to which chris was committed. there have been more awards bestowed and honors given to chris memorial he is -- chris's memory, excuse me, then ever would have been thought possible. we have received letters from thousands of people all around the world who were touched by

chris's example. touched a chord in their hearts. chris would have wanted to be remembered for that. thank you, the family for chris stevens. they will both be placed in the record without a -- objection. briefly, in my opening statement, today, we want to both do our job as constitutional officers, and, be very cognizant of the wishes of the family. we will here on the second from additional family members, and like the first, they both want answers to questions, and they want chris 's memory to be one of his service. and his they do not want this to be a political football. the committee's primary obligation as the oversight reform committee is to do oversight leading to meaningful reform. 12thweek marked the

anniversary of the september 11 attacks on the united states. it marked the one-year anniversary of a terrorist attack on a diplomatic -- in benghazi. the attack cost americans their lives. , sean smith,tevens and two american security officers, a former u.s. navy seals. their memories and heroic service to our nation. we recognize also the family members of the fallen who are who us today are those truly experience the loss firsthand. last october, secretary hillary clinton convened the accountability review board, as required by law, to examine the

facts and circumstances surrounding the hideous attacks and the report findings and recommendations. to report was delivered congress september 18, 2012. the arb made important findings and also raised serious additional questions. first, the structure, along with the state department culture, raises questions about the extent to which it can be independent. although it is a meaningful document, this committee has not been able to receive background information or were there recorded notes sufficient to allow for a true review for the review. this hearing, the committee down the hall has authored significant reforms in the form of legislation. part of what we will do here

today is to continue fueling the discovery process for that purpose. in preparation for today's hearing, the staff has prepared approximately a 100 page report entitled "benghazi attacks, it update, interim report on the accountability review. i ask unanimous consent it out be placed in the record. >> ok. >> it raises important questions on the review board rockettes. today, our panel includes distinguished former government officials who know firsthand how important the process is and who dedicated their lives to this public service. we thank you for being here today.

thecriticism of accountability review process or the law passed by congress in 1986 that created it, should be cast on congress and the prospect -- process they were asked to do and not to the individuals who headed this. believe to the extent the arb was traditionally used, it has done its job. was itticism today is, the appropriate investigation? was it complete? did it have ross as is necessary to do a thorough review? did it have the authority to go beyond the state department? was the record such that it could be reviewed and reviewed again, as many tragic and large investigations will? we all understand if the attack 12 years ago, on 9/11, 2001, had been reviewed through the accountability review process,

it would not have been sufficient for the american people. our investigation today is to look at what could be done and was done and what was learned. i want to thank the ambassador and abnormal -- admiral personally for their work. they made suggestions. all of them have been accepted. acceptance and implementation can be different. in particular, one of the questions that will not be answered today but undoubtedly will be asked is, if four individuals were held ,ccountable and, in testimony at least one was recommended for non-lost a is it days pay and all are back on the job? that is a question for the current administration and not one for the panel. additionally, we are joined by director sullivan.

their review is a second review. it is broader in nature than benghazi. it is important. because, one thing american learned from the attacks on 9/11, 2012, is that, in fact, in system failed the people that compound in benghazi. without a doubt, there are problems with in how decisions are made for the security of our various diplomatic security is around the world. i look forward particularly, in that director sullivan has firsthand knowledge of primary protection of an individual, such as investor or president of the united states. he also understands compounds and facilities, both preplanned and ad hoc, such as the hotel the president might be staying in, have to be taken as they

are but made to work. that for me says a lot about the the world. at ineed not be looked any great additional detail. they are in fact set back. they are in fact for judges -- fortresses. the only thing that happens is for the rules and procedures to be followed for them to be secure. the vast majority of consulates, offices, facilities, and the like throughout the world are not compliant. ar investigation has shown great many exceptions occur every day. if you will, waivers, to what is supposed to be. often, this comes in the form a wayining a facility in that is different from what it actually is.

a multicountry office has a different standard than a consulate or embassy. principal officers are there and the risk of attack are high, they must be looked at in that sense. i for one believe this report on thethe chapter service of the admirable -- the ambassador and admiral, because i believe their service, although limited to the rules, has been honorable, and they have done the best they could under the rules that congress gave them in 2000 -- 1986. with that, i will ask unanimous consent that my entire opening statement be placed on the record because i used so much time for the earlier reading. i yield back. >> thank you. i want to begin by wrecking mrs. patricia smith.

they are here to testify about their sons. who were killed in benghazi. sean smith and tyrone woods. thedy can fully comprehend anguish and suffering. i know from my own experience that losing someone so young and so promising is one of the most difficult things we ever life.enced in sadly, there are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, who are also grieving after the shootings this week and -- this week at the washington navy yard, less than one mile from the very room we are in. to thoses go out families, as well. although ambassador stephens's family was not able to attend

and they sent a written statement, and i am very pleased and i thank you for not only reading their statements into the record, but making sure they are part of the record. i look forward to hearing the testimony and hope we can learn more about who these very brave individuals were. their to learn about hopes and dreams. and their service to our country. should bee our goal to honor them as heroes in today's hearing. that is exactly what they were. they believed in this nation and devoted their lives to protecting it. there are other ways our nation should honor the men. first, we must hunt down those

responsible and bring them to justice. may not on this front always be visible to the public, but as our nation demonstrated in the relentless, worldwide, 10-year pursuit of osama bin laden, the united states does not forget. we never forget. for the entireak committee when i say our commitment to the goal is bipartisan and unwavering. another way to honor the memories is to obtain information about what happened in benghazi. a report earlier this week was issued that provided new information. unfortunately, he chose not to work with any democratic committee members. today, i offer my own report. i would like to provide to the committee and the witnesses.

