Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140403

Advent of this Health Care Law and would thus strain their budgets. A substitute teacher named amy from chesserfield county, virginia, was asked by the Richmond Times dispatch about the burdens of this rule under obamacare. And he she said, quote, the people and she said, quote, the people that its going to affect are the people that need or want to work ever single day, end quote. So why is the government punishing those who are looking to earn an honest wage . This administration believes that they can hide the reality of the wage cuts with an increase in the minimum wage but a proposal that the but that proposal which the nonpartisan experts say will result in 500,000 lost jobs is not the answer. The answer is, restore the 40hour workweek and let people work. We have known for a long time that the president s Health Care Law was broken. But now its beginning to break the backs of American Workers. Our constituents dont deserve this broken law or more broken promises. They deserve a fair shot at success without the government standing in the way. Today we have an opportunity to unclinch this middle class squeeze and restore the 40hour workweek so that wage earners dont have to worry about smaller paychecks. So lets stand together in a bipartisan fashion and take a big step towards creating an america that works again and works again for everyone. Id like to thank chairman camp, representative young, and the rest of the ways and Means Committee for their hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support working families by passing this legislation. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia yields back. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Levin i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Levin i know the majority would come here and talk about the middle class. They are trying to escape from their failure to help take action to provide jobs for middle class americans. They also, by the way, so far havent helped out to provide a continuation of Employment Unemployment insurance for hundreds of thousands of people, so many in the middle class, who have lost their jobs. Look, i quoted from c. B. O. And i uess ill have to quote again, this is in february, in quotes, in c. B. O. s judgment there is no compelling evidence that parttime employment has increased as a result of the a. C. A. And ill quote again from this study of the center on budget and policy priorities. And its headed this way. Health he reform not causing significant shift to parttime work, but raising threshold to 40 hours a week would make a sizable shift likely. And i quoted why they say that because the number of people who are working 40 hours or thereabouts, that number is so much larger than those who are working 30 hours or thereabouts, and so any employer who wanted essentially to shift the burden rom them to others, they are more likely to do it under this bill than under the present circumstance. And thats the reason, thats by reason why its been said force one it would Million People out of employerbased Health Insurance and it would add 74 billion to e deficit since its not offset. You havent you havent refuted a single one of those statements. If they are not true, id like you to say so. Id like you to say c. B. O. Is wrong. And also wrong with they say it will increase the number of uninsured by half a Million People. Those are three c. B. O. Statements. They stand here to refute the myths that are being brought here in defense of this bill. So you raise the middle class banner at the same time you essentially with this bill would take away Health Insurance from many, many, many, many middle class citizens. Thats what you would be doing here. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the chair would remind members to address their remarks to the chair. The gentleman from michigan reserves. The gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Young mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. Paulsen, a distinguished member of the committee on ways and means. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Paulsen i thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, its been said before, the more we learn about the president s Health Care Law, the more the facts show its hurting more people than its helping. The latest development now is the lost 30 hour rule is forcing some companies to scale back hours with more parttime jobs and less fulltime jobs, so that those employees who have good fulltime jobs are now having to go to parttime jobs. Mr. Speaker, i met with a Small Business owner. He owns seven different restaurants, and i know a lot of folks think people in the Restaurant Industry only employ parttime workers, but 41 of his workers he employs fulltime. But because of the new law, where now 30 hours is the standard being considered fulltime work, hes being forced to lower the work hours for those employees, nearly all of them, to 29 hours or less. That absolutely makes no sense. These reduced hours are now going to force a 25 reduction in pay for those workers. Many will now have to go out and find a second parttime job to make up for the hours that they lost. Another Small Business owner i talked to from minnesota, he was imploring me when he contacted me, please, Congress Needs to correct the 30hour rule so it reflects his work forces needs and employees desire to have more flexible hours. If its not addressed by congress soon, there will be disruptions in the work force and Flexible Work options for his employees could disappear altogether. The 30hour work rule is negatively affecting manufacturers and even our schools. We should remove these barriers to work. We should not punish employees who want to work more, and we should be helping American Workers. Lets pass this legislation. It will restore some common sense an common understanding in america that fulltime work is 40 hours. It will pass with bipartisan support. I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue for getting americans back to work. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Levin reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan reserves. The gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Young mr. Speaker, i would like to also indicate the fact that i, too, have read the Congressional Budget Offices estimate of this legislation. They indicate that 75 billion in wages will be lost as a result of the Affordable Care act. If Something Like the save American Workers act isnt implemented. So effectively i hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle making the case that we ought to be funding the Affordable Care act, essentially, on the backs of these hourly workers. I dont think thats a position anyone wants to find themselves in. Mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes the gentleman from arizona, mr. Sad lynn. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Sad lynn its interesting as we throw these numbers around, i guess they mean a lot on the floor debate. But to the real people that are suffering, they dont mean anything. There is an old adage that says there are you lies, lies and statistics. I would have thrown numbers around here like they matter, but the fact is they are real peoples lives being hurt and destroyed. In fact i read an article a few months ago that the Community College where i met my wife is actually notifying 1,300 employees, 700 of them that were adjunct professors, their hours are going to be reduced, and they are because of this law. Mr. Salmon they are being hurt. I guess we can quote them a statistic, go on your merry way, i know you cant pay for your mortgage, you cant make a car payment, cant pay for your childs college education, but we got this great statistic that we just got out of congress that ought to make you feel better about your life. The fact is we ought to be more concerned about individuals than we are throwing numbers around. I understand c. B. O. Also said that total implementation of obamacare would cost 2. 1 million. The fact is we can use statistics to say just about whatever we want them to say. But real peoples lives are being hurt and we have a responsibility here in this body to do everything that we can to try to raise the lifestyle in this country, not degrade it. People are losing their jobs. My son, my son lost his insurance because of obamacare. He was one of that small percentage, again a statistic, that we were quoted. But the fact is he lost his insurance. Now hes just told us hes having his third child. The first two children were delivered by a doctor that they know and trust. But because of obamacare, their doctor is not covered under their new polcy. To add insult to injury, when he went on the exchange to sign up after he was told his policy was no longer covered because of obamacare, his premiums went up from 450 a month to 850 a month. Thats hardly helping people. I think that its safe to note this law was passed without one republican. And its time that we stop our high horse of statistics and actually care about people. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Levin i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Levin if you care about people, you should be for the a. C. A. Seven Million People have been enrolled in private plans through the a. C. A. Marketplace, to repeat. Seven million plus. And millions, well get the figures, now have coverage under medicaid. Thats lots of millions of people, and you come forth with an individual case . In many cases i dont know your instance these cases have turned out to be incorrect. Theyve been put in political ads, and theyve been refuted. I now want to read the statement of Administrative Administration policy from the president. And i quote, the administration strongly opposes house passage f h. R. 2575, the save American Workers act. It should be called the socalled save American Workers act. Because it would significantly increase the deficit and reduce the number of americans with employerbased Health Insurance. Rather than attempting once again to repeal the Affordable Care act, which the house has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for the congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the president in an agenda focused on providing greater Economic Opportunity and security for middleclass families and all those working to get into the middle class. This legislation would weaken a provision of the Affordable Care act that keeps employers from dropping Health Insurance coverage and shifting the costs to taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it would increase the budget deficit by 73. 7 billion over the 20152024 period. Moreover, the proposed change would reduce the number of people receiving employerbased coverage by about one million while increasing the number of uninsured. The Affordable Care act gives people greater control over their own health care. Since october 1, over seven million have signed up for insurance in the Health Insurance marketplaces. Because of the Affordable Care act, americans have previously een denied coverage due to preexisting condition now have access to coverage. Additionally, the law helps millions of americans stay on their parents plans until age 26 and provides access to free Preventive Care like cancer screenings that catch illness early on. While the administration welcomes ideas to improve the law, h. R. 2575 would undermine it by shifting costs to taxpayers and causing employers either to drop or to not expand Health Insurance coverage. If the president and this is underlined were presented with h. R. 2575, he would veto it, end of quotes. With that very effective, i think, so convincing statement, i hope all listen to it. