Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20130921

[captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] today the House Oversight Committee Examining the ghazi attacks. Then the Foreign Relation Committee holding a confrontation confirmation hearing and a look at schedule changes due to go into effect october 1. Hearinge Oversight Committee hearing testimony. Reviewountability chairman and admiral mike mullen both testified. Hours. Just over two the committee will come to order. The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamentals. Americans have the right to know the money washington takes from them is well spent. Americans deserve an effective government that works for them. Our duty is to protect these rights. Our responsibility is to hold government accountable to for what they know is important for how they decide. Our job is to work in partnership with watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American People and bring reform to the bureaucracy. This is our mission. Consent to unanimous read into the record statements from two witnesses that will not , family of the victims of the attack. Kate, a letter from quigley. Says members of the house four americans including my brother was killed. I am unable to do so but submit for consideration the following questions concerning the events that led to my brothers death in because i am not aware of the answers, these questions have been provided. First, my understanding is it took eight hours for the rescue team in tripoli to travel 200 miles to reach their destination in benghazi. There were no dedicated transportation assets in place. The team received no help getting through barriers like the benghazi airport and checkpoint in the city. If this is correct, why was it so given the urgency of the mission, recognizing the difficulty. I never ask those conditions had ask, if thoses conditions hadbeen different, would the outcome have been less tragic . Glenn lived his life to the fullest and took pride in teaching others how to be their best. Ieserving with many respected, protecting the freedoms we enjoy as americans and doing something he loved. He is an American Hero to those who did not know. For those of us who did, he is a best friend who leaves behind a giant hole in our hearts. My thanks go out to those in congress and the administration who strive to learn what mistakes were made that made the night so that u. S. Personnel can be better protected in the future. Secondly, a letter signed from chris stevensons family. He died the service of his country. He died doing what he loved most. Working to build bridges of understanding and Mutual Respect between the people of the United States and people of the middle east and north africa. He was loved by many more libyans than those who hated him for being an american. A few dozen fanatics penetrated his compound but more than 30,000 people in benghazi demonstrated in protest over his death. He embodied the traits that have always endeared americans to the world. A commitment to democratic principles and respect for others regardless of race, religion, and culture. He regarded and like each person he met as in individual and respected their views, whether or not he agreed. One of his friends told us a tale that reflects his success on a small scale. Picnicking in libya and, they met a local family. Chris immediately greeted them and suggested they be photographed together. The young son of a patriarch family, refused to participate. Chris continued chatting with the others. When it was time to leave, the initially suspicious son presented chris with a bouquet of flowers. Saying, this is because you were so respectful to my father, he said. Chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would strut around in fortified compound. He amazed and impressed the libyans by walking the streets with a lightest of escorts, sitting in sidewalk caf . S, chatting with passersby. There was a risk to being accessible. He knew it and accept it. But he would never have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes. There were security shortcomings, no doubt, both internal and outside investigations have identified and publicly disclosed them. Steps are being taken to prevent their reoccurrence. He would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. He knew and accepted he was working under dangerous circumstances. He did so, just as so many of our diplomats do every day. He believed the work was vitally important and would have wanted the critical work he was doing to build bridges of Mutual Understanding and respect, the kind of work that made him literally thousands of friends and admirers across the broader middle east to continue. Rather than engage in endless recrimination, his family is working to continue to build bridges he successfully began. One year ago this week, in response to a tremendous outpouring of support from around the world, we launched J Christopher Stevens fund. The mission is to support activities that build bridges between the people of the United States and those of the broader middle east. This was the mission to which chris dedicated his life. We are grateful to each contribution received from friends and family, from the government of libya and from people near and far removed moved by chris and his story. We will launch a number of innovative programs and initiatives. The focus is on young people here in america and across the middle east and north africa. Chris served in the peace corps in morocco. His death was felt by the family. Last year, in response to numerous queries, we encouraged returned volunteers to fan out across america and speak with you about their experience abroad. We are now working with the peace corps to expand their reach into schools and communities across the country. The center for middle east studies at the university of california berkeley where chris studied as an undergraduate endowed by the J Christopher Stevens fund. Our purpose is to encourage and inspire students in middle eastern and north african scholarship. Where he spent his teen years, the Unified School District board of education has voted to name the High School Library the ambassador Christopher Stevens memorial library. He was inspired by the high honorable. Later this year, together, with the coalition for public and private partners, we will launch the Virtual Exchange initiative. This initiative will embrace the power of technology to fuel the largest ever increase in people to people exchanges between the United States and the broader middle east. That is increasing the number and diversity of youth who have a meaningful, crosscultural experience, as part of their formative education and reaching over one million youth i 2020. Later this year, the university of California Hastings College of law, from which chris graduated in 1989, will host the ambassador J Christopher Stevens symposium. The event will emphasize law and public policy, as used in the practice to advance global understanding and peace principles, to which chris was committed. There have been more awards bestowed and honors given to chriss memory, excuse me, then ever would have been thought possible. We have received letters from thousands of people all around the world who were touched by chriss example. His openness touched a chord in their hearts. Chris would have wanted to be remembered for that. Thank you, the family for chris stevens. They will both be placed in the record without objection. Briefly, in my Opening Statement, today, we want to both do our job as constitutional officers, and, be very cognizant of the wishes of the family. We will here on the second panel from additional family members, and like the first, they both want answers to questions, and they want chriss memory to be one of his diplomacy and his service. They do not want this to be a political football. The committees primary obligation as the Oversight Reform Committee is to do oversight leading to meaningful reform. Last week marked the 12th anniversary of the september 11 attacks on the United States. It marked the oneyear