as the report explains, our goal was to provide detailed information to someone -- some of the specific questions being raised relating to the attack. a reviewt is based on of tens of thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents. eckstein transcribed interviews. -- 16 transcribed interviews. the terrifying -- when events and -- in embassies, and putulates around the world u.s. personnel on air trigger alert for days. these included events not only but elsewhere also. , and preachedhed

compounds. should critical way we honor the memories of these thees is by implementing recommendations and reforms put forward to improve the security of our diplomatic and military forces around the world. this is so important. this is a committee on oversight and government reform. reform is so vital, particularly at this moment. we can all agree on a bipartisan bases we can implement these recommendations as effectively and efficiently as possible. the ambassador explained to the committee during his deposition that because of his own personal and professional bond with ambassador stephens, he viewed

his service on the accountability review board as "a debt of honor." he said, chris gave me two wonderful years of his life in supporting the very difficult circumstances. andlso said "i wrote him the families of the others who died the best possible report we however, theher." ambassador also said he was that althoughed previous -- were excellent in ladiesecommendations, and gentlemen, we cannot let that happen under our watch. this is our watch. we are in charge now. -- we must never

let a report like this sit on andves collecting dust then 10 or 12 years from now, we go through the same process again. we are better than that. i would like to make one final point. let me go back to admiral mullen. both of you for your service. the chairman said, this is not an attack on you all. it is concerned about the report and things like that. i know you gave a phenomenal amount of your time. i want to thank both of you. i don't want to just thank you for today. i wanted to thank you for what you have done your entire lives. your entire lives.

giving your blood, sweat, tears, for us sofe better we can sit here and do what we do. i appreciate that. in my 37 years in law, i have never heard such compelling testimony. when you told us why you did this, and why it was so important that it be done completely, i will never forget the things you said. i really thank you for that. there have been extremely serious accusation that it was a whitewash. and a cover-up. said it does not answer any

real questions. sole function was to -- hillary clinton. when i hear those kinds of statements, and then i read the depositions and i listen to you, i have got to say, those type of statements upset you. .- me i think they are so unfair. we are better than that. let me respond as directly as i can. based on all the evidence obtained by this committee, this ring ghazi review was one of the most comprehensive arb reviews ever conducted. nonee seen no evidence, to support these

reckless accusations. witness after witness told committee after committee that the report was "penetrating, specific, critical, very tough, and the opposite of a whitewash. finally, one of the reasons i requested today's hearing was to give the ambassador and the admiral an opportunity to respond directly to these unsubstantiated to support thes. i'm glad they are finally given the opportunity. our nation owes them and the other board members profound thanks for their dedication and their service. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. all members will have several .ays to submit for the records

we will recognize our first panel. as previously noted, the ambassador thomas served as chairman of u.s. department of state accountability review board for benghazi. a long and distinguished career as a diplomat. he has served in an unprecedented number of ambassadorships. india, russia, and the united nations. not to be any less distinguished, admiral michael mullen served as the vice chairman of the arb. a retired four-star navy admiral who served two terms as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the highest rank of any officer in the armed forces. to mark service -- mark sullivan served on the panel of best practices and the former director of the united states

secret service, a role in which he and i worked together on a number of tough issues. i respect your participation here today. todd served as a member of independent panel on best practices and is the former assistant secretary at the united states department of homeland security. welcome, all. please rise, and raised her right hand, to take the oath? do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you will give today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? all witnesses answered in the affirmative. as i said before this hearing, this is an important hearing, one in which east -- each of your testimonies are extremely

important. your entire written statement are placed in the record. i will not have a heavy gavel if you have additional words you have to say, but i would like you to allow as much time for questions as possible. >> thank you very much. it is an important opportunity for this to you today important matter. it has been a special honor to me to work with admiral mullen and the other members of the accountability review board on this pressing, important, and significant issue. if i may, and i do not want to extend beyond the limits of my iief with you, mr. chairman, would hope our report will also

appear in the record in an appropriate fashion. the loss of four brave individuals is devastating to our country and especially their families. in theirhize with them loss. the questions the board was to respond to under the statute are the extent to which the incident was security-related. whether the security procedures were adequate, whether the procedures were properly implemented. the impact of intelligence and information availability, such other fact answer taxes which may be relevant to the appropriate security management of u.s. missions abroad. finally, with regard to personnel, whenever the board finds reasonable cause to believe in individual has breached the duty of the

individual, the board should report the finding to appropriate federal agency. the board met almost continuously for 2.5 months. the group worked intensively. after extensive activities outlined in my testimony, they --ched unanimous consent unanimous contempt -- conclusions. the board conducted 100 interviews, including with key personnel on the ground. it further reviewed many thousands of pages of documents and reviewed hours of the -- video. it was provided with full cooperation with all elements of the u.s. government. the key findings of the board include the following. the tax were security related. including the use of armed force. the responsibility for loss of life --

leadershipilures in and management deficiency at senior levels. within two euros of the department of state, a security measure, a special mission in benghazi in adequate with the mission. the properding implementation of security systems and procedures and the remarkable heroism shown by american personnel. libyanystems and a response fell short in the face of the attacks which began with the penetration of the mission by dozens of armed attackers. the board found the u.s. intelligence provided no immediate warning for the attack. no caps existed in the understanding of the extremist militias this and the potential threat they posed to u.s.

interests, although some threats were known to exist. the board found certain senior oficers within two bureaus the state department demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership management tolity in their response leadership concerns, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable libyan detection. the board did not find reasonable cause to determine any u.s. government employee breached his or her dirty -- duty recommendations. shouldartment of state urgently review the balance of risk and presence. we did not agree no presence was an appropriate answer in most cases. the basis for review should include an obtainable priority mission. a clear i assessment of the

.isks and costs and constant attention to changes in the situation, including when to wait -- when do we. -- when to leave. the department should organize a panel of outside, independent experts, to identify best practices, to regularly assist in the security -- in evaluating u.s. security in high risk and high threat posed. i am delighted mr. sullivan and .ut -- and kyle are with us an action plan on dealing with the use of fire as a weapon. recalling the incomplete recommendations, the department should work with congress to restore the capital sharing program in its full capacity, adjusted for inflation to $2

million for fiscal year 2015. in a 10 year program to address outstanding needs in high risk areas. while intelligence capabilities have improved post-2001, there is no certainty of information. more attention needs to be given to generally deteriorating situations. key trends need to be identified early to sharpen risk calculations. the board recognizes poor performance does not ordinarily constitute a breach of duty and with service of basis for diplomat -- disciplinary action -- action. theeeds to be addressed by performance management system of the state department. the board is of the view that findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in the case of potentialhould be a

basis for discipline recommendations by future -- it would recommend a division of and anent revelations amendment of the relevant statute. in conclusion, it was an honor to be called again for government service. many have said our report would either advocate mere reinforcement of embassies or closing down our presence. no conclusion like that could be farther from the truth. we recognize that perfection and protection is not possible and that fine and good men and women will still come forward to serve their country and risked their lives on the front lines of danger. we should continue to do all we can to protect them as a they go about such challenging task. the sole purpose of our report and it was produced with a deep sense that we have to get it right.