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan reserves. The gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Young mr. Speaker, i cannot believe what i just heard. I heard that individual cases ought not be cited. That thats somehow offlimits mr. Levin if the gentleman will yield . I said true cases, not all cases. I said i didnt know the facts the speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan will suspend. The gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Young mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just cited the example of his son. Lost his insurance despite the promises of this bill during campaign season. He lost his doctor. Saw his insurance premiums and copays go up. These are real lives were talking about. These are real wages we are trying to remedy. This is a 40hour workweek that people depend on. To cite the statement of Administration Policy as somehow being more authoritative than these reallife examples i find simply outputting. Mr. Speaker, i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the education and work force committee, mr. Kleine. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for four minutes. Mr. Kline i thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for the education and it faces committee, decisions today. This will strain their ability to effectively help students. Workers and job creators are still struggling in a persistently anemic economy, making it difficult for Many Americans to pay for the bills and provide for their families. Unfortunately, the Health Care Law is making things worse. Thanks to the president s governmentrun scheme, fulltime jobs are being destroyed, not created. Health care costs are going up, not down, and millions of individuals are losing the Health Care Plan they like example of which we heard earlier instead of keeping it, as they were promised, mr. Speaker. This reality isnt limited to just private businesses. Its a reality unfolding in schools, colleges and universities across the country. Recent headlines confirmed in stark detail how the president s Health Care Law is hurting our education system. From the Washington Free beacon, quote, alabama schools face shortage of substitute teachers due to obamacare, closed quote. From the weekly standard, quote, hours cut for North Carolina teachers due to obamacare, closed quote. And just in case my friends from the other side of the aisle would accuse me of selecting only conservative publications, from the new york titles, Public Sector cutting parttime hours to skirt Health Care Law. Closed quote. Aside from press reports, we also heard firsthand accounts of how obamacare is making it harder for School Leaders to meet the needs of students. In december the asked the public to share the committee asked the public to share personal stories. Ileana from st. Anne, minnesota, talked about the dream of teaching at a school. While that dream may have come true she wrote her financial situation is less stable than it was before the Health Care Law. Kate from california informed the committee that her Community College would have to restrict workers hours noting this will hurt the impact to help students. Secretary sebelius once dismissed about jobs lost as, quote, speculation. Yet, for ileana, kate and countless others, the Health Care Law is wreaking havoc on their families, their livelihoods and their schools. While restoring workers hours, it would allow them to earn the wages they deserve. Just as important, the legislation would relieve schools grappling with the Health Care Law. Congress should not stand by while teachers have their hours cut and students receive diminished access to Educational Opportunities all because of bad policies out of washington. Certainly i urge my colleagues to provide relief for our nations workplaces and classrooms by supporting the save American Workers act. And i would point out, as my colleague did, that taking the administrations statement of administrative policy as definitive here defies, frankly, all logic. There is no one in america that would be surprised that the president doesnt want changes to his law unless he unilaterally makes those changes. Because after all, mr. Speaker, if you like your Health Care Plan, you can keep your Health Care Plan, unless you cant. If you like your doctor, mr. Speaker, you can keep your doctor except when you cant. Before i yield back my time, id like to thank the ways and Means Committee for their excellent work on this legislation, and id lake to take a moment to recognize my friend and colleague, dave camp, who announced earlier this week his plan to retire. Hes been a distinguished member, a dedicated reformer and a champion of working families. Were going to miss him. I wish him all the best. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Levin mr. Speaker, i ask that the balance of our time today be managed by mr. Rangel, a member of the committee. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for the balance of the time. Mr. Rangel i recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. Lynch. Maine. Massachusetts. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for how many minutes . Mr. Rangel two minutes. The speaker pro tempore for two minutes. Mr. Lynch thank you very much, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from new york for yielding. Mr. Speaker, i rise today in opposition to this bill, the socalled save the American Worker act, and to speak in support of working men and women of this great country. Im here today and every day not only as a member of congress but as someone who knows what its like to work for a living. As someone who for 18 years as an ironworker, i strapped on a pair of work boots during boom times and down economies, and i know what its like to stand in the unemployment line when our local ship yard closed and our auto prant shut down. Mr. Speaker, im part of the American Work force. Like many of my colleagues, i represent hundreds of thousands of hardworking people who struggle every day to make ends meet. And thats why im deeply offended that the Republican Leadership of this house, the peoples house, has the at the matter to refer to any at that matter to refer to the simple fact is that during my time in congress, the actions of my colleagues, especially the Republican Leadership, have spoken loudly to the has spoken loudly to the contrary. Its hard for me to cover all the antiworker efforts since ive been in congress. They continually tried to roll back prevailing wage laws and workers rights and protections thats been in place since the 1930s. They tried to cripple the National Labor Relations Board put in place in 1935 to protect American Workers. Freezing pay and cutting benefits and demoralizing our hardworking men and women in government. Republican leadership has opposed equal pay for women. Theyve opposed raising the minimum wage. Theyve opposed employee nondiscrimination legislation. In fact, they wont even bring some of those bills for a vote. And as we struggle to recover from the worst economic downturn since the great depression, Republican Leadership has refused to extend emergency Unemployment Benefits to the longterm unemployed. Many of whom use that money just to put food on their table while they search for work. Now, the republican majority has the audacity to put forward a bill they call the save the American Worker act. We got to save the American Worker from you. Thats who we need to be saving them from. The bill before us today the speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Rangel i yield an additional minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. Mr. Lynch i thank the gentleman. I thank the speaker for his indulgence. The bill before us is more of the same. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will add 74 billion to the federal deficit, force one mill more people to lose un excuse me employercovered health care and according to a Study Released by the university of californiaberkeley, this will cause 6. 5 million workers lose more hours. This bill, like so many offered by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, is not crafted to save the American Worker. Its crafted to increase large employers while workers continue to struggle. Perhaps this bill should be name the save the american c. E. O. Act. It is the height of hypocrisy that after all their efforts to harm the American Worker that my colleagues should have the audacity to even introduce a bill entitled the save American Worker act. We need to save the American Worker from the Republican Leadership, thats what we need to do. So i urge my colleagues to continue to oppose these efforts, to destroy the middle class and sabotage the American Worker and the american family. And i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Young mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. Phil roe, a member of the education and work force committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Roe i thank you, mr. Speaker and rise in support of the save American Workers act. This bill would repeal obamacares mandate on employers to provide insurance to all employees working at least 30 hours per week. It would instead restore the traditional 40hour standard. Everywhere i go i hear concerns about the lack of jobs and the need for job creation. Tennessees Unemployment Rate is still near 7 . We need to be doing Everything Possible to encourage employers to not only create jobs but to maintain current jobs. Thats why the 30hour standard makes no sense. Employers are already struggling to make their budgets work and in the stagnant obama economy. We know how these employers will be forced to respond, by cutting hours or hiring fewer workers. Theres concrete evidence this is already happening, not just in the private sector. In my own hometown, johnson city, tennessee, where i was mayor before i came here, the City School System has been forced to keep approximately 00 parttime employees 200 parttime employees, including substitute teachers,. It would harm the schoolchildren that would benefit from this. Theres no other way to help individuals who cannot afford Health Insurance or have been affected by catastrophic illness or disease. Mr. Speaker, ive spent my entire adult life as a physician, taking care of people from all walks of life. I want every american to have access to an affordable Health Care Plan, and ive worked since i arrived in congress to develop patientcentered solutions to help people afford ealth care like h. R. 25 3121. There are ways to reach this goal without creating massive knew bureaucracies, spending 2 trillion, weakening the doctorpatient relationship or increasing premiums for millions of hardworking americans. But the president wont even ngage in a conversation. We must do what we can to protect the American People from this law. Thats why i encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from indiana reserves, the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Rangel i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Rangel this is about the 52nd time that the republican majority has attempted to repeal or derail the Affordable Care act. I dont know why they do it so often since constitutionally its abundantly clear that they dont have the votes to pass it in the senate and clearly if it ever reached the president s desk it would be vetoed. And there are not enough votes to override the veto. So clearly, this madness continues even after more than enough people have enrolled far beyond those that were expected by some of the republicans, and this struggle this madness, goes on as though democrats are the only people that are going to become sick and need health care. So i dont know where we go from here, i assume that comes the next election, once again the voters would speak out, and for those people that have had kids on their insurance policy, well hear from them, for those who have had preconditions and couldnt get Health Insurance, well hear from them. From those that thought that getting Preventive Health care was a luxury, we should hear from them. But more importantly, the people who just could not afford nsurance,ky not conceive how these people i cannot conceive how these people are all democrats and that republicans have no