anniversary of a terrorist attack in benghazi. The attack cost americans their lives. Christopher stevens, sean smith, and two American Security former u. S. Navy seals. Today, we honor their memories and Heroic Service to our nation. We recognize also the family members of the fallen who are with us today are those who truly experience the loss firsthand. Last october, secretary Hillary Clinton convened the accountability review board, as required by law, to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the hideous attacks and the report findings and recommendations. The report was delivered to congress september 18, 2012. The arb made important findings and also raised serious additional questions. First, the structure, along with the state department culture, raises questions about the extent to which it can be independent. Although it is a meaningful document, this committee has not been able to receive Background Information or were there recorded notes sufficient to allow for a true review for the review. As we convene this hearing, the committee down the hall has authored significant reforms in the form of legislation. Part of what we will do here today is to continue fueling the discovery process for that purpose. In preparation for todays hearing, the staff has prepared approximately a 100 page report entitled benghazi attacks, it update, interim report on the accountability review. I ask unanimous consent it out be placed in the record. Ok. It raises important questions on the review board rockettes. Today, our Panel Includes distinguished former government officials who know firsthand how important the process is and who dedicated their lives to this public service. We thank you for being here today. Any criticism of the accountability review process or the law passed by congress in 1986 that created it, should be cast on congress and the process they were asked to do and not to the individuals who headed this. I believe to the extent the arb was traditionally used, it has done its job. Our criticism today is, was it the appropriate investigation . Was it complete . Did it have processes necessary to do a thorough review . Did it have the authority to go beyond the state department . Was the record such that it could be reviewed and reviewed again, as many tragic and large investigations will . We all understand if the attack 12 years ago, on 9 11, 2001, had been reviewed through the accountability review process, it would not have been sufficient for the American People. Our investigation today is to look at what could be done and was done and what was learned. I want to thank the ambassador and admiral personally for their work. They made suggestions. All of them have been accepted. Acceptance and implementation can be different. In particular, one of the questions that will not be answered today but undoubtedly will be asked is, if four individuals were held accountable and, in testimony, at least one was recommended for firing, why is it none lost a days pay and all are back on the job . That is a question for the Current Administration and not one for the panel. Additionally, we are joined by director sullivan. Their review is a second review. It is broader in nature than benghazi. It is important. Because, one thing american learned from the attacks on 9 11, 2012, is that, in fact, the system failed the people in that compound in benghazi. Without a doubt, there are problems within how decisions are made for the security of our various Diplomatic Security is around the world. I look forward particularly, in that director sullivan has firsthand knowledge of primary protection of an individual, such as ambassador or president of the United States. He also understands compounds and facilities, both preplanned and ad hoc, such as the hotel the president might be staying in, have to be taken as they are but made to work. That for me says a lot about the nature of the world. They need not be looked at in any great additional detail. They are in fact set back. They are in fact fortresses. The only thing that happens is for the rules and procedures to be followed for them to be secure. E va majority of consula, offices, facilities, and the like throughout the world are not compliant. Our investigation has shown a great many exceptions occur every day. If you will, waivers, to what is supposed to be. Often, this comes in the form of defining a facility in a way that is different from what it actually is. A Multicountry Office has a different standard than a consulate or embassy. Principal officers are there and the risk of attack are high, they must be looked at in that sense. I for one believe this report closes the chapter on the service of the ambassador and admiral, because i believe their service, although limited to the rules, has been honorable, and they have done the best they could under the rules that Congress Gave them in 2000 1986. With that, i will ask unanimous consent that my entire Opening Statement be placed on the record because i used so much time for the earlier reading. I yield back. Thank you. Want to begin by wrecking recognizingmrs. Patricia smith. They are here to testify about their sons. Who were killed in benghazi. Sean smith and tyrone woods. Nobody can fully comprehend the anguish and suffering. I know from my own experience that losing someone so young and so promising is one of the most difficult things we ever experienced in life. Sadly, there are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, who are also grieving after the shootings this week at the Washington Navy yard, less than one mile from the very room we are in. Our hearts go out to those families, as well. Although ambassador stephenss family was not able to attend today, and they sent a written statement, and i am very pleased and i thank you for not only reading their statements into the record, but making sure they are part of the record. I look forward to hearing the testimony and hope we can learn more about who these very brave individuals were. I want to learn about their hopes and dreams. And their service to our country. Our believe our goal should be to honor them as heroes in todays hearing. That is exactly what they were. They believed in this nation and devoted their lives to protecting it. There are other ways our nation should honor the men. First, we must hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice. Progress on this front may not always be visible to the public, but as our nation demonstrated in the relentless, worldwide, 10year pursuit of osama bin laden, the United States does not forget. We never forget. I believe i speak for the entire committee when i say our commitment to the goal is bipartisan and unwavering. Another way to honor the memories is to obtain information about what happened in benghazi. A report earlier this week was issued that provided new information. Unfortunately, he chose not to work with any Democratic Committee members. Today, i offer my own report. I would like to provide to the committee and the witnesses. As the report explains, our goal was to provide detailed information to some of the specific questions being raised relating to the attack. Our report is based on a review of tens of thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents. Andtranscribed interviews. One deposition. Provides details about the terrifying events in embassies, and consulates around the world put u. S. Personnel on hair trigger alert for days. These included events not only in benghazi, but elsewhere also. The crowd marched, and preached nd set fires ad breachedcompounds. Another critical way we should honor the memories of these heroes is by implementing the recommendations and reforms put forward to improve the security of our diplomatic and military forces around the world. This is so important. This is a committee on oversight and government reform. Reform is so vital, particularly at this moment. We can all agree on a bipartisan basis we can implement these recommendations as effectively and efficiently as possible. On this point, the ambassador explained to the committee during his deposition