politics, elections, percival -- personal controversy and all other external factors aside. i am aware no report will ever be perfect. i am proud of this one, which has been seen by many as clear and very hard-hitting, as it should be. information is always welcome. i feel this report is still on the mark. free of cover-up and political tilt. i will personally welcome anything new that sheds light on what happens and helps protect american lives and property in the future. i recognize we are a government of branches of checks and balances. i expect -- respect congress and the task it must assume that makes our nation great. we will not always agree. always agree that

national interests, the best interests in welfare of the american people, are the criteria against which we serve. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. , before addressing ,he subject of this hearing both my wife, deborah, who is here with me today and i want to express our deepest sympathies. as a native -- navy family ourselves, those lost where our shipmates and family members. their dedication and service to our country and sacrifice will never be forgotten. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i hope my testimony will be helpful to the committee as it investigates the attacks that

occurred on september 11, 2012. shortly after those events, i as the vice serve chair of the accountability review board, established to examine the attacks on the annex in benghazi. the board was a bully led by the ambassador and included three other highly qualified and respected members with expertise in various areas relevant to this review. thisoard members took seriously and are determining the facts and making on how best to avoid similar tragedies in the future. from the beginning, the state department emphasized it wanted full transparency about what happened in benghazi and what led to the events. we had unfettered access to state department personnel and

documents. there were no limitations. we received the full cooperation of all witnesses in every state department office. we interviewed everyone we thought it was necessary to interview. we operated independently and were given freedom to pursue the investigation as we deemed necessary. the independents was particularly important to me. i would not have accepted the assignment had i thought the board's independence would the compromised in any way. more thaninterviewed 100 individuals, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and reviewed hours of video footage. we determined the responsibility for the tragic loss -- loss of life and damage to u.s. facilities and properties rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attack. the board found multiple

serious state department shortcomings which exacerbated the impact of the terrorist attack. we also concluded there was nothing the military could have done to respond to the attack on the compound or deter the subsequent attack on the annex. the absence of our military, which moved many assets that night, or fully appropriate and professional. in total, the board may 29 recommendations, 24 of which were classified. i stand with those recommendations. one of the recommendations led to the establishment of the best practices panel, which will be detailed today. most of the board's recommendations were designed to be implemented at state department facilities worldwide in order to keep diplomatic secureel safe and everywhere they serve, especially in areas where they face great personal risk because our nation needs them there.

i understand there are plans to implement the mall. the board's recommendations respect to the shortcomings of state department personnel have been given much attention. because of the courageous and ultimate sacrifices made by ambassador stephens, john smith, glenn dority, and tyrone was, the board meticulously view -- reviewed the conduct of all state department employees with eject -- direct -- securities. we assign blame at the level where we thought it way. that is what the statute intended. operational accountability at the level of operational responsibility. the house report originally admonished statute that, in the past, determine

ring -- determining direct accountability for serious's ambassador stephens, john smith security failures had been weak. often, senior officials have ultimately accepted responsibility for operational failure in circumstances where they had no direct control. the board is permitted only to make findings and recommendations. any implementation of those byommendations must be done the state department. it is not an adjudicative process. thattatute seeks only individuals be disciplined. governing the board's deliberations, discipline requires a finding that an individual breach his or her duties. the board came to understand this as a very high legal standard well beyond negligent -- negligence.

, discipline is a formal turn, meaning complete within thedemotion federal service. removalrms, such as from an assignment were not considered formal discipline. unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations. careful review, the board found no individual engaged in this conduct or willfully ignored his or response that his or her responsibilities. we did not find reasonable

that they breached their duty. they did find two individuals demonstrated a lack of pro at -- cracked -- proactive leadership that -- the board recommended the secretary of state remove and -- remove the two individuals from their positions. the board also concluded performance and leadership of two individuals fell short of expectations but that they brear duty. they did find two individuals demonstrated a lack of pro at -- cracked -- proactive leadership that did not recommend any specific personnel action. filing our report, all were made by the state department. --ave the greatest ever met admiration for the service and sacrifice by ambassador stevens, sean smith, glenn dority, and tyrone woods. they were patriots and heroes in every sense of the word. they died dedicating the lives to our country. i have heartfelt sympathy for the family of these brave men. we should never forget their sacrifice. we should honor them by doing everything in our power to ensure the lessons learned from benghazi never have to be

learned again. the board's report was issued in that spirit and with that goal. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. sullivan? >> good morning. ranking member comics and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for asking us to appear here today. ,he shootings at the navy yard which occurred earlier this week in our nations capital, reminds us all of the vulnerabilities and diversified threats we see everyday, whether in our own backyard or on foreign soil. my thoughts and prayers are with , families, and loved ones. in an environment -- in an environment where uncertainty permeates, the necessary collaborative effort necessary in our country to ensure the safety and security of our american lives, it is also a necessary certainty we honor and

protect the memories of those citizens with dignity and respect. agent for almost 35 years, my life continues to be dedicated to contributing to improving american security. asad the honor of serving director of the united states secret service under presidents bush and obama. as director, i learned and understood the importance of having authority and organizational structure on security matters. i also learned that things do not always go as planned. when they do not, it is vital to implement lessons learned in an effort to revamp them from happening again. i consider it an honor to have served with the panel members.