people that are vulnerable to illnesses and the severe expenses thats involved. But clearly, its been my opinion that if this bill doesnt work, if it fails, and if some of these tactics have been successful, that the democrats would be embarrassed by its failure. But i also thought, and it makes a lot of sense to me, that if indeed the American People started to understand the complexities of the bill and thought they were in need of Health Insurance, as close to 10 Million People feel, then the republicans would have to defend their negative position as to why they fight so thoord deny people Health Insurance. They fight so hard to deny people Health Insurance. So i understand from mr. Lynch that the bill is named after workers, that brings me to ask for unanimous consent to insert a letter into the record from the aflcio, clearly this is not a management outfit but really supports the workers, and they, of course, are opposed to this bill that is drafted to go nowhere. In addition to that, i ask unanimous consent, mr. Speaker, that we insert the following e the m the acsm ashme into the record that supports county and municipal employees, and they strongly oppose the legislation that the republican majority has brought to the floor. Lastly, i ask unanimous consent to insert the letter from the National Education association. Hat opposes this legislation the speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Rangel before i reserve the balance of my time, i would like to join in with the majority that has complimented the work of chairman david camp. His announcement surprised most of us but i dont think in this challenge that he has really proven his chairmanship to be all that we expected from him and then some. I regret the republicans have passed over his opportunity to reform the tax law, but then again, chairmans tax reform law made too much sense for anybody to think it would be picked up by the republican majority but it was a bill that would be great for discussion, it was hard hitting, it provided a lot savings, it reduced the rates. And so i dont know why, before he leaves, we couldnt have this taken up. But its my understanding that the gift that was given to him by his majority was just to allow him to present his draft and i think thats unfortunate because if ever there was a me we need to reform the tax laws it would be now. I congratulate chairman camp for his attempt to introduce this to the house and i regret that the republican majority has out of hand rejected it. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from indiana is recognized. Mr. Young id like to acknowledge that to get a bill this far in the legislative process requires the work of a lot of people. My own staff within my office, Committee Staff and my fellow colleagues who are willing to provide a consultative role, constructive advice in a very strong leadership role. With that, im very happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, tim walberg, who helped us introduce this bill, hes a member of the education and work force committee. The speaker pro tempore how long . Mr. Young two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Walberg i thank the gentleman, thank you for your leadership. Mr. Speaker, its a privilege to stand here in support of this legislation, good legislation to help the people in my state of michigan a hardhit state because of economic problems and i think bad, bad efforts and policies from an administration and others didnt understand that workers who are encouraged to work to their fullest extent produce an economy. Its hard to take seriously the objections on the democrat side of the aisle here when they talk about the middle class they talk about employees. And their efforts to help them. A party who enshrined the minimum wage and Unemployment Insurance as the golden grail of what grows an economy. I find that absurd. A party who has decimated the middle class in the last six years with policies including what were discussing today. Moving from 40 hours to 30 hours, fulltime work requirements, i dont get it. We also understand its the same party that told us if you like your insurance, you can keep it. No,. No. If you like your doctor, you can keep it. No. 23 you like your hospital, you can keep it. No. And now we hear their objections that basically says if you like your job, you can keep it. No. Back in september, before this illadvised law took place, janet from jackson, michigan, called my office in tears. A 56yearold mother of three, single parent, who had just been told by her job provider that morning in home health care, a very valuable field of service, that she no longer would be working 36 hours, which was her normal working hourly hour opportunity. And would be moved back to 28 because of what . The Affordable Care act requirements. And so she said to my office staff, in tears, how am i now going to make it when i was making it on a 36hours at that job, supplementing that with a waitress job on the weekend and i was paying my mortgage, my insurance, and now im going to be asked to pay for all of that on 28 hours. Im 56 years old, where i am i going to get another job . Thats whats being produced by this. We want to give janet the opportunity to have her 36 hours back. We want to give jim and jerry and joan and all the rest of the people the opportunity of the fullest hours they can possibly have in an america that grows the middle class and gives the opportunity for success and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Rangel i dont know what part of the constitution the gentleman doesnt understand, but the truth of the matter is that this law passed the house of representatives, passed the senate, was signed into law and verified by the United States supreme court, and still we hear people yelling at the darkness hat we should repeal it. Now, they always there are ways to do these thing bus one thing is abundantly clear. The way weve been going about this, 52 parliamentary opportunities that the house has had, this doesnt work. And so if youre trying something 51 times, it would seem to me, unless somebodys putting something in the water on the other side of the aisle, that well try something else, like try repair it. Try to fix it. Try in a bipartisan way to see where we agree that changes could be made to make it easier for employers and employees. But this barking at the moon, to me is just a waste of taxpayers money and time. And so at this point in time, i ould like to yield the balance is mr. Waxman ready . Hes not here. So i will how many speakers do we have and how much time do we have, mr. Speaker . The speaker pro tempore the 62 eman from new york has minutes mr. Rangel 52 . The speaker pro tempore 62 minutes. The gentleman from indiana has 64 minutes. Mr. Rangel how many speakers would you have . Only have two speakers. Mr. Young we have six speakers. Mr. Rangel i yield to the majority. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from indiana. Mr. Young i would like to insert into the record a letter of support for this bill from the National Restaurant association. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Young i yield to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. Wilson a member of the work force committee. Two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Wilson thank you, mr. Speaker, thank you, congressman young, for yielding. Im grateful for chairman john kline and congressman todd young for their thoughtful leadership on this important issue with the save American Workers act osmba macare is the saddest example of Big Government failure. The American People have lost their Health Care Plans. Access to their most trusted doctors. Been forced to pay significant premium increases for poorer coverage and high edeductibles. On top of these broken promises, its tragic for American Families that the president s signature Health Care Law will also destroy jobs. Every day, real constituents living in south carolinas second Congressional District reach out to me expressing frustration with this broken law. Jennifer, a true Small Business owner from lexington, writes, quote, keep trying to repeal obamacare at all costs. The employer mandate will cause my business to move fulltime employees to part time. Dozens of actual people express these same sentiments and plead with congress to provide rethree National Federation of independent business, nfib, was correct that obamacare will destroy 1. 6 million jobs. Obamacares 30hour workweek rule is lowering the wage farce significant portion of hardworking americans, the very ones the president claims to champion. On behalf of the millions of americans who are receiving smaller paychecks and having to work multiple jobs, i urge my colleagues to support this bill and provide greater Economic Security and opportunity for those who need it the most. I yield back the balance of my ime. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Rangel i yield five minutes to the former chairman of the energy and Commerce Committee that played such an Important Role in bringing this historic legislation to the floor and to the law. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Waxman mr. Speaker, this is a historic week for the Economic Security of the American People. After an unprecedented surge in enrollment, the Affordable Care act has led to the largest expansion of Health Insurance coverage in half a century. More than 7. 1 million americans have signed up for private coverage through the marketplaces. More than three million young adults are covered through their parents plans. Millions more americans are now covered through medicaid. Or through private insurance purchased directly from an insurer. According to an analysis by the los angeles times, more than 9. 5 million americans who previously lack Health Insurance now have coverage because of the Affordable Care act. These millions of americans now have the peace of mind and Economic Security that comes with quality, affordable Health Insurance. And every american knows that they will never be discrim discriminated against because of a preexisting condition. These are historic achievements. However, despite these reforms to our health system, the Affordable Care act does not change the fact that the vast majority of americans who have Health Insurance get it through their employer. In fact, the law strengthens the employersponsored insurance system. It encourages larger employers to do the responsible thing and offer their employees affordable coverage. It ensures that workers get quality coverage and do not face harsh annual limits on their coverage. The bill before us, however, today, weakens the employersponsored insurance system and hurts American Workers. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the bill would cause one million americans to lose their employer coverage. C. B. O. Found that the bill will cause half a million americans to become uninsured, and c. B. O. Found that the bill will cost axpayers nearly 74 billion. Republicans claim all these costs are worthwhile because their legislation will keep workers from having their hours cut. But the fact is this bill is a solution in search of a problem. C. B. O. Said it plainly. Quote, there is no compelling evidence that parttime employment has increased as a result of the a. C. A. , end quote. Since the Affordable Care act became law, we have added more than 8. 