that because of his own personal and professional bond with ambassador stephens, he viewed his service on the accountability review board as a debt of honor. He said, chris gave me two wonderful years of his life in supporting the very difficult circumstances. Also said i wrote him and i owe him and the families of the others who died the best possible report we can put together. However, the ambassador also said he was deeply concerned that although previous reports were excellent in their recommendations, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot let that happen under our watch. This is our watch. We are in charge now. We must never let a report like this sit on shelves collecting dust and then 10 or 12 years from now, we go through the same process again. We are better than that. I would like to make one final point. Let me go back to admiral mullen. I want to thank both of you for your service. The chairman said, this is not an attack on you all. It is concerned about the report and things like that. I know you gave a phenomenal amount of your time. I want to thank both of you. I dont want to just thank you for today. I wanted to thank you for what you have done your entire lives. Your entire lives. Giving your blood, sweat, tears, to make life better for us so we can sit here and do what we do. I appreciate that. In my 37 years in law, i have never heard such compelling testimony. When you told us why you did this, and why it was so important that it be done completely, i will never forget the things you said. I really thank you for that. There have been extremely serious accusations that it was a whitewash. And a coverup. Some said it does not answer any real questions. And that its sole function was to insulate Hillary Clinton. When i hear those kinds of statements, and then i read the depositions and i listen to you, i have got to say, those type of statements upset me. I think they are so unfair. We are better than that. Let me respond as directly as i can. Based on all the evidence obtained by this committee, this benghazi review was one of the most comprehensive arb reviews ever conducted. I have seen no evidence, none whatsoever, to support these reckless accusations. Witness after witness told committee after committee that the report was penetrating, specific, critical, very tough,. D the opposite of a whitewas. Finally, one of the reasons i requested todays hearing was to give the ambassador and the admiral an opportunity to respond directly to these unsubstantiated accusations. Im glad they are finally given the opportunity. Our nation owes them and the other Board Members profound thanks for their dedication and their service. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. All members will have several seven days to submit for the records. We will recognize our first panel. As previously noted, the ambassador Thomas Pickering served as chairman of u. S. Department of state accountability review board for benghazi. A long and distinguished career as a diplomat. He has served in an unprecedented number of ambassadorships. Jordan, israel, india, russia, and the United Nations. Not to be any less distinguished, admiral Michael Mullen served as the vice chairman of the arb. A retired fourstar navy admiral who served two terms as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the highest rank of any officer in the armed forces. Mark sullivan served on the panel of best practices and the former director of the United States secret service, a role in which he and i worked together on a number of tough issues. I respect your participation here today. Todd kyle served as a member of independent panel on best practices and is the former assistant secretary at the United States department of Homeland Security. Welcome, all. Would you please rise, and raise your right hand, to take the oath . Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you will give today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . All witnesses answered in the affirmative. As i said before this hearing, this is an important hearing, one in which each of your testimonies are extremely important. Your entire written statement sare placed in the record. I will not have a heavy gavel if you have additional words you have to say, but i would like you to allow as much time for questions as possible. Thank you very much. It is an important opportunity to appear to you today for this important matter. It has been a special honor to me to work with admiral mullen and the other members of the accountability review board on this pressing, important, and significant issue. If i may, and i do not want to extend beyond the limits of my brief with you, mr. Chairman, i would hope our report will also appear in the record in an appropriate fashion. The loss of four brave individuals is devastating to our country and especially their families. We sympathize with them in their loss. The questions the board was to respond to under the statute are the extent to which the incident was securityrelated. Whether the security procedures were adequate, whether the procedures were properly implemented. The impact of intelligence and information availability, such other fact answer taxes which may be relevant to the appropriate Security Management of u. S. Missions abroad. Finally, with regard to personnel, whenever the board finds reasonable cause to believe an individual has breached the duty of the individual, the board should report the finding to appropriate federal agency. The board met almost continuously for 2. 5 months. The group worked intensively. After extensive activities outlined in my testimony, they reached unanimous conclusions. The board conducted 100 interviews, including with key personnel on the ground. It further reviewed many thousands of pages of documents and reviewed hours video. It was provided with full cooperation with all elements of the u. S. Government. The key findings of the board include the following. The tax were security related. Including the use of armed force. The responsibility for loss of rests completely with the terrorist that carried out the attacks. Systemic failures in leadership and management deficiency at senior levels. Within two euros of the department of state, a security measure, a special mission in benghazi in adequate with the mission. Notwithstanding the proper implementation of Security Systems and procedures and the remarkable heroism shown by american personnel. Those systems and a libyan response fell short in the face of the attacks which began with the penetration of the mission by dozens of armed attackers. The board found the u. S. Intelligence provided no immediate warning for the attack. No caps existed in the Intelligence Communitys understanding of the extremist militias this and the potential threat they posed to u. S. Interests, although some threats were known to exist. The board found Certain Senior officers within two bureaus of the state department demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership management ability in their response to leadership concerns, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable libyan protection. The board did not find reasonable cause to determine any u. S. Government employee breached his or her duty recommendations. The department of state should urgently review the balance of risk and presence. We did not agree no presence was an appropriate answer in most cases. The basis for review should include an obtainable priority mission. A clear assessment of the risks and costs. And constant attention to changes in the situation, including when to leave. The department should organize a panel of outside, independent experts, to identify best practices, to regularly assist in evaluating u. S. Security in high risk and high threat posed. Posts. I am delighted mr. Sullivan and kyle are with us. An action plan on dealing with the use of fire as a weapon. Recalling the incomplete recommendations, the department should work with congress to restore the capital sharing program in its full capacity, adjusted for inflation to 2. 