and staff. shares a combined experience of almost 170 years in law forced to repeat. the panel report reflects the independent views of the panel, based upon the best professional judgment,- experience, and analysis of best practices informed by interviews, travel, and research. it was a pleasure to serve with other panel members and i appreciate their hard work. i would also like to a knowledge and thanks the hundred -- thank the hundreds of people interviewed drafting this report from the u.s. government, international organizations, and governments. panel was theice result of the accountability review board, which recommended the department of state established a panel of outside independent experts with experience and high risk, high

threat areas, to support the bureau of diplomatic security, identify best practices from other agencies and countries, and evaluate and not -- united states security platforms in high threat posed. our report provides 40 recommendations in 12 different areas. in the panel's opinion, the recommendations, if adopted and implemented, will further strengthen the department's ability to protect personnel and laughafely on a global formed to achieve global foreign policy goals and objectives. the 12 areas of recommendations our organization and management, accountability, risk management, program criticality and acceptable risk, planning and logistics, lessons learned, training and human resources, intelligence, threat analysis, and security assessments, programs, resources and

technology, post nations and enhancement, regular evaluation, and change management, leadership, communications, and training. the best practices panel look across a wide spectrum of driving, government, and nongovernmental organizations to tontify effective measures ensure a safe and secure environment for employees and programs. panelrprisingly, the found many institutions, including governments referred to diplomatic security as the gold standard for security to model their services at the diplomatic security. nevertheless, any organization must continuously evolve and improve to adjust with a fluid and dynamic environment. the panel's view was that its recommendations should be , achievable, and the

findings in the recommendations in the arb and of other department of state reports and management that is, were reviewed in the context of the panels on independent observations. of the department security related observations. best practices were then identified to address shortcomings and provide mechanisms for further consideration by the department. among the most important of the recommendations is the creation of the secretary for diplomatic security. it should be noted the structural recommendation is not new and was suggested in earlier reports 14 years ago. the way forward should be characterized by cooperative efforts that can provide a framework which enhanced the department's ability to affect -- to be effective. we must be innovative to ensure

institutions adapt and evolve. finally, i would like to take to thank thety death the department of state that hosted animal visits in diplomatic security, for the outstanding support. thank you for your time. we look forward to any questions you may have. >> thank you. you did not have an opening statement. would you like to say a few words. >> thank you. for inviting us to testify today about our independent panel report on best practices in the aftermath of the tragic events that occurred in benghazi. our panel was committed to identifying best practices from throughout the u.s. government, the private sector, and foreign governments, which can improve the security of u.s. diplomatic securities abroad and enhance

the safety of department of state and foreign officials personnel not only in high risk areas, but globally. we identified recommendations to achieve this goal. importantly, a panel affirmed what we already knew based on our professional periods. the men and women of the state department's diplomatic security --vice are truly deadly dedicated public servants, amongst the best in service to our great nation. every day, around the world, they face extreme challenges, unpredictable risks, and unknown safes and still provide a and secure environment and they do so with distinction. we have stated repeatedly throughout our report, best practices will not save lives unless they are resourced implemented, and followed. not just excepted. as director sullivan stated,

almost 14 years ago, a number of very similar recommendations after systematic failures were recognized as a result of the east african embassy bombings. little has been accomplished by the department of state since then to improve its approach to byurity, even after approval secretary of state albright to make other enhancement. now is the time for the department of state, with the support of congress, to finally some realnalize meaningful and progressive change. focused on the people who have given their lives to our country and those and pulleys who continue to serve our country in some very dangerous locations around the world. thank you very much. >> thank you. i now recognize myself. i go in reverse order. at the current time, is it not true that both the facilities

sufficiency and the sufficiency of diplomatic security rise to under secretary kennedy? , he is the undersecretary for diplomatic security at this time? is that true? >> as we traveled around the world -- >> i have a short time. by saying yes or no. >> yes. >> he is in fact in a position where the pyramid rises to him. your recommendation and the recommendation 14 years ago is that he be relieved of diplomatic security and placed in a separate undersecretary position. create by not definition a situation in which somebody would be responsible for the hardware, the facilities, including compliances. somebody else would be responsible for the support. have you considered that and how would the foreign affairs

committee structure that briefly? >> yes. we have considered that. currently, there is integration between overseas buildings operations and diplomatic security. they all report under secretary kennedy >> was the failure in benghazi the failure to have facilities sufficient or to have sufficient security in the way of armed personnel. >> there were clearly people who had old house of it and both failed. e -- told member told .olitico that we should listen admiral, i heard you clearly saying that you had limitations in with the arb mandate what and that your limitations are that you can't really look at policy

deficiencies and, by definition, you are mandated to look at the lowest level of operational failure, not the highest level of policy failure. is that true? >> i think that policy adjustments or policy issues were well within our mandate. what i talked about in my opening statement was the constraint was in the discipline. >> so finding fault had to go to the lowest level, even though you looked at policy. >> actually, finding fault had to go to the appropriate level. >> the decision to extend the facility for another year with limited detection and not meeting him and standards was a decision made by undersecretary kennedy. did you consider that policy error? thatpolicy decision or

only somebody lower was responsible? >> i think the memo to which you are referring -- >> the august memo. >> mr. chairman, that undersecretary kennedy signed in december 2011. >> yes. >> it was approved to extend it. i think that was pretty clear to everybody. it wasn't the establishment of the special missing compound. >> we understand that. we actually had testimony that they were under consideration on september 11 of extending it prominently. but the decision to keep from there and the reduction to the assets to protect it occurred in december 2011. >> of the failure, mr. chairman, was not in the establishment or that memo. it was in the execution of what in that memo to include the requisite number of security personnel which were

rarely there over the course of the next year. >> ok, so whoever is responsible for not having enough security personnel is who failed. >> that is where we ended up focusing the review. >> the final point i want to get mandate under a the arb. you said essentially that changes in what the mandate are welcome and you both understand and believe that some changes in the arb to make it able to do more will be necessary. i pretty well heard that. the foreign affairs committee is considering changes, something that you both have welcomed considering this process. >> yes, sir, for the lessons we have learned, absolutely. its independence is critical as well as the anonymity of those who come to the table to make

statements so that those statements are made in this. of where we are trying to go and nato feel limited. that theid administration, the secretary and so on, made your job easy because you had full access to 100 witnesses and the attempt was to have full transparency. >> correct. >> do you think congress should have that same option? in other words, since the state department has not made any of those witnesses you interviewed , even the names have been to the greatest extent possible withheld from this committee -- do you think that is appropriate or do you believe we should have access to fact witnesses as we review the process? >> mr. chairman, i think -- i have been in government a long time. that is something that historically and in this case has to be worked out between the congress and the executive