6 million private sector jobs. After years of increasing parttime labor, the number of parttime workers today is actually lower than it was before the a. C. A. Was enacted. The flimsy justification for this bill just does not stand up to scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, i hope that the first open Enrollment Period can be an indication to congress more than seven million americans have signed up for coverage through Health Insurance marketplaces. Tens of millions of more will sign up in the years to come. Lets come together to acknowledge the fact that millions of americans getting the house will finish work on how the Health Care Law define a worker. E up next on cspan a former directori. A. Testifythe 2012 benghazi u. S. Consulate attacks. This mornings washington journal, well get an update on the fort hood shootings. Washington journal is live each morning at 7 00 eastern. Former acting c. I. A. Director was not al said there coverup in the 2012 benghazi libya consulate attack. Asked whether the c. I. A. Dleb i went let qaedaayed the role of al or misled anyone in congress about the attack. This 3hour House Intelligence Committee hearing is chair bid congressman mike rogers of michigan. I call the me to order. With the testimony from c. I. A. S former Deputy Director michael morell. The committee has heard from mr. Morell on these attacks several times before, but in closed session. His testimonyve in open session so the American People can hear directly from one of the most senior officials involved in the leadup in response to those attacks. Interested in mr. Morells role in developing the talking points that shaped inaccuratetrations narrative about the attackses. We expect he will explain for how this controversy developed. I understand youll do some of that in your Opening Statement as well. I want to first acknowledge the courageous american heros on the benghazi, both those who lost their lives, ambassador chris stevens, and information sean smith, and Security Officers greg doherty and tyrone woods. Livesose who risked their to save their colleagues. Each of these brave americans lines on the front defending americans interest so the rest of us could sleep safely at night. We lost some of the best among us on that terrible night. Who of the brave officers came to the rescue testified in closed session before the committee. Men took extraordinary measures to save their fellow americans, without their courage, their skill, the terrorist was have killed other benghazi that night for sure. Most of these silent warriors and many stay unnamed still defend america in some of the most dangerous locations around the world. Mr. Morell for volunteering to testify once again. Against u. S. Ttack facilities is a serious event and this committee has been conducting a thorough and detailed investigation for the last 19 months to understand exactly what happened. Over 17 member events, reviewed thousands of documents, mostly classified, interviewed the men on the ground that night. I want to focus on how this received inaccurate talking points and how the administration used those alking points to perpetrate false narrative about the attacks. After the attacks this committee immediately sought the truth. We received a closed briefing paulsen andrector then c. I. A. Director petraeus on september 13and respectively. After the director then petraeus briefing, some members of this committee sought guidance about said publicly in an unclassified form. We knew that our constituents, people, certainly needed to know the truth about the attacks. Unfortunately, the talking not reflect the best Information Available. They did not mention that al terrorists were involved in the attacks. Through briefings and theyligence reports assess were involved. The talking points suggested that there had been a that there hadnd had, when there had been none, and the overses on the ground so. Talking points were so devoid of facts or useful information that them, didntmissed use them. In fact on september 12, 2012 i the a Public Statement that attack had all the hallmarks of al qaeda. Ofont believe any members this committee actually used the talking points after the attacks. Petraeus described, they were useless. You indicated that you did not appear on rice would the sunday talk shows on september 16, your statement implies that you would have different talking points if you knew that she would use them that particular day. Did use them. As the spokesman for the United States government, she used them tell the American People that there had been a protest spawned antiislamic video. She made no mention of al qaeda. She focused on the protest. Committeehe deputies on september 15, the day before she appeared in public, that the that of station reported there was no row test. Records, the public needs, excuse me toks hear talkingwhat those points, how those talking points were created. The American People should your role and the role of the Intelligence Committee in that process. That the white house used your talking points to perpetrate its own misguided agenda. L i believe that the white house wanted america to believe al run. To be on the thus they needed the attacks to be in response to an the whiteic video, so house used your talking points to say so. But we knew that al qaeda and other affiliated terrorist organizations and militia groups participated in the attacks. Officers on the greub knew that there was no protest. Knownerican people had that those officers knew, if the administration told them the truth, the public would now know terrorists were to blame. The public would better understand the threat we are today. And our intelligence and defense professionals could have been speed to with greater fine and take these terrorists off the battlefield. I dont believe the administration learned the lesson of this failure, unfortunately. Ambassador rice stated on this year that she had no regrets. She Still Believes that the letted, and i quote, the best information that we had at the time. Wrong. Simply by the materials and documentation in possession of this committee. House wants to ignore reality and perpetrate the fallacy that al qaeda and other extremists are on the verge of defeat. This is a very, very important issue. Growing and Planning Operations against americans in their safe havens in libya, syria, iraq, and elsewhere. Yet the administration continues as if al qaeda is on the run. They foolishly focus on al qaeda, quote, core, but it makes no difference whether the terrorists who target americans directed by al qaeda in pakistan or al qaeda in yemen. Forget the state department ignored ample warnings about the deteriorating libya andironment in rejected requests for additional security support from officers benghazi. Und in the Defense Department failed to posture itself to protect u. S. Facilities that were in harms way leading up to the 9 11 anniversary, despite ample warnings. Benghazi highlights our failures and signals our future. Of some of location the benghazi attackers and we and the capability capacity to get them. The administration has done we will,nd unfortunately, the longer this pose andmore risk they the wrong message it sends to reenforce to those who perpetrated the attack. They refused to act on what we know is true. Greater threat today than it was on september 10, 2001. It is most highlighted by the sheer volume of threat targeted at aspiration al and in some case operational americans andack westerners, our allies. Our nation must redouble its against this threat. We must continue to confront the terrorist threat with every tool we have, and with a clear mind about what is at stake. Our been 19 months since four americans were killed by terrorist is and we still have justice thisny to is a disgray. A the nine months i remain as chairman of this committee, i takinge demanding decisive action. Weve had a diversity of opinions on in committee. Doesnt mean that we dont get along. We disagree, we argue, but we always focus on the end game, to get there together and the much us, all Members Committee gets along with each other. Your leadership in the spirit of fosterednship, youve has resulted in a committee with an unparalleled track record of passingshment, intelligence authorization acts every year, passing Cyber Security legislation and posing bipartisan files the committee will miss and you your leadership, but we still the end of this congress and we know youll continue to roll up your sleeves and do the work the american ofple have come to expect this bipartisan committee. Today as we turn our attention in benghazic events on september 11, 2012, we know there were many here expros many who suffered great loss. We honor the men and women who to save the lives of others no. One left a comrade behind. The independent accountability review board headed by admiral ambassador pickering reviewed a comprehensive of the investigation. The government is implementing recommendations, especially when it cops to increasing security. We in congress have also come as respect of this tragedy. We have run down every allegation no matter how far fetched. We have reviewed thousands of classified documents, watched securityer frame of video and interviewed the key intelligence individuals on the ground. Weve also found areas that can improved to prevent further tragedies. Have found no inappropriate motivations. Found nolso conspiracies in the editing of the talking points. One who asked for the talking points in the days following the tragedy. Them to aid our ability for this committee to communicate with the American People without revealing a classified information, and what we knew would be a very media exhaust the to. Review, we have only found evidence that the talking points accuracy,d to ensure to check classification and to investigation and prosecution. This is the third time weve had mr. Morell before this committee to talk about benghazi. Exist been frank, hon forth coming. So after today i hope we can get to our more pressing work security. Ing cyber in the meantime let me say thank you mr. Morell for being so before thecome Committee Even after you have retired. Your service for over 30 years been exemplary and we owe you and the people you led in at spots around the world tremendous debt of gratitude. I thank you and i yesterday back. For the kind words. The one thing about this committee is we have worked in a way, we will continue to do that. Thank you for that. Turning to our witness, is an investigative hearing were going to swear the witness in before he testifies. Is the prerogative of every committee chair, it has not been the Intelligence Committee. So while is is always against the law to provide false statements to the act of swearing in a witness impresses upon him or her the gravity of the telleding and the need to the full and complete truth. So with that, i would ask mr. Morell if he would please nd hold on. Not too much longer. Could you pliez raise your right solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and the truth so help me god . Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. Mr. Morell can be seated and i yourant to thank you for 30 plus years in the intelligence services. Youve had a highly decorated certainly distinguished career for those 30 years. Its important you have the testimonyy to provide today, and in front of the public. With that i would recognize you for your Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Its on. Mr. Chairman and members of the very much thank you for the invitation to be here today. I specifically asked that this hearing. N why was i so because much has been said and many allegations have been made about the handling of benghazi by the c. I. A. And its leadership including me. Much of this discussion has been inaccurate. And the congress and the American People deserve to know the facts. I want to start by making my most important point of the day and it repeats something that both the chairman and the Ranking Member said. I want to take a minute to honor the patriots that america lost on that tragic night in benghazi. Chris stevens, shaun smith, tyrone woods, and glenn daugherty. They died serving their country. And it is paramount that we never lose sight of their service, their dedication, and their bravery. Mr. Chairman, i have submitted a comprehensive and detailed 23page written statement. I respectfully request that it be placed in the record. Without objection. It covers the development and evolution of c. I. A. s classified analysis of what happened in benghazi and my role in that process. It also covers the preparation of the now famous unclassified talking points and my role in that process. And it covers the specific allegations that have been levied against me. Time does not permit me to go into all this detail during my oral statement so i urge anyone who is concerned about this issue to read the full written statement in order to get a complete understanding of what transpired. In fact, i would ask with respect to that the committee make my written statement available on ts website. Mr. Chairman, i want both the committee and the American People to know that i take very seriously the allegations about how the c. I. A. In general and about how i in particular handled the analysis and the talking points. As this committee knows, the ethical code under which Intelligence Officers carry out their responsibilities calls for total object tivity to call it like you see it. No matter what the audience wants to hear, no matter the implications for policy, and no matter the political consequences. In short, speak truth to power. I served the Central Intelligence agency for 33 years and i always abided by that code. I served six president s, three republicans and three democrats. I served as president george w. Bushs first daily intelligence briefer and i served as president obamas Deputy Director and acting director of the. I. A. During this entire service i never allowed politics to influence what i said or did. Never. I believe the facts in my written statement make clear that neither i nor anyone else at the c. I. A. Worked to alter the analysis or the talking points in a way that compromised our responsibility to the American People. We did not deliberatively downplay the role of terrorists in the benghazi attack in our analysis or in the talking points. And neither i nor anyone else at the agency deliberatively misled anyone in congress about any aspect of the tragedy in benghazi. Mr. Chairman, none of what i just said should be interested to mean that we at the c. I. A. Did anything right. No organization ever does. There are thing that is we should have done differently. There are areas where the c. I. A. S Performance and my own performance could have been better. But none of our actions were the result of political influence in the intelligence process. None. Let me touch on three specific issues. One. C. I. A. Analyst the most talented and highly trained analysts in our government concluded less than 24 hours after the attack that a protest had preceded the assault on the state departments facility in benghazi. They arrived at this initial judgment with good reason and without any input from the white house, the state department, or the c. I. A. Leadership. Their judgment was coordinated across the Intelligence Community which meant that it was a judgment of the entire community, not just the. I. A. As you know, subsequent information revealed this judgment to be incorrect. But and let me emphasize this our analysts reached their initial judgment because that is where the best available information at the time led them. Not because of politics. Indeed, our analysts did what they are trained to do, make a judgment based on the best information at hand, make clear that that judgment might change as new information becomes available, and then adjust that udgment as necessary. That is what i expected of them. It is what you expect of them. And it is what the American People expect of them. And it is exactly what they did. Two. The c. I. A. s then most Senior Analyst on terrorism an outstanding officer whom this committee knows well, wrote the first draft of the unclassified talking points. Neither the white house, the state department, nor i did so as ome have alleged. After our top analyst wrote the first draft, many changes were made to the talking points over a period of time. Including some by agency officers, some by other agencies, and some by me. The process inside the c. I. A. To produce the talking points could have been better in several respects. And i discussed this in detail n my written testimony. But to be very clear, the white house did not make any substantive changes to the talking points nor did they ask me to make any substantive changes to the talking points. And while the talking points could have been better, the judgment that the attacks evolved from a protest was fully consistent with the Intelligence Communitys classified analysis at the time. Three. On the morning that i editted the talking points our station chief in triply, a talented Operations Officer for whom i have a great deal of respect sent his daily update to c. I. A. Headquarters addressing the ongoing security situation across ibya. This email has rightly received some attention and let me address it. There was a line toward the end of the email that claimed the attack in benghazi was, and i quote, not slash, not an escalation of a protest. End quote. This email was received by my staff and by a number of other officials at the agency. As the record indicates, my actions in response to the station chiefs email were appropriate and consistent with my responsibilities as Deputy Director. I wanted to get the analysis right and to make sure that the right people knew about the station chiefs view. Upon reading the station chiefs email, i immediately recognized the discrepancy between the station chiefs view and the judgment of our analysts. I asked for more information from the station chief and i gave policymakers a heads up on the issue. I asked our analyst to revisit their judgment based on the station chiefs comments and to do so quickly. They did that and based on the totality of the Information Available to them they stuck to their initial conclusion. Mr. Chairman, i did not hide nor did i downplay the station chiefs comments as some have uggested. In fact, i did just the opposite. I addressed this critical difference of opinion immediately and appropriately. Mr. Chairman, i want to make two final points. First, i take what happened in benghazi very seriously and very personally. As Deputy Director and acticing director of an agency that lost a number of brave men and women on my watch, no one wanted to know more than i exactly what led to the attack, how we could have responded better, and what we could do to minimize the chances of a tragedy like this appening again. Second, as washington discusses this important issue, we ought to leave politics out of it plain and simple. Since leaving government, i have had the opportunity to speak with Many Americans around the country about the very Serious National Security threats facing the United States and the essential role our Intelligence Community plays in protecting americans from those threats. Very often i am asked about the tragedy in benghazi. While those who have engaged me on this issue want to know how this happened, they have made very clear to me that there is no room for politics in any discussion about the death of four brave americans. I could not agree more. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my Opening Statement. I look forward to answering all of your questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Moral i asked several of these questions in closed session previously. I think it is important to ask again now that youre before the American People in open session. Our committee has in our possession some 4,000 pages of Intelligence Community cables and assessments highlighted the deteriorating security assessment prior to the september 2011 2012 attack. Are you familiar with the ics extensive threat reporting in benghazi before the attack . Yes, sir, i am. Familiar with the attempted murder of the British Ambassador . Yes, sir. Are you aware that the british pulled out all diplomatic officials in benghazi . Yes, i am. The committee has documentation the was actively tracking prior to the attack. Were you aware of that . Yes. We have received testimony from several Security Officers stationed in benghazi that security upgrades were made in response to threat condition. Were you aware of that . Yes, sir. The committee has informed the c. I. A. Officials on the ground in libya had concerns about colocating with the state department at the temporary Mission Facility given the physical security gaps at the facility and the threat environment in benghazi. Are you familiar with that . Im familiar with that now. I was not familiar with that at the time. So you were not familiar that some of those assessments happened in august . I think it was actually a little earlier than that but yes. July or august maybe . Yes, sir. Were you aware that the state Department Officials had a discussion with c. I. A. Officers about overnighting at the annesm the week of the attack due to the threat and physical security concerns at the temporary Mission Facility . I was not aware of that. Were you aware that the terrorist attack in benghazi on september 2011, 2012 involved military style movements, rpgs and accurate mortar fire and prepositioning . Yes, sir. In your role as c. I. A. Deputy director did you value the opinion of your chief of station . You becha. In your statement you said that the chief of station indicated to you that there was no protest in the attack was not opportunity stick. The chiefs assessment was based on conversations with eye witnesses the Security Officers who were in benghazi the Regional Security officer on the ground and the political officers who were in tripoli. I understand how maybe a low level analyst making a mistake but what concerns the committee and i think the investigators were that the very fact of your distinguished career you rose to the ranks as one of the best analysts because of your expertise and instincts you became director of an intelligence analysts the top analyst at c. I. A. You were with president bush in florida on september 11, 2001 and told him immediately that your gut instinct was that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the september 11th attacks. So help me understand, help our investigators understand, if you will, knowing all of the information you could possibly come to the conclusion that this was that this coordinated assault on september 11 was anything other than a terrorist attack. Congressman, i would say a number of things. First of all, the analysts on the 13th of september produced a piece of analyst that said that the attack in benghazi evolved spontaneously from a protest, s you know. That judgment by the analyst was based on a number of press reports and Intelligence Reports saying there was a protest including one Intelligence Report from our station in benghazi. At the time the analyst made that judgment, there was not a single piece of Information Available to the analyst saying there was not a protest. So they made that judgment on the 13th. When i received the station chiefs email on the morning of the 15th, as i said, i noticed the discrepancy. The station chief in his email said that there were two reasons why he thought there as not a protest. The first reason he gave was that there were press reports saying there was no protest. I personally did not find that reason compelling because there were quite frankly press reports saying that there were protests. The second reason he gave, the second reason he gave in that email was that his officers from benghazi base when they went to rescue their state Department Colleagues at the state Department Facility did not see a protest when they arrived. That was not compelling to me, either, because they did not arrive until an hour after the attack started and it is quite possible quite likely that any protest would have dissipated by then. And third, in my mind was the report from the previous day sent in by station saying there was a protest. So i felt that if the analysts were going to relook at their judgment made just two days before that they needed more information from the station chief on why he thought what he thought. And thats what i asked for that morning. Was for him to go back and to produce a piece of paper that provided more detail on why he believed there to be no protest. He did that in 24 hours. Now, the other