2billion for fiscal year 2015. Intelligence capabilities have improved post2001. There is no certainty of information. More attention needs to be given to deteriorating situations. To be identified early. The board recognizes poor performance does not ordinarily constitute a breach of duty that would serve as a basis for disciplinary action. It needs to be addressed by the Performance Management system of the state department. The board is of the view that findings of unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in the case of benghazi should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations. It would recommend a division of department revelations and an amendment of the relevant statute. In conclusion, it was an honor to be called again for government service. Many have said our report would either advocate mere reinforcement of embassies or closing down our presence. No conclusion like that could be farther from the truth. We recognize that perfection and protection is not possible and that fine and good men and women will still come forward to serve their country and risked their lives on the front lines of danger. We should continue to do all we can to protect them as they go about such challenging task. That was the sole purpose of our report and it was produced with a deep sense that we have to get it right. Politics, elections, personal controversy and all other external factors aside. I am aware no report will ever be perfect. I am proud of this one, which has been seen by many as clear and very hardhitting, as it new information is always welcome. I feel this is on the mark and will personally welcome anything new that sheds light on what happened and helps us to protect american lives and property in the future. A governmente are of branches, checks, and balances. I have always respected the congress and the task it must assume to make our nation great. I appear today against the backdrop of those beliefs. We will not always agree. But let us always agree the National Interest, the best interest and welfare of the American People are the criteria against which we serve. Thank you, mr. Chairman could i look forward to your questions. Before addressing the subject of this hearing, my wife who is with me today and i want to express our deepest sympathies to those families of those killed in the tragedy earlier this week. , they were oury shipmates and family members in the truest sense of the word. Their dedication and sacrifice will never be forgotten. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I hope my testimony will be helpful to the committee as it investigates the tragic events of september 11 and 12, 2012. Shortly after those events, i was asked by the secretary of state to serve as the vice chair of the accountability review board established to examine the tax on the special Mission Compound and annex in benghazi. The board was a bleak led by the ambassador and included three other highly qualified members with expertise in areas relevant to this review. The Board Members took our responsibilities seriously. We worked diligently to fulfill our obligations to determine the facts and make recommendations as how to best avoid similar tragedies in the future. From the beginning, the state department emphasized it wanted full transparency about what happened in the ghazi in benghazi and how to prevent it. Here were no limitations we received the full cooperation of all witnesses in every state department office. We reviewed everyone we thought it was necessary to interview. We operated independently and were given freedom to pursue the investigation as we deemed necessary. This independence was particularly important to me. I would not have accepted if i thought the independence of the board would be compromised in any way. Thanoard interviewed more 100 individuals, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and reviewed hours of video footage. Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to u. S. Facilities and property risks rests solely and completely with the terrorists that perpetrated the attack. Did find gives multiple state department shortcomings that exacerbated the attack. We concluded there was nothing the military could have done to respond to the attack on the compound or deter the subsequent attack on the annex. The actions of our military, which moved many assets that night, were fully appropriate and professional. The board made 29 recommendations, 24 of which were unclassified. I stand by those recommendations. One of the recommendations led to the establishment of the breast best Practices Panel which will be detailed today. Most of the recommendations were designed to be implemented at state Department Facilities worldwide to keep diplomatic personnel safe and secure everywhere they serve especially in areas where they focus face great risks the cousin our country needs them. The state department may implement the recommendations as it sees fit. I understand it plans to implement them all. The board recommendations with respect to the shortcomings of state Department Personnel have been given much attention. Because of the courageous and , theate sacrifices made board meticulously reviewed the conduct of all state Department Employees with erect responsibilities for security at and ghazi special mission complex. We assigned blame at the level where we thought it late lay. Accountability at the level of operational responsibility. The house report admonished that in the past, determining direct accountability for serious security failures had been week. Senior officials have ultimately accepted responsibility for operation of failure innal circumstances where they had no direct control. The board is permitted only to make findings and recommendations. Implementation of recommendations must be done by the state department. It is not an adjudicated process. As to personnel, the statute speaks only to the recommendation that individuals be disciplined. Congress,th by discipline requires a finding that an individual breached his or her duties. The board came to understand this as a very high Legal Standard going well beyond negligence that requires affirmative misconduct or willful ignorance of responsibilities. Discipline is a formal term meaning complete removal or demotion from within the federal service. Other forms of administrative action such as removal from a position or reassignment are not considered formal discipline. The board has encouraged congress to consider whether to so thate statute unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to the security incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations. After careful review, the board found no individual engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities. We did not find reasonable cause to believe an individual breached his or her duty. However, the board did find two individuals demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability that significantly contributed to the crook areas Security Posture at the compound. The board recommended the secretary of state remove those individuals from their positions. The board also concluded offormance and leadership two other individuals fell short of expectations but did not recommend any specific personnel action. All personnel decisions were made by the state department. I have the greatest admiration for the service and sacrifice by ambassador stevens, sean smith, woods. Ority, and tyrone iny were patriots and heroes every sense of the word. They died dedicating their lives to our country. I have heartfelt sympathy for the family of these brave men. We should never forget their sacrifice. We should honor them by doing everything to ensure the Lessons Learned never have to be learned again. The board report was issued in that spirit and with that goal. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan . Good morning. Thank you for asking us to appear. Yard,ootings at the navy which occurred earlier this week in our nations capital, reminds us all of the vulnerabilities and diversified threats we face every day, whether in our own backyard or on foreign soil. My thoughts and prayers are with the big ends, their families, and loved ones my thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and loved ones. Collaborative effort is needed to ensure the safety and security of american lives. It is a necessary certainty we honor and protect the memories of those citizens who have been lost as a result of Violent Attacks with dignity and respect. As a federal agent for almost 35 years, my life continues to be dedicated to contributing to improve americas security. I had the honor of serving as director of the United States secret service under both president bush and obama. As director, i learned and understood the importance of having clear lines of authority concerning security matters. I also learned that things do not always go as planned. When they do not, it is vital to implement Lessons Learned in an effort to prevent them from happening again. I consider it an honor to have anded with Panel Members staff. Our panel shares a combined experience of almost 170 years of security and Law Enforcement expertise. The panel report reflects the independent views of the panel, based upon the members best professional judgment, experience, and analysis of best practices informed by interviews, travel, and research. It was a pleasure to serve with other Panel Members. I appreciate their professionalism and hard work. I would like to thank the hundreds of people interviewed in the course of drafting this government,the u. S. Private sector, international organizations, and foreign governments. The panel was the result of the accountability review board which recommended the department a panel oftablish outside independent experts with experience in high risk, high threat areas to support the bureau of Diplomatic Security, identify best practices from other agencies and countries, and even value we the United States security platforms in posts. Hreat our report provides 40 recommendations in 12 areas. Panel, theion of the recommendations will further strengthen the Department Ability to protect personnel and work more safely on a Global Platform to achieve mobile Foreign Policy goals and objectives. The 12 areas of recommendations our organization and management, accountability, risk management, program criticality and acceptable risk, planning and logistics, Lessons Learned, training and human resources, intelligence, threat analysis, and security assessments, programs, resources, technology, enhancement, regular evaluation, change management, leadership, communications, and training. The panel looked crossed tooss a wide spectrum identify effective measures to ensure a safe and secure environment for employees and programs. Not surprisingly, the panel found many institutions, refer togovernments Diplomatic Security as the Gold Standard for security and seek to model their services after Diplomatic Security. Annie Organization Must continuously evolve and approved to adjust to a fluid and dynamic environment. The panel view was the recommendations should be realistic and measurable. The findings and recommendations and therb recommendations of other reports and studies were reviewed in the context of the panels own views and observations. Best practices were identified shortcomings and provide mechanisms for further consideration by the department. The most important of the recommendations is the creation of an undersecretary for Diplomatic Security. This structural recommendation is not new and was suggested 14 years ago following the bombings. The way forward should be characterized by cooperative efforts that can provide a abilityk with enhanced to be effective. We must be innovative to ensure institutions adapt and evolve to meet changing requirements and needs. Finally, i would like to take this opportunity to thank the hostedent of state that the panel visits in diplomatic for the outstanding support provided during our endeavor. Thank you for your time we look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you. Mr. Kyle, i understand you do not have an Opening Statement. Would you like to say a few words . Thank you for inviting us to testify today about our independent panel report on best practices in the aftermath of the tragic events that occurred in benghazi. Our panel was committed to identifying best practices from throughout the u. S. Government, the private sector, and foreign governments which can improve the security of u. S. Diplomatic so which is a broad and enhance the safety of department of state and Foreign Affairs globally. Ersonnel we identified 40 recommendations to achieve this goal. We panel affirmed what already knew based on our professional experience. The men and women of the state department Diplomatic Security service are truly dedicated public servants, amongst the best in service to our great nation. Every day around the world, they face extreme challenges, unpredictable risks, and unknown events, but still provide a safe and secure environment for the conduct of u. S. Foreignpolicy and they do so with distinction. As we stated repeatedly throughout the report, best practices will not save lives unless they are resourced, implemented, and followed. Not just accepted. As director sullivan stated, almost 14 years ago, a number of very similar recommendations were made after systematic failures were recognized as a result of the east African Embassy bombings. Little has been accomplished by the department of state since then to improve its approach to security, even after approval by the secretary of state to elevate security and make other enhancements. Now is the time for the department of state with the support of congress to finally institutionalize real, meaningful, and progressive change. The department of state owes it to those who have given their lives in service to our country and to those employees who continue to serve our country in very dangerous locations around the world. Thank you very much. I will recognize myself grade i will go in reverse order. Time, is it true that both the facilities sufficiency and the sufficiency of diplomatic effectively, he is the undersecretary for Diplomatic Security at this time . Is that true . As we traveled around the world mr. Keil, please, i have a short time. Start by saying yes or no. Yes. He is in fact in a position where the pyramid rises to him. Your recommendation and the recommendation 14 years ago is that he be relieved of Diplomatic Security and that be placed in a separate undersecretary position. Would that not create by definition a situation in which somebody would be responsible for the hardware, the facilities, including compliances. Somebody else would be responsible for the bodies and the support. Have you considered that and how would the Foreign Affairs Committee Structure that briefly . Yes. We have considered that. Currently, there is integration between overseas buildings operations and Diplomatic Security. They all report undersecretary kennedy. Was the failure in benghazi the failure to have facilities sufficient or to have sufficient physical security in the way of period period yes, sir. Including being in compliance. Somebody else would he responsible for the bodies and the support. Have you consider that or how would Foreign Affairs structure that briefly . Currently, there is integration. They all report to undersecretary kennedy. There were clearly people who had old house of it and both failed. My Ranking Member told politico that we should listen. Admiral, i heard you clearly saying that you had limitations in with the arb mandate what and that your limitations are that you cant really look at policy deficiencies and, by definition, you are mandated to look at the lowest level of operational failure, not the highest level of policy failure. Is that true . I think that policy adjustments or policy issues were well within our mandate. What i talked about in my Opening Statement was the constraint was in the discipline. So finding fault had to go to the lowest level, even though you looked at policy. Actually, finding fault had to go to the appropriate level. The decision to extend the facility