ranch. >> admiral -- executive branch. admiral, if the attack that happened again today and we wanted the people on the deck of that ship today, do you think we should have the right to speak to those people in order to understand the facts on the ground that day? -- honest >> i'm asking from your experience and a dod framework. >> i don't know what would limit you to do that him up quite frankly. >> i am in the process -- the me to do that, quite frankly. >> i am in the process of issuing subpoenas. they are hiding behind a thinly veiled criminal investigation. any time that there are americans go abroad, we are not being given the same access that andhad or mr. sullivan his team had and that is part of the reason this investigation cannot end until the state

department gives us at least the same axis that they gave your board. i recognize the ranking member for his questions. dust on second. i apologize. i do have to make a technical correction. it has come to our attention that there is a typo on page 25. it has led to some misunderstanding about what admiral mullen told the committee on a conversation with cheryl mills. we have made a technical commission -- technical correction in our report. the report will be correctly identified as admiral mullen's testimony as referring to charlene lam's interview. the rep work includes the full test -- the report includes a full text of the admiral's testimony in the full text of the interview will be made available on our website immediately and it should be the typo was unintentional and has been

corrected. i now recognize the ranking member. >> on to thank the chairman for -- issing the last issue want to thank the chairman for dissing the last issue, the facts the came out in our memo and made it clear that it was not correct. mullen, as the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, you are the military expert on thearb, is that correct -- the terror expert on -- you, is that correct were the military expert on the arb, is that correct? >> yes. if you look on page 23 of our report, there is an excerpt from your interview with the committee in which you said this . and, asnally reviewed

the only military member of the personally reviewed all the military assets that were in theater and available." you haveeview, did access to all military information, data and people necessary to assess the military's or sponsor? -- military's response? >> i did. >> i understand from your transcript that you conducted this investigation not once but twice. >> the first time was with all members of the arb. we went to the pentagon to review it in detail. then the second time, i went back to myself when this became an issue that there were certainly questions being raised and i went that again to verify and validate what i had done before and i found nothing different and that the military response -- the military did

everything they possibly could that night. they just couldn't get there in time. clear, you have 40 years of experience in the military and have achieved the tohest ranks. you had access all the information and personnel you thought was necessary to investigate the interagency response on the night of the attack. and you personally reviewed everything twice. do i have that right? >> right. >> he told the committee in your in your view, "i concluded after a detailed understanding of what had happened that night that, from outside the libya, that we had done everything possible that we could." is that right? >> correct. >> can you explain from your perspective what it means for the motility -- for the military to have done "everything possible"? did the military really try everything?

i ask this for the families who want to know that the country that their loved ones served did everything they could for them. >> i work for two presidents. the direction you get from the president in a certain -- in a situation like that is do everything that you can with all the guidance that you need to secretary panetta and i both testified along the lines in testimony in early february along the lines of what i found when i reviewed this on two occasions. core when people are in trouble to do everything we possibly can to help them out. and there were many forces that moved that night, including a special operations force in europe that ended up in a basis of in europe, a large special operations force from the united states, which moved under direction as soon as they were marinesders, a group of

that essentially were sent in from spain into triple he the tripoli theinto next day. his is not something that you can wish to happen instantly. there's a lot of preparation to do it as rapidly as one can do it. if i may, there has been great discussion given to fast-moving others. could you get a jet over benghazi because there are jets in europe? our readiness condition on that particular night, there were airplanes sitting at the ready. so it is 2:00 in the morning and there are no planes on alert. it is to in a half to three hours to fly there. the tanker is four hours away. you need host nation support where they are to get permission to fly, particularly combat ready jets out of that country.

you have to go get the bomb racks. you have to put the munitions together in you have to plan the mission. there are a tremendous number of details that have to go on. you have to bring the pilot send three brief them him etc. it takes hours and hours and hours to do if you're not sitting at the ready when this happened. what has happened since then, that i have been briefed on, is the defense department, the readinessas adjusted of forces in certain parts of the world to respond. we are not big enough in the military -- and investor picturing will i'm sure becca this -- we are not the enough in the military to be everywhere around the world to respond to where every am to see is that might be high risk. we have to take risk and figure that out. so what do you say in response to those members who continued to this day imply that

the military fell down on the job? >> they didn't fall down on the job and i just completely disagree with that view. >> ambassador pickering, i see you shaking your head. would you comment? >> i think the point that has just been made i admiral mullen is very important. we have over 270 consulates and embassies around the world and in some very isolated and strange places. it falls back on us to do it. the report we provided you and others provides the recommendations to deal with those particular cases. we are not able to count on the u.s. military as admiral mullen said i'm always being petitioned -- being positioned to come in short notice.

so we must do better on the ground. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i now recognize mr. mica for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. many americans have been waiting for this hearing. as i go back to my district, admiral and ambassador and , i can't tell you how many times people have said don't let benghazi and what happened to their be swept under the table. unfortunately, the ranking member mentioned that this, in my district and the vast the journey of americans feel the -- the vast majority of americans feel your report is a whitewash or cover up. that is what people feel. they feel their government let them down. they felt that american public servants were lost their.

and now the review doesn't really adjust anything. nobody has been fired. nobody has been dismissed. no one has been arrested for the murders. i can't tell you how frustrating this is. do you understand where the american public is coming from? >> i understand what you are saying with respect to that. >> would you please put the microphone a little closer, admiral? >> ok. i understand -- >> i'm just telling you how my people feel. then they look at who was interviewed, for example. you just got through saying that we seek direction from the resident. you sought direction and the president had to do this. >> that is what the military got from the president in terms of response. the secretary of state, when

you don't have -- and for 14 years now and the undersecretary of security which was recommended -- so someone was in charge. again, no one is held accountable to this date. that is the way congress feels and the american people feel. i tend to differ with you. i am not the greatest military strategist, but in january we were at least at one post. i know at least other posts where we could have launched an attack. the attack started at 9:45. we may not have been able to save the first two, the embattled server -- the ambassador and his colleagues. but the others shouldn't have died. five: 13-5-30 when they died. 5:15 to 5:30 when they died.