thing i did that morning given the importance of this issue was to let my colleagues on the deputys Committee Meeting know that the station chief had a different view, that that view was different from the analysts and that we were working to sort it out and that we would get back to them. Thats what happened. Thats what i did. On november 15th, 2012, when you appeared before this committee with director clapper and director olson to discuss the benghazi attacks, i asked at that time why the talking points had been changed to remove any references to al qaeda. Mr. Clapper answered for the panel that he did not know. Im curious that you were sitting at this on the same panel certainly heard the question but you didnt say anything. Can you tell us me why . So first of all at that time i did not know who removed the reference to al qaeda. And i had a similar exchange with senator burr on the senate Intelligence Committee on this issue. So at the time i did not know. But to be fair, and in retro spesket, what i wish i would have done was to say to you chairman i do not know who took al qaeda out of the talking points. But you should know that i myself made a number of changes to the points. Thats what i should have said. I didnt. So you just said earlier there was no coordination with you and the white house on what those talking points would look like. Is that correct . So the talking points were sent to the white house. The white house the National Security staff actually, the National Security staff suggested three changes. All of them were editorial in nature. U none of them were substaptive. I have a chart, easel i would like to put up. I hope you can read that. Were going to give you a copy at the desk. Just to refresh your memory here. Maybe you can help us understand it. This is an iegelarnled copy of the draft with your hand writing and your notes on the memo itself. And it has a list of names in the bottom right order. Can you you absolutely can. This brings back memories. Im sure it did. Can you just go down the list of names. So one of the questions i think the investigators had is the list of namings names at the time you were drafting it would indicate that you were at least in some contact or concerned or would have to run it through these individuals. Can you walk through that list and tell us who those individuals were at the time you were editing these talking points . Yes. Can i give a little bit of background mr. Chairman . Sure. So i was made aware of the talking points late in the afternoon on friday the 14th. When i was made aware of the talking points and i was shown the current draft of the talking points, i reacted very strongly to the inclusion of the warning language in the talking points. And i reacted strongly to that warning language because quite frankly i felt it wasnt responsive to the committees request about what happened in benghazi on the 11th. And more importantly, i thought it was an effort by the Central Intelligence agency to make it look like we had warned and to to shift any blame responsibility for the attack to the state department and it did not give the state department any opportunity to say what they did with the warnings. So i didnt think the warning language should be in there. I made a decision at that moment that when i got these talking points i was going to take that warning language out. So the next Morning Saturday morning i come in and my executive oolssistnt tells me that state department is very upset antithe warning language as well and that as a result the talking points are in limbo. Theyre stuck. He also tells me that because of that the then deputy National Security adviser dennis mcdoneu wants to talk about the talking points at the deputies meeting scheduled for that morning. So we have the depp tiss meeting and dennis never raises the talking points. At the end of the meeting dennis goes around the table and gives everybody around the horn because we were on a cibts. Gave everybody the opportunity to and im sorry . Dennis mcdoneu deputy advigser at the time. White house chief of staff. Gave each of us an opportunity to say one more thing. What i said at that point was look im aware that there are interagency concerns with the talking points. I have my own concerns with the talking points. I will edit them and i will send them back around for a final coordination before we send them to the committee. So what youre looking at here is what i did. Im responsible for the changes on this piece of paper. The names you see are the names of the individuals who i wanted to send the talking points to one more time before we sent them to you. So let me go through them. The first you see ncsndi. What i wanted to make sure is that the final version of the talking points were ok from the perspective of our Operations Officers and from the perspective of our analysts. And i was most interested in knowing that they were ok from the perspective of the director of ota who you know that you and i both have Great Respect for. Then lets go down the names. Robert carled lo was and is the number three in the office of the director of National Intelligence. He represents the dni at deputies meetings. Alan piano was the National Intelligence officer for the middle east. He was at that depttiss meeting. Matt olden was and is the director of the National Counter terrorism center. Jake sullivan was then the head of policy planning at state department and is now the Vice President s National Security adviser. Mark guilano was head of the f. B. I. s National Security division. Lisa monaco was head of the department of justices National Security division and ben rhodes was the spokesperson for the National Security council staff. So during any of those conversations with anyone on that list no one including the spokesperson for the National Security council indicated that they needed to be changes for any other for any reason whatsoever . So i never spoke to any of these people. We only sent them an email. The changes that were suggested by the National Security staff was at that point at that point they had made two suggestions earlier in the process bmb i was even aware that the talking points xisted. But at that point in the process the only change that the National Security staff suggested was a change that was suggested by ben rhodes to change the word counslat to diplomatic post and he suggested that change for accuracy purposes since it was technically not a consulate. That was the only change that was suggested at that time to the talking points. Did anyone tell you that the talking points were going to be used for susan rice . No, sir. Ambassador of the United Nations . No, sir. Did anyone tell you in the subsequent days on september 15th, once you realized that there was a fairly extensive description of why the conclusion was that it was not a protest on the 15th did that information ever make it to the hands of the individuals who would have provided those talking points to susan rice . I dont follow. Your chief of station sent a very detailed communication to you and your staff indicating all of the reasons he believed that this was an extremist attack that was had some level of pree planning. Did that information ever make it to the individuals on the list . Did they ever hear about this conversation . From you or from the agency . Yes. So the detailed email sent by the chief of station on the morning of the 16th what i did with that was two things. The first thing i did with that was immediately sent it to the analyst and say so now what do you think . And the analyst responded to that emp mail hours later saying look were sticking to our judgment. The second thing i did was to send that document to director petraeus and i think my note to him said Something Like sir i do not know what to make of this discrepancy between the station chief and the analyst ive asked the analyst to look at it and i believe his response was well lets see what the analysts say. I do know that either the monday or tuesday of the following week just as i had given the deputies a heads up that this was an issue i told the deputies orally that the analysts had looked at the issue and that they were sticking with their judgment that there had been a protest. So with all of your training all of your experience, your gut reaction, did you believe that was the right decision . So i believed what my analysts said that there was a protest. I also believed it to be a terrorist attack. You see, we never saw those two things as mute tulely exclusive. And so i believed both of those at the same time. Knowing what you know now, would you have been surprised that many of the eye witnesses that weve talked to said they were surprised by the narrative on sunday the 16th . They were shocked . Members of your organization that were i think the word was shocked. Im a little surprised by that. Quite frankly. Because if they were members of my organization then they would have seen the analysis written on the 13th that said there was a protest and said the attack evolved spontaneously from the protest. So they were shocked on sunday when they heard that. They should have been shocked on thursday the 13th when they read it. And you are familiar with the executive on the 12th, something that i received and read, did say that it was likely not an opportunities stick . It was because of the description of the armed insurgency that in fact on the 12th was in fact on that day. So there was a different narrative on from the folks on the ground than there was in the analysts here. And you can imagine how that creates confusion and the investigators and why some might draw that conclusion in the height of a Political Campaign that maybe something doesnt look right here give tn folks on the ground and the testimony of those on the ground were completely different than what the analytical product was including on the 15th which was a very detailed email highlighting the differences of opinion on this particular case from the folks on the ground during the event. Chairman let me actually read you what that piece on the 12th said. It said the presence of armed assailtents from the incidents outset suggests that this was an intentional assault and not escalation of the protest. Very interesting. Heres what really happened though. So the analysts who wrote the piece in a very, very Early Morning hours of the 12th mind you the attacks had just occurred, and the analysts were putting together what we call a situation report, when the analysts finished with the piece and when the analysts went home that sentence was not in there. That sentence was added by one of the editors after the analyst left. The editors said that she thought there needed to be a bottom line. She was a trained military analyst and she wrote that sentence. When the analyst came in the next morning, they were very unhappy that that sentence had been added and they complained about the addition of that sentence. So thats what happened. It was a bureaucratic, it was a bureaucratic mistake. No politics. I can certainly understand the confusion it created. And in retrospect, what we probably should have done was when we wrote the piece on the 13th was to make it clear how the language evolved from what was said on the 12th to get rid of that confusion. I agree with you 100 . And im not sure i would call it a bureaucratic mistake if the analyst was right. That analyst was not an analyst was not a Counter Terrorism analyst was not an analyst on benghazi she was acting as an editor and she add add judgment that she had no right to add. Maybe a gut training. On your time you can ask the question. I just want to ask again. We have questions here have a lot of questions here on that i want to pass off to members and i will have some at the end. At any time did you have any verbal conversation with anybody at the white house about what the nature of those talking points were and what they needed to look like . No, sir. At any time did you have any conversation with anybody at the white house and i mean anybody that