for another year with limited protection and not meeting standards was a decision made by undersecretary kennedy. Did you consider that policy error . As a policy decision or that only somebody lower was responsible . I think the memo to which you are referring the august memo. Mr. Chairman, that undersecretary kennedy signed in december 2011. Yes. It was approved to extend it. I think that was pretty clear to everybody. It wasnt the establishment of the special missing compound. We understand that. We actually had testimony that they were under consideration on september 11 of extending it prominently. But the decision to keep from there and the reduction to the assets to protect it occurred in december 2011. Of the failure, mr. Chairman, was not in the establishment or that memo. It was in the execution of what was laid out in that memo to include the requisite number of security personnel which were rarely there over the course of the next year. Ok, so whoever is responsible for not having enough security personnel is who failed. That is where we ended up focusing the review. The final point i want to get out is you had a mandate under the arb. You said essentially that changes in what the mandate are are welcome and you both understand and believe that some changes in the arb to make it able to do more will be necessary. I pretty well heard that. What the Foreign Affairs committee is considering changes, something that you both have welcomed considering this process. Yes, sir, for the lessons we have learned, absolutely. Its independence is critical as well as the anonymity of those who come to the table to make statements so that those atements are made in this. The spirit of where we are trying to go and nato feel limited. You said that the administration, the secretary and so on, made your job easy because you had full access to 100 witnesses and the attempt was to have full transparency. Correct. Do you think congress should have that same option . In other words, since the state department has not made any of those witnesses you interviewed first available, even the names have been to the greatest extent possible withheld from this committee do you think that is appropriate or do you believe we should have access to fact witnesses as we review the process . Mr. Chairman, i think i have been in government a long time. That is something that historically and in this case has to be worked out between the congress and the executive branch. Admiral, if the attack that happened again today and we wanted the people on the deck of that ship today, do you think we should have the right to speak to those people in order to understand the facts on the ground that day . I honest im asking from your experience and a dod framework. I dont know what would limit you to do that, quite frankly. I am in the process to do that, quite frankly. I am in the process of issuing subpoenas. They are hiding behind a thinly veiled criminal investigation. Any time that there are americans are killed abroad, we are not being given the same access that you had or mr. Sullivan and his team had and that is part of the reason this investigation cannot end until the state department gives us at least the same access that they gave your board. And with that, i recognize the Ranking Member for his questions. Just one second. I apologize. I do have to make a technical correction. It has come to our attention that there is a typo on page 25. It has led to some misunderstanding about what admiral mullen told the committee about a conversation with cheryl mills. We have made a technical correction in our report. The report will be correctly identified as admiral mullens testimony as referring to charlene lams interview. The report includes a full text of the admiral mullens testimony in the full text of the interview will be made available on our website immediately and it should be clear that the typo was unintentional and has been corrected. I now recognize the Ranking Member. I want to thank the chairman for dissing the last issue, the fact the came out in our memo and made it clear that it was not correct. Admiral mullen, as the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, you were the military expert on the arb, is that correct . Yes. If you look on page 23 of our report, there is an excerpt from your interview with the committee in which you said this. I personally reviewed and, as the only military member of the arb, i personally reviewed all the military assets that were in theater and available. In your review, did you have access to all military information, data and people necessary to assess the militarys response . I did. I understand from your transcript that you conducted this investigation not once but twice. The first time was with all members of the arb. We went to the pentagon to review it in detail. Then the second time, i went back by myself when this became an issue that there were certainly questions being raised and i went that again to verify and validate what i had done before and i found nothing different and that the military response the military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldnt get there in time. So just to be clear, you have 40 years of experience in the military and have achieved the highest ranks. You had access to all the information and personnel you thought was necessary to investigate the interagency response on the night of the attack. And you personally reviewed everything twice. Do i have that right . Right. You told the committee in your in your view, i concluded after a detailed understanding of what had happened that night that, from outside the libya, that we had done Everything Possible that we could. Is that right . Correct. Can you explain from your perspective what it means for the military to have done Everything Possible . Did the military really try everything . I ask this for the families who want to know that the country that their loved ones served did everything they could for them. I worked for two president s. The direction you get from the president in a situation like that is do everything that you can with all the guidance that you need. Secretary panetta and i both testified along the lines in testimony in early february along the lines of what i found when i reviewed this on two occasions. It goes to our core when people are in trouble to do everything we possibly can to help them out. And there were many forces that moved that night, including a special Operations Force in europe that ended up in a base in southern europe, a large special Operations Force from the United States, which moved under direction as soon as they were given orders, a group of marines that essentially were sent in from spain into tripoli the next day. This is not something that you can wish to happen instantly. Theres a lot of preparation to do it as rapidly as one can do it. If i may, there has been great discussion given to fastmoving others. Could you get a jet over benghazi because there are jets in europe . Our readiness condition on that particular night, there were no airplanes sitting at the ready. So it is 2 00 in the morning and there are no planes on alert. It is two and a half to three hours to fly there. The tanker is four hours away. You need host nation support where they are to get permission to fly, particularly combat ready jets out of that country. You have to go get the bomb racks. You have to put the munitions together. You have to plan the mission. There are a tremendous number of details that have to go on. You have to bring the pilots in, prebrief them, etc. It takes hours and hours and hours to do if youre not sitting at the ready when this happened. What has happened since then, that i have been briefed on, is the defense department, the pentagon has adjusted readiness of forces in certain parts of the world to respond. We are not big enough in the military and ambassador pickering will im sure second this we are not the enough in the military to be everywhere around the world to respond to where every am to see is that might be high risk. We have to take risk and figure that out. So what do you say in response to those members who continued to this day imply that the military fell down on the job . They didnt fall down on the job and i just completely disagree with that view. Ambassador pickering, i see you shaking your head. Would you comment . I think the point that has just been made i admiral mullen is very important. We have over 270 consulates and embassies around the world in some very isolated and strange places. The responsibility for their security lies in the host country. Where that does not exist, it falls back on us to do it. The report we provided you and others provides the recommendations to deal with those particular cases. We are not able to count on the u. S. Military, as admiral mullen said, im always being positioned to come in short notice. So we must do better on the ground. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I now recognize mr. Mica for his questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Many americans have been waiting for this hearing. As i go back to my district, admiral and ambassador and others, i cant tell you how many times people have said dont let benghazi and what happened there be swept under the table. Unfortunately, and the Ranking Member mentioned this, in my district and the vast majority of americans feel your report is a whitewash or cover up. That is what people feel. They feel their government let them down. They felt that American Public servants were lost their. And now the review doesnt really adjust anything. Nobody has been fired. Nobody has been dismissed. No one has been arrested for the murders. I cant tell you how frustrating this is. Do you understand where the American Public is coming from . Mr. Mica, i understand what you are saying with respect to that. Would you please put the microphone a little closer, admiral . Ok. I understand im just telling you how my people feel. Then they look at who was interviewed, for example. You just got through saying that we seek direction from the president. You sought direction and the president had to do this. That is what the military got from the president in terms of response. The secretary of state, when you dont have and for 14 years now and the undersecretary of security which was recommended so someone was in charge. Again, no one is held accountable to this date. That is the way congress feels and the American People feel. I tend to differ with you. I am not the greatest military strategist, but in january we were at least at one post. I know at least three other posts where we could have launched an attack. The attack started at 9 45. We may not have been able to save the first two, the ambassador and his colleague. But the others shouldnt have died. It was 5 15 to 5 30 when they you said yourself twoand ahalf to three hours. There is no reason there are at least pretty close replaces i visited. If we are not, shame on us. What i said was 10 to 20 hours to get there. That should not be the case, and i was advised as a member of congress when i visited and sat down at on of those locations that we could launch almost immediately to rescue american personnel or american citizens in danger. So there is something wrong there. Then again, investigating people above, it is all at the lower level of which some were moved to other positions with a good pay. It looks like an inside job of investigation, the department of state looking at the department of state. You had difficulty. Again, you testified that you did not have difficulty, mr. Mullens, but two other witnesses mentioned that an arb member said that it was a difficult process and the board had a tough time getting details or i asked dick how was going, and he said ray, will it is going very slow. We are not getting any details or context. We got lots of details. But we are the congress of the United States and we are not getting that. You just heard the chairman, the delay, we cant get access to witnesses. I had somebody come up to media the day i dont know if its true they are conducting lie detector tests to people to see this is theked to us. Stuff that is going out there that the American People feel that justice is not prevailing in this case. Ok, you didnt go to clinton, but what about the deputy secretary, William Burns . Was he interviewed . We spoke to both deputy secretaries of state. At the time that we got to them, as it was with secretary clinton, we had very clear evidence, full and complete to our information, that the authority and responsibility and accountability rested with the people we identified. They are not on the list. Finally, when secretary clinton testified, she said i talked to the president at the end of the day but was in constant communication with the security advisor. Did you interview tom donilon . We did not because we sign no evidence that he made any of the decisions that we and the board were asked by the congress to investigate with respect to the security. And we follow the precepts that admiral mullen has just outlined for you, not to go for the people who didnt make the decisions, but to go following the will of congress to the people who made the decisions and in deed we went to the people who reviewed the decisions. The secretary wasnt involved. I must be on another planet. The gentlemans time is expired. We now go to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Tierny. Thank you. Admiral, i dont pretend to know better about what could have done than somebody who serves in the military with as long and distant was a career as you did. I dont think i will pretend that i have more experience or knowledge or ability than you do but i will accept your word that you reviewed twice the possibilities that could have been there and that everything that could be done was done and it is important for the public we should not be surprised that members of the public are confused because there have been misstatements all over the news and online. The chairman staff report released earlier this week concluded that the arbs andependence was undermined. That Board Members had actual and perceived complex of interest. Conflicts of interest. Admiral mullen and ambassador pickering, that is a very serious charge. A challenge is fundamentally your own integrity. I want to give you each an opportunity to respond to those allegations. But first, i want to again acknowledge that you both served our nation for decades and the most senior positions in your field. You have served for both republican and democratic president s alike. You won so many awards and promotions that if i listened them it wouldnt you get rest of my time. You agreed to volunteer months of your life to serve on this arb. Can each of you explain why you you volunteered to serve on the board . As the Ranking Member already made clear and as my testimony in my deposition, which is available to everybody, made clear, i serve first because the secretary of state asked me to take on a tough job, and i have been doing that for my life and for my sense of service to my country said that this is not something i should turn down any way, anyhow. Chris stevens gave me two years of help and service as undersecretary of state. And i had a personal debt of honor to chris to take this on. Thirdly, i felt we needed quickly to know what went wrong and how to to fix it and that was the function of the arb and i believe that we carry that out to the best of our ability. Finally, i had no sense anywhere that there was any conflict of interest. I spent 42 years in the state department. I knew many of the officers concerned. I have to tell you for a, fair and free this was not an exercise of any personal sense of debt or obligation to any of those people. And i believe that the comments on the report that it was hard hitting, that it called the shots the way it should have in my view is the best summation of what we tried to do free of political influence, free of conflict and i am proud of the report. I have been with so many of those in uniform as well as those who served in the state Department Around the world in some very, very difficult posts. And i thought i could