>> what i said was 10 to 20 hours to get there. >> that should not be the case here i was advised as a member of congress when i visited and sat down at on of those locations that we could launch a must immediately to rescue american personnel or american citizens in danger. so there is something wrong there. then again, investigating people above, it is all at the lower some were moved to other positions with a good positions. other it looks like an inside job of

investigation, the department of state looking at the department of state. you had difficulty. again, you testified that you did not have difficulty, mr. mullins, but two other witnesses member mr.hat arb said that it was a difficult process and the board had a orr h time getting details context. >> we got lots of details. >> but we are the congress of the united states and we are not getting that. you just heard the chairman, the delay, we can't get access to witnesses. i had somebody come up to media the day -- i don't know if it's true -- they are conducting lie detector test to people to see if they talked to us. thatmerican people feel

justice is not prevailing in this case. you didn't go to clinton, but what about the deputy secretary, william burns? was he interviewed? both deputyto secretaries of state. at the time that we got to them, as it was with secretary clinton, we had very clear evidence, full and complete to our information, that the authority and responsibility and accountability rested with the people we identified. >> they are not on the list. clinton when secretary testified, she said i talked to the president at the end of the day but was in constant communication with the security advisor. did you interview tom donlin? >> we did not because we sign no evidence that he made any of the decisions that we and the board were asked by the congress to investigate with respect to the

security. and we follow the precepts that admiral mullen has just outlined theyou, not to go for people who didn't make the decisions, but to go following the will of congress to the people who made the decisions and in deed we went to the people who reviewed the decisions. >> the secretary wasn't involved. i must be on another planet. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we now go to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kenny -- mr. tierny. >> thank you. to know i don't pretend better about what could have been done than somebody who serves in the military with as long and distant was a career as you did. i don't think i will pretend that i have more experience or knowledge or ability than you do but i will accept your word that you reviewed twice the

possibilities that could have been there and that everything that could be done was done and it is important for the chemist to know that. -- four the public to know that. the chairman staff report released earlier this week 'sncluded that the arb independence was undermined. ambassadorlen and pickering, that is a very serious charge. a challenge is fundamentally your own integrity. each ano give you opportunity to respond to those allegations. the first, i want to again acknowledge that you oath served our nation for decades and the most senior positions in your field. you have served for both republican and democratic citizens -- republican and democratic presidents alike. you agreed to volunteer months

of your life to serve on this arb. can each of you explain why you served that's why you volunteered to serve on the board? >> as the ranking member already made clear and as my testimony in my deposition, which is available to everybody, made clear, i serve first because the secretary of state asked me to take on a tough job and i have been doing that for my life and for my sense of service to my country said that this is not something i should turn down any way, anyhow. chris stevens gave me two years as undersecretary of state. and i had a personal debt of honor to chris to take this on . needed, i felt we quickly to know what went wrong and how to to fix it and that was the function of the arb and i believe that we carry that out to the best of our ability.

finally, i had no sense anywhere that there was any conflict of interest. i spent 42 years in the state department. i knew many of the officers concerned. i have to tell you for a, fair and free this was not an exercise of any personal sense of debt or obligation to any of those people. commentsieve that the on the report that it was hard- hitting, that it called the shots the way it should have in my view is the best summation of what we tried to do free of pull it up: phones, free of conflict and i am proud of the report -- free of political conflict, -- free of political influence, free of conflict and i am proud of the report. >> i have been with so many of those in uniform as well as those who served in the state department around the world in some very, very difficult posts.

and i thought i could with my experience contribute from the professional standpoint, print to give relief from the military perspective -- particularly from the military perspective. i its core, it is still who am, which is a servant of this country. and when asked to go do that, it was pretty easy to say yes. comments said,f -- this place is staff in a position that requires them to reevaluate of the performance of supervisors, colleagues and friends." how do you respond to the notion that the selection of staff created an inappropriate conflict of interest? the roleerstanding of of secretary kennedy made it clear that he did not dissipate. i seems to been an error somewhere and that testimony is now in the minority report.

secondly, my judgment of the staff performance was that i saw no hint of any favoritism or preference. i saw a staff that worked many extra hours, that looked very carefully at all the issues, that did extraordinary research and was responsible to us. but in every case, we'll review the final report many times. makeet -- we each contributions and the unanimous view of this five-member panel is that they took full responsibility and approved every word of that report. >> the chairman's report also raises questions about your recommendation of captain pacini. do you believe that your -- catherine petini. do you believe that your selection created a conflict of interest? >> i was asked in early

discussion who i thought might usefully serve on the board from outside the state department and i give a list of names to undersecretary kennedy who was accumulating those for secretary clinton. a large number of the people i put on the list were not selected. selected.rtini was she ran the food world program, a multibillion-dollar enterprise of the u.n.. she was undersecretary general of the yuan for management. record a distinguished as a professor on public policy. her own political background was on the opposite side to the party in power. >> thank you, sir. report talkedaff about conflicts, isn't it true that there were no true outsiders? there were no advocates for the families, no people who serve outside of government that would

cause them to be skeptical. you,ct, each of ambassador, you said you had no conflict while at the same time you talk about 42 years in the organization you were overseeing. if we looked at the bank failures of 2007 and brought head the board, some would say that there was an inherent conflict because of his experience and life here i. wouldn't you agree that your makeup was a makeup of people like admiral mullen who were responsible for policy that had no response to this 9/11 attack. and of course, you had years of viewing is through an ambassador's eyes. >> esther chairman, with greatest respect, this was not panel.cha" investigative

would you choose -- put it this with noomeone experience to come in and investigate and carry forward the work? we used to, years ago, elect military officers. we stopped that a long time ago. i suspect that brain surgery was one of the most early occupied operations in the world. why would you choose a panel of april who knew nothing about the responsibilities, nothing about how and what way they were carried out? the value of this panel was that three were from outside and only two of us were from inside. hopefully to give for cicely the give current of -- precisely the cross current of question and examination that you yourself just expressed the hope that we had. we, sir, had that. >> we appreciate that. obviously, this was not a gotcha panel because nobody was gotten.