had anything to do with preparing susan rice for going out and being the face for america on that september 16th . No, sir. In fact i didnt even know she was going to be on the sunday shows. And no one asked you to prepare talking points for you . No, sir. No one asked the agency either through the director or yourself to prepare any documents for her . No, sir. Was she briefed by the agency or had information or materials available from all the of the materials we discussed did she have any of those materials before she went on . I believe she had the talking points. Just the talking points. I believe she had the talking points but she would have also had access to all the intelligence information that she had received in the days before. Without would that have include it had september analysis from your chief of station on the ground . No. Why not . That wasnt disseminated outside c. I. A. Dont you think that was an important document to get in the hands of someone who was going to brief the country what was actually happening on the ground . Like i said, he gave two reasons why he believed what he believed. Like i said i did not find earth one of them compelling. Like i said i asked him for more information. It took him 24 hours to produce that. Once he produced that i asked the analysts to relook at their judgment. They did within hours. They stuck to their judgment. And like i said, i did give the deputies an oral heads up at the station chief had a different view. Well, i have more questions. I know theres a lot of folks that want to ask questions. Ill get back to the second round if i may. Mr. Chairman mr. Schiff i would like to be in regular order but give my time and then back to regular order. I thank the Ranking Member and i also want to take the opportunity to thank the chairman for the way he has led our committee. He brought a real commitment to the countrys security to this jb. Youve beep very thorough in your preparations for the hearings and although we have on occasion butted heads rges its its never diminished my respect for you. Mr. More el, likewise, i want to thank you for your decades of service to the country. I really appreciate all youve done and regret that its necessary for you to come in today yet again on this issue. But very grateful that you were more than willing to do so and we have the opportunity to i hope put these issues finally to rest. Thank you, sir. The detailed email that you got from the chief of station on september 16th, did not include any reference to terrorist attack. That terminology. Or did it . I dont recall, sir. To us, the word extremist was a synonym for the word terrorist. Not only for the analysts but also for our operators. So when we said the word extremist we meant terrorist. And clearly, thats not true for everybody. And i think from here on out, well be more careful in thinking about what the audience is going to hear when they hear the word that we write and say. But if the chiefs of stations own report did not ipclude the term terrorist or terrorist attack, it wasnt because he necessarily concluded that wasnt the case but that other words are often used as a proxy. Thats correct. He thought this was a terrorist attack. And similarly, do you recall whether there was any whether the chief of station was willing at that time to ascribe this to al qaeda per se . So in his detailed e plail on the 16th, email on the 16th he said regarding motivation, he said we dont know what motivated the attackers. But he said i think there are three possibilities. The first was an attack on the anniversary of 9 11. To use 9 11 as the the 9 11 anniversary as the reason for the attack. The second reason he the second motivation was the call for revenge by za with a heiri for the death of a senior al eda leader in pakistan named abuiaia libby just days before. The third motivation that he ascribed as a possible motivation was the you tube video. So in this detailed memorandum, the station chief could not discount the possibility even then that the video played a role in the attacks on the facilities . That is correct. Now, a couple of the reasons that the chief of station cited for believing there was no spontaneous demonstration were that he discounted certain signals intelligence. Is that right . Thats correct. And that signals intelligence indicated that there was a demonstration initially at the consulate . Thats correct. If you discounted that particular signals intelligence, was that the only signals intelligence and it was pointing in the direction indicating that there had been a protest . There were sir, there were roughly 12 reports. Some of them press reports. Some of them Intelligence Reports. Indicating that there was a protest. The Intelligence Reports included reporting from the National Security agency, from the Central Intelligence agency, and from the department of defense. Indicating what . Indicating that there was a protest prior to the assault on the state Department Facility. So when the chief of station gave as another reason why he believed there had been no protests that there were a couple press reports indicating there were no protests those were in contrast to other reports indicating there had been a protest . Thats right. So we know there wasnt a protest so its not about what happened its about what we knew at the time. Right . Correct. So so the analysts perhaps unlike the chief of station would have the signature nt, the complete press reports, the other intelligence products to make their assessment whereas the chief of station might have some of that but not necessarily the whole collection of intelligence . Thats correct, sir. Is that part of the reason why when you got his email on the 16th that you went back to him to say can you give us more substan shation because this is inconsistent with some of the other reporting were get sng sir, it was his email on the 15th that i went back and asked him for more information. Thats the last question. Mr. West morlede who has been leading this investigation. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Morell. With all your years in the c. I. A. , who is the one person that you would count on the most to get your information from anything that happened in country where he was the station chief . Im sorry. Could you ask the question again . Who would you go to to get the most Accurate Information if you wanted to find out about an incident that happened in country . I would if im looking for the c. I. A. s judgment about what happened in a particular case, i would go to my analysts. Not to people that were on the ground . The chief of stations view is very important. But it is not determinative. So the analyst that is not there, he is the most important . Sir, there are two sides to the Central Intelligence age sifment there is an Operations Side and there is an analytic side that makes analytic judgments. Ok. This analyst, was he the gentleman that was at the roundtable with director petraeus on the 1th . The senior that i spoke about who did the first draft of the talking points, the director of our office of terrorism analyst is a woman, and yes i believe she was with director petraeus in front of this committee. Yes. Ok. And so on september 14th, i think the general i mean, the director was there with this analyst. And at 4 42 p. M. On september 14th, officers in the c. I. A. s office of Public Affairs and Congressional Affairs deleted the phrase, with ties to al qaeda. So your analysts, the one that knew what was going on that you took their analysis from, used the word al qaeda. Right . Yes, sir. The officers who made this change say that they were trying to ensure the talking points contained no information that would hinder the f. B. I. s investigation. The same c. I. A. Officers changed the word attacks. So this analyst that youre counting on originally used the word attack. Correct . Yes, sir. It says then that you it was changed to demonstrations. Yes, sir. Now, were they demonstrating rpgs, more tars, heavy machine guns. Is that what they were demonstrating . Sir, they dont remember exactly why they changed attacks to demonstrations. But one of the things but your analysts, the ones that our giving so much credence to originally had attack and originally had al qaeda. Yes. Their talking points. Yes they did. One of the reasons they say they made that change is because it didnt make a lot of sense to say that attacks evolved into assaults. But youre relying on this ladys analysis. Is that not correct . Yes. Ok. And it says they also changed the phrase they participated in extremist to the participated in violent demonstrations. Now, were these you know, i mean, im having a hard time why you would want to say with four americans dead the place set on fire, that its a demonstration rather than an attack when rpgs, heavy machine guns, more tars, and others were used. How can you call that a demonstration . So, sir, the change that you just mentioned from attacks to demonstrations was a change that was actually made before the Senior Analyst sensed the talk sent the talking points to the office of Congressional Affairs. It was a change that was recommended by the Operations Officers who she was coordinating with and she was ok with that change. So but my point is youre not counting on the analysts in what she analyzed. You were counting on what other people said was wrong not on that third change, sir. She made she made that change before she sept it to the office of Congressional Affairs. As my written testimony makes clear. So it was her. She thought they need it had changes not somebody else. She agreed with the change. Ok. When is the first time you heard from the chief of station in tripoli that this was a planned coordinated attack . So the first this is complicated. Let me walk you through this. Ok . So the first indication that there was not a protest was a disseminated Intelligence Report from our station on that friday. And what that report said is that our officers who went from benghazi base to try to rescue the state Department Colleagues did not see a protest when they arrived. That was the first indication. Our analyst discounted that. For the reasons i explained earlier. Ok. The second time the second time was the morning the saturday morning was the saturday morning in which the chief of station sent an email with a very short reference to i dont think there was a protest. Let me give you two reasons why. And then the third time was on sunday morning when he sent a much more detailed note explaining why he thought that. Two points. One, the information that you said the analyst had was a news report. And i think it came from some calls that were from around benghazi that were made to another country by somebody. Was what the news report was. The other thing is a demonstration. And we all saw the demonstrations in cairo, in all around the world, these demonstrations. Youre saying you have a problem with this grs team that got there. I dont think it was an hour. It was an hour, sir. Ok. Well, i think its more like 45 minutes. But when you see those demonstrations, they dont just last for 30 minutes and then everybody go home. You would see people wandering around and doing things. They did not see that. What they saw the was the end of an rpg and heavy machine guns and being shot at. They didnt see anybody around with a sign protesting something. And if you watched the rest of the videos or any of the videos that come from demonstrations, those people are there for hours. Not minutes. But hours. Sir, what the analysts thought im just telling you what the analysts thought. What the analysts thought was that if there was a protest which they believed outside of the state Department Facility and the attacks starts that most likely that protest is going to break up and dissipate. Thats what they thought. And it is not an unreasonable hing to think. Mr. Rupersberger. You want to thank mr. West morlede and also congresswoman jan shack ski for your Oversight Committee and investigation in this matter. I have two areas to get into so other people can have the chance to ask their questions. First, when i was asked for the talking points i was asking for something simple to give some of our new members talking points that were unclassified knowing this would be a media issue. And i was very im really concerned right now that it got to the level where it got and that we really didnt get the talking points back in a day or two and it just goes to show sometimes where we go and what we need something basic in government it goes beyond where it should be. So i hope we can learn from this situation. Now, i never expected more than a year and a half after the attack that we would still be talking about this. Who changed the talking points. Protests or no protest. And i think the focus of where we need to be now is the s to find the bad guys who killed americans. That should be the focus. And also to make sure we learn from what happened at both areas in benghazi to make sure that our facilities for americans, the state department or the Intelligence Community, are safe. And we know what to do. Now, we need to focus again as i said on tracking down the people who did this and i hope were close to that. Now, i have a letter from the department of defense that said it has responded to six congressional investigations in this case has participated in 50 congressional hearings briefings and interviews and dedicated thousands of man hours to this task. Costing the taxpayers millions of dollars, the c. I. A. Has respondd in a similar magnitude. How much money do you feel that the c. I. A. Has spent on this issue right now . Sir, i really cant speculate on that. I dont know. Its probably close to where the department of defense is. Secondly, despite all this, no evidence that ive seen and if you have any please tell us that a motivation that theres no evidence of political motivation thats been uncovered. But yet this still continues. Can you tell us what kind of threat terrorist groups like al qaeda and ancivil war alsharive still pose to america and the world . So i believe that the terrorist threat to America Today is very significant. The way i talk about this is that we are still at war with al qaeda. Very much at war with al qaeda. And in that war both sides have had a great victory. Our great victory has been the dessmation near defeat of the al qaeda leadership in pakistan. But al qaedas great victory has been the spread of its ideology across a very wide wath of the muslim world, from Northern Nigeria into the sahal, across north africa, in east africa. In syria, in iraq, and so both sides have had this great victory. And the threat to americans remains very, very significant. And congressman, i am deeply concerned that the threat is actually going to grow in the years ahead. And do you think the fact of whether or not in the beginning it was inspired by the news media from the protests or whether it was a planned attack at this point how would that make any difference on the focus of finding terrorists or dealing with a situation as it occurred in benghazi . There was no doubt in my mind and there was no doubt in the analysts mind although they said extremists rather than terrorists but there was no doubt in my mind or the analysts mind that this was a terrorist attack regardless of what motivated them and regardless of whether or not there was a protest or not. Well, i would think from that position that we would move forward. And our focus is catching the bad guys. The other question i want to get into is we as Americans Care very much about our men and women on the ground, whether military, Intelligence Community, whatever that is. And we always our theme we never leave an american behind. We always stand up for our people. And theres been allegations out there that ive heard off and on that we left our americans behind in this situation. Now, can you please discuss i think its important the longstanding security expectation and procedures that c. I. A. Stations and bases have particularly in remote and dangerous parts in the world . Does the c. I. A. Expect the military assets will be able to provide immediate attention no matter where they are in the world . And what im getting to, is that up your own security and theyre well trained. And even in this situation if it werent for the smoke that would have happened, hopefully that were looking back it did happen. But hopefully your people trained and did what they were supposed to do. Another thing that hasnt come out and but i can say the word about. About how Many Americans both locations in benghazi were actually saved based on the training and expertise of the c. I. A. Security force who always have seemed from what ive seen and the chairman and i have traveled all over the world and understand what that who that security is and what they do and what theyre trained for . Because i want to ask the question did the c. I. A. Feel abandoned by the u. S. Military in this situation . No, we did not. Can you explain what the security is, what these people are and how Many Americans were saved in this ben gazzive situation because of their training and expertise and courage . Sir, i dont think i can go into specific numbers. But what i will say is something the chairman said earlier. I have no doubt there is no doubt in my mind that had the c. I. A. Security officers from benghazi base not responded to the state Department Facility that we would have lost many more state Department Officers there. There is no doubt in my mind. And there is also no doubt in my mind that had c. I. A. Officers and u. S. Military officers responded from tripoli to benghazi which is over 600 miles. Had they not responded that night and went to benghazi that more americans would have died at c. I. A. s base in benghazi. So i believe there is actually a very large number of americans who are alive today thanks to the response of both the c. I. A. Officers at benghazi base and the c. I. A. And military officers from tripoli. All the evidence that ive heard in the hearings that i attended and not one time did anyone make a comment that they felt they were abandoned by the United States government or by the United States military. I know of no stand down order from anybody in the military. I am aware of several requests by c. I. A. For military support that night and those requests were honored and delivered. I want to get one last question that we on this committee need to respond to the public. And yet we have the issue of we cant violate any the law about giving out classified information. But we need some especially members who havent been on the committee as long as other members. We need guidance sometimes on the classified issue. What have we learned as far as asking for simple direct talking points to help us deal with the issue and not give out classified information . If you had it to do over because Everyone Needs guidance and facts and data. Thats the key issue here. Were trying to find the facts for the American Public. How would you handle this in the future if we make a request to help us deal with that issue of talking points . Tazz committee knows general clapper gets mad and said im not going to do it. Im going to say that, too. As this committee knows one of the things that i did when i was acting director the second time was ask for a Lessons Learned paper on the talking points process. And that paper really had two conclusions. The first conclusion is that we should really not be in the business of writing unclassified talking points for the American People. We do not do that for the executive branch. And we in general do not do that for congress. So this paper conclude that had we should be reluctant to do that. We are very good at speaking to policy makers. We are not trained at speaking to the American Public. We see extremists and terrorists as the same thing. Obviously the American Public does not. So my first idea on Lessons Learned would have been to push back and say why doesnt the committee take a first stab at writing the talking points and then well take a look at them . The second conclusion that the Lessons Learned paper came to was if we do write unclassified talking points, then the substantive expert should be involved in the editorial process all the way through and not do what we did in this case, which was experts up front, bunch of Congressional Affairs and Public Affairs people in the middle, and only bring the ex in, in the end. Have the experts go throughout. You look at general colin powell who went to the United Nations and was relying on information received from the community and about what was weapons of mass destruction in iraq. The same with susan rice. Then she went through a tough time when she was really responding to what information she got. So theres a lot of lessons to learn here. Yes, sir. Yield back. Mr. Thornberry. Thank you mr. Chairman and mr. Morell and for your years of service to the c. I. A. I want to understand better the deputys meeting and your edits to the talking points. Were you having daily meetings at this time . Yes, sir. We were having twice daily deputy meetings. So twice a day on the 13, 14, 15 you would have these Video Conference meetings in which you participated as the deputy for the c. I. A. Thats correct. And i presume there would be a deputy from state and defense as well as members of the white house National Security council staff. F. B. I. , doj, nctc. Yes, sir. Ok. So as we reviewed the emails of the night of the let me back up for just a second. On the as best you remember the deputys meetings, the two on the 14bth i presume benghazi had to be a major issue you all discussed. It was not, sir. It was not. We were not looking backwards at that point. We were looking forward. So the focus of all of these depp tiss meetings, particularly the ones on susan nd sunday, rice was on the sunday shows i was at a deputies meeting. The focus was keeping americans safe on all the places in the world where there were continuing protests and demonstrations. So we were not looking backward. We were looking forward on how do we keep americans safe. Which is interesting to me. O even on the 14th your the basic tenor of the meetings was we got the americans out so were not going to worry about libya any more . Its not that we are not going to worry about libya. We were still very worried about tripoli where we still had americans but we were not focused on benghazi because we were keeping americans safe going forward. Ant on the two meetings on the 14th do you remember talking points ever coming up there . No, i do not remember that. As i go and look at the emails as of 9 00, 10 00 at the night of the 14th, it looks like f. B. I. Has signed off, they have the talking points have been editted to reflect the state department concerns although it doesnt say theyve signed off. So im not clear why did you have conversations after 10 00 at night from the state department that said were still not happy . No, sir. So as of 10 00 at night theres this email that says ok weve made these changes f. B. I. Is ok can we go ahead and send them and there was a brief answer back that said no. What time was your deputies meeting the next morning . I believe it was 8 00 a. M. I believe. Ok. And did you have conversations with state department folks or emails no, but my executive assistant told me that the state department was not happy with the talking points. In morning of the 15th. As you are preparing for the deputies meetings . As i arrived at work. You have artie testify that they never came up at the deputies meeting, the talking points, until you brought them up. It was not part of the agenda. The though the ones from National Security staff had been the ones to suggest bringing it up. What i am puzzled by, as you look at the edits that you made that were on the chart, you take out most of the words that are in the talking points. Though the fbi is ok with them, you take out words because you are afraid they will damage the fbi investigation. You take out everything even related to warnings and a bunch ofer