>> i would with great respect say that we gave for names to the secretary of state that we in theirwere failing senior leadership and management responsibilities. today thattestimony something should have happened, they should not be on the job, not having lost a days pay? >> we made recommendations that two of those people be removed from their jobs. >> but they have not been fired. >> fired is a discipline and a different set of circumstances. >> wouldn't you agree that there was no accountability? accountability. >> on a point of order. >> restaurant to make this quick. >> thank you, mr. chairman. earlier, you commended ambassador pickering and admiral mullen. commend you and your

staff on trying to get the full story on this thing gaza situation. let me -- on this benghazi situation. congress has approved increases funding for embassy security around the world. in tripolifound that increaseddicate security for special mission benghazi. -- ild like to asking you would like to asking how did you come to that decision? >> it was a combination of documents.

>> ok. your report says on page for that systematic failures and leadership and management efficiencies at senior levels resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for benghazi. what were the systematic ?ailures churn andant staynnel with an average time in benghazi of 40 days or , differential and uncertain and sometimes negative attitudes

towards security, physical improvements of the post are two examples. >> i would add to that, the application of resources over time, whether it was from inside the security branch of the state department or inside the buildings, the training of personnel before they went for the right kind of high threat training, the physical up grade that had been sought, the continuity of achieving those physical upgrades, the andepipes that no leader, we have focused on the key leaders in our report, saw fit to cross and make things happen from a leadership perspective. interventionactive leadership. we focused on the people with the knowledge on security that were making the decisions. as well of knowledge in the

area. >> the knowledge that was available and several people talked about how no one has been held accountable in most -- in the way most americans would consider accountability. in your interview with the committee, you were asked about a man named ray maxwell and you said nobody has a picture like he did. >> he was in a position in the portfolio where his were these countries, including libya. there was a tremendous amount of instability throughout the middle east of not just a demonstration, at the evolution of what had happened in egypt and syria as well.

the assistant secretary general was focused on the whole region to include those crises and you come down under her, the individual with a focus, the knowledge, the portfolio, the day-to-day focus was mr. maxwell. -- taken back significantly that he removed himself from those responsibilities in terms of what was going on in libya. i was shocked. >> i had to slip out briefly to a nether committee and maybe you have already answered this. topyou surprised that the four people that no one was fired? >> we talked about the constraints of the law. those are very real constraints.

this gets equated to the military. but we have a military commander that fails, we "fire" them. we move him or her out of that job. they are not dismissed from the federal service unless they go through criminal proceedings. there is this mismatch of perception, you fire people in the military all the time. what you really do is move them out of a job. >> you do not fire them in the way they would be fired in the private sector. true in the military, you would get an ar?erse oi if you are a second first lieutenant, you would be forced out before you are eligible for retirement? isn't there a level of ultimate

accountability? >> absolutely. >> there is an exact parallel. ,f you are removed from a job particularly under the circumstances that have to do with something like benghazi. your future career is finished. >> thank you. i want to thank the panelists for helping us with our work. i want to offer my condolences to the stevens family, the smith family for their loss. we can only hope their grief and the burden they now carry might be lightened a little bit i knowing that it is shared by so many across this nation. think it is important that

we've remember these four individuals were among our nation's very best. they do a very dangerous job. diminishes their memory to think of them as victims. these four men, i think it is better to honor them and their memories by recalling that they were very dedicated patriots. they are american heroes. they trained long and hard and they prepared long and hard with extreme bravery. they went out to meet the challenges that they faced. they loved doing so on behalf of this country. youral mullen, in interview with the committee, you said during the unfolding crisis like this, the president

is likely to tell the military leaders to do everything possible to respond. this is the direction they need to start moving assets forward and formulating a response. is that your testimony? >> that is my experience. >> did it happen in this case? >> yes. but did you find the defense department, the state department engaged quickly? >> as rapidly as they possibly could. >> the committee had the opportunity to interview our committee. and the opportunity to interview jake sullivan. that secretary clinton and other senior officials were heavily engaged on the night of the attacks.

" secretary clinton was receiving reports of what was happening and she made a series of phone calls. she gave direction to pat kennedy to do everything possible with respect to our own resources and whether spec to libyan resources to respond -- and with respect to libyan resources. she was receiving regular updates and she was proactively reaching out. she spoke with director petraeus, she spoke with the national security advisor, she participated in a secure video teleconference system and she made other phone calls that night. secretary clinton was the only thing she -- this was the only thing she was focused on." they are consistent with what we heard from mrs. jones and from undersecretary kennedy.

what thewe heard and committee heard and let the public heard. were state department officials immediately engaged? in multiple ways and through multiple channels. >> did they do everything they could that night? >> i believe they did. mullen, i have followed your careers. .our reputation is impeccable your service to this country has been in the highest standards. i want to say, i think you have been treated and fairly. your body of work has not been appreciated. i think you are owed a debt of

gratitude for your years of public service. energyligence and your and honesty and integrity during this whole process. >> i now recognize the gentleman from ohio. in your testimony, you say, as werated independently deemed necessary. in your interview with the committee staff, the committee did you have any questions about the independent -- independence of the board? a most important descriptive characteristic of it was that it would be independent. is that accurate?

in the same interview with committee staff, did you update the state department in the course of the arb? you replied, shortly after we iterviewed charlene lam, initiated a call to ms. mills to give her a heads up because at this point, she was on a list to come over here to testify. >> in october. is this the same ms. mills who was the chief of staff and counsel to the secretary of state? >> it is. calls, you take her calls. later in that same response to the committee's questions about you updating the state department in the course of the

a heads-up ms. mills i thought her appearance could be a very difficult appearance for the state department. >> correct. is so independent, why are you giving the state department a heads up about a witness coming in front of this committee? withinad just completed a day or two of that phone call -- >> you had a phone call with ms. mills? >> that is what my statement said. we had just completed the interview with ms. lamb. can i answer your question? run aeone having department and spent many times trying as a leader of the department --

>> my time is winding down. >> let me answer this. seven days later -- why was she one of the first people you interviewed? >> she was when the first people interviewed because she was not in control of diplomatic security. >> how did you know she was on the list? >> it was public knowledge. by the time i knew it -- >> what day did you interview charlene lam? can.tween the third and it >> when did you talk to cheryl mills? >> within 24 hours. charlene lamnk would be a witness at that point in time that would represent the department well.

again, we have been told the arb is an independent review. you have said it twice. week, you are given the counselor to the secretary of state a heads-up about a witness that you think will not be a good witness. do you know what else happened? libya and onent to ms. mills sent a staff lawyer on that trip and he was instructed to be in every single meeting. >> did you talk about that? >> no. >> he also testified that when

there was a meeting at a classified level that the staff lawyer was not able to attend, you got a phone call from cheryl mills saying, why did you let this meeting take place? you are giving her a heads up. we're supposed to believe this report is independent. did cheryl mills get to see this report before it went public? report when itft was wrapped up. >> both sure all mills and hillary clinton got to see this report before it went public? cheryl mills and hillary clinton got to see this report before it went public? general -- if you

learned that inspector general over the course of an investigation and formed its agency leadership that a witness gradual to testify before congress would reflect poorly on the agency some would you have concerned about in inspector general doing the same thing you did? >> the intent -- >> it is yes or no. >> the intent of what i did was to give the leadership of the state department a heads up with respect to ms. mills. >> you let them see the final report. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i do want to say to family members, i have heartache for your loss.

lost three constituents at the navy yard last week. i lost a good friend in that embassy bombing in the early 1980s. remember and arb at that time at that time. >> it was before arb became a practice. >> who lost our embassy, dozens i do not remember any investigation. i do not member any charges. i do not remember the democrats exploiting ronald reagan's management of that incident. we understood it was a national tragedy and we try to come together. i say to all four of you, i regret the tone of this hearing but it is typical of the so-

called investigations into big gauzy -- benghazi, where there is an agenda and the agenda is not getting at the truth. the chairman use the word gotcha. we will make up for it by getting you. --ing to ms. march josh the finest civil servants in their respective fields. let me say to you, there are many who see through that. but tragedy occurred -- a tragedy occurred because terrorist perpetrated terror. howre trying to find out

can we learn from the tragedy? have to make sure there are not -- there are no more grieving families? how can we make sure we are at or prepared? i thank you for the courage you have shown. thank you for -- admiral mullen, in a partisan report leaked to the press, not shared with the side of the committee, which should give you a big fat hand, you are the subject of an allegation. mullen put cheryl mills on notice that the boards question could be difficult for the state department.

i want to give you an opportunity to respond to that allegation. i tried to say. i called ms. mills having therviewed -- prior to .irst testimony on the hill i think the 10th of october. i was concerned because i had run a major organization. it was very early in the process as far as what had happened. there were many unknowns and i was concerned about her level of experience. that was it. >> you do not believe you gave her an appropriate heads-up? >> no.

with respect to the independent piece, it never had an impact. >> did you want to comment on that? >> there are two issues running here. admiral mullen has clearly explained what he did and why. it had nothing to do with the arb. the republican text which you cited is an error. it had nothing to do with testimony by cheryl mills. ie third point is that believed from the beginning of the arb, since we were to report to the secretary, that it was my obligation as chairman to talk to the secretary to the secretary through the chief of staff about our progress, about where we were going, about the timing of the report. are expert stations

were with respect to the timing of conclusion. all of which i believed was in full keeping with our obligation. there was no direction, there was no feedback, there was no request to do this, that or the other thing. that happens every couple of weeks. >> i have one more minute. one of the things that has been yesterday, at the foreign was in committee, there order to stand down that somebody gave the command that the military was not to respond. could you put that allegation to rest? did that happen? >> and ordered to stand down was never given. the four special

operators that were in tripoli. they finish- supporting movement of american personnel in tripoli from the embassy compound into a safer place, having finished that, as every military person active or retired would want to do, they want to go to the fight to try to help. he checked out this chain of command, which was the special operations command, and the direction he got was to hold in place. he was there to support the security and the evacuation. only in hindsight, had they gone, and we had a very good understanding of what was going anthen, had they gotten on

airplane, they would've taken medical capability that was needed out of tripoli and most likely crossed in route with the first plane that was evacuated. >> thank you. i recognize myself for five minutes. admiral, i, woods -- want my -- i want to direct my question to you. my understanding is that there is not a report. it seems on a mysterious there is no such report. -- odds and mysterious there is no such report. talk to stephen

gibson? did you or anybody speak with anybody from the office of security cooperation located at the embassy? >> we were in touch and spoke with and interviewed the defense attaché. who is colonel george bristol? >> i do not know. he was not interviewed by the arb. with directorpeak of operations? >> not directly, no. we were aware of his input. having spoken with the joint staff and the director of operations on the joint staff. they are different from the

joint staff. >> the router admiral, do you know who he is? he is the commander of special operations command at the time of the benghazi attack. did you interview him? >> we did not. deputy to speak with the commander for military operations? >> we spoke to his boss. people, directly involved in the operations that night. you did not read a report or a review. all of these people are directly involved and they were not engaged. >> when i went back the second time, i listen to a report with respect to what happened. >> we understand the general was in washington, d.c..

he was not in libya. they asked libya for flight clearance? like the general was involved throughout. -- >> the general was involved throughout. defensee department of ever asked libya permission for flight clearance? i believe the answer is no. >> do i get to answer the questions? >> we already had permissions to fly. the assets that came from germany specifically, we received permission to put them -- >> let me keep moving. when did the united states military reach out to our nato partners? >> i do not think it did. >> that is one of the concerns.

have 50 tornadoes. we never asked them. states --he united wimmer they called up? the more they put on alert? >> -- when were they put on alert? here is the problem. >> their readiness status was upgraded. admiral, with all due respect -- >> at the time of the attack, the readiness status, there were no aircraft ready to go. >> in cairo, hours earlier, the demonstrators breached the wall. they had torn down the american flag. on 9/11.bya

we had been bombed twice prior. there is nobody that is ready to go? europe had closer assets. did you talk to anybody who did want to move forward? >> everybody in the military wanted to move forward. there are plenty of assets moving. it became a physics problem. it is a time and distance problem. that is who we are. when someone is in harms way. >> i did not get there in time.