with my experience contribute from the professional standpoint, and particularly from the military perspective. At its core, it is still who i am, which is a servant of this country. And when asked to go do that, it was pretty easy to say yes. The arb staff comments said, undersecretary for management Patrick Kennedy displaced his staff in a position that requires them to reevaluate of the performance of supervisors, colleagues and friends. How do you respond to the notion that the selection of staff created an inappropriate conflict of interest . My understanding of the role of secretary kennedy made it clear that he did not dissipate. I seems to been an error somewhere and that testimony is now in the minority report. Secondly, my judgment of the staff performance was that i saw no hint of any favoritism or preference. I saw a staff that worked many extra hours, that looked very carefully at all the issues, that did extraordinary research and was responsible to us. But in every case, well review the final report many times. We each make contributions and the unanimous view of this five member panel is that they took full responsibility and approved every word of that report. The chairmans report also raises questions about your recommendation of catherine pertini. Do you believe that your selection created a conflict of interest . I was asked in early discussion who i thought might usefully serve on the board from outside the state department and i give a list of names to undersecretary kennedy who was accumulating those for secretary clinton. A large number of the people i put on the list were not selected. Catherine bertini was selected. She ran the food world program, a multibilliondollar enterprise of the u. N. She was undersecretary general of the u. N. For management. She has a distinguished record as a professor on public policy. Her own political background was on the opposite side to the party in power. Thank you, sir. When the staff report talked about conflicts, isnt it true that there were no true outsiders . There were no advocates for the families, no people who serve outside of government that would cause them to be skeptical. In fact, each of you, ambassador, you said you had no conflict while at the same time you talk about 42 years in the organization you were overseeing. If we looked at the Bank Failures of 2007 and brought jamie dimon to head the board, some would say that there was an inherent conflict because of his experience and life. Wouldnt you agree that your makeup was a makeup of people like admiral mullen who were responsible for policy that had no response to this 9 11 attack. And of course, you had years of viewing things through an ambassadors eyes. Mr. Chairman, with greatest respect, this was not a gotcha investigative panel. Would you choose put it this way someone with no experience to come in and investigate and Carry Forward the work . We used to, years ago, elect military officers. We stopped that a long time ago. I suspect that brain surgery was one of the most early occupied operations in the world. Why would you choose a panel of people who knew nothing about the responsibilities, nothing about how and what way they were carried out . The value of this panel was that three were from outside and only two of us were from inside. Hopefully to give precisely the cross current of give precisely the cross current of question and examination that you yourself just expressed the hope that we had. We, sir, had that. We appreciate that. Obviously, this was not a gotcha panel because nobody was gotten. I would with Great Respect f that we gave for names to four names to the secretary of state that we believed were failing in their Senior Leadership and management responsibilities. So your testimony today that something should have happened, they should not be on the job, not having lost a days pay . We made recommendations that two of those people be removed from their jobs. But they have not been fired. Fired is a discipline and a different set of circumstances. Wouldnt you agree that there was no accountability . No, there was accountability. On a point of order. I was trying to make this quick. Mr. Duncan is now recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Earlier, you commended ambassador pickering and admiral mullen. I want to commend you and your staff on trying to get the full story on this benghazi situation. Let me just say the bombings in 1998 and the events of 9 11, the congress has approved whopping increases funding for Embassy Security around the world. Yet the arb report found that in tripoli did not indicate increased security for special mission benghazi. I would like to ask how did you come to that decision . It was a combination of documents. Ok. Your report says on page for that systematic failures and leadership and management efficiencies at senior levels resulted in a special mission Security Posture that was inadequate for benghazi. What were the systematic failures . A constant churn and personnel with an average stay time in benghazi of 40 days or less, differential and uncertain and sometimes negative attitudes towards security, physical improvements of the post are two examples. I would add to that, the application of resources over time, whether it was from inside the Security Branch of the state department or inside the buildings, the training of personnel before they went for the right kind of high threat training, the physical up grade that had been sought, the continuity of achieving those physical upgrades, the stovepipes that no leader, and we have focused on the key leaders in our report, saw fit to cross and make things happen from a leadership perspective. There was an active intervention leadership. We focused on the people with the knowledge on security that were making the decisions. As well of knowledge in the area. The knowledge that was available and several people talked about how no one has been held accountable in the way most americans would consider accountability. In your interview with the committee, you were asked about a man named ray maxwell and you said nobody has a picture like he did. He was in a position in the nea bureau where his portfolio were these countries, including libya. There was a tremendous amount of instability throughout the middle east of not just a demonstration, at the evolution of what had happened in egypt and syria as well. The assistant secretary general was focused on the whole region to include those crises and you come down under her, the individual with a focus, the knowledge, the portfolio, the daytoday focus was mr. Maxwell. I was taken back significantly that he removed himself from those responsibilities in terms of what was going on in libya. I was shocked. I had to slip out briefly to another committee and maybe you have already answered this. Were you surprised that the top four people that no one was fired . We talked about the constraints of the law. Those are very real constraints. This gets equated to the military. When we have a military commander that fails, we fire them. We move him or her out of that job. They are not dismissed from the federal service unless they go through criminal proceedings. There is this mismatch of perception, you fire people in the military all the time. What you really do is move them out of a job. You do not fire them in the way they would be fired in the private sector. Isnt it true in the military, you would get an adverse oar . If you are a second first lieutenant, you would be forced out before you are eligible for retirement . Isnt there a level of ultimate accountability . Absolutely. There is an exact parallel. If you are removed from a job, particularly under the circumstances that have to do with Something Like benghazi. Your future career is finished. Thank you. I want to thank the panelists for helping us with our work. I want to offer my condolences to the stevens family, the smith family for their loss. We can only hope their grief and the burden they now carry might be lightened a little bit i knowing that it is shared by so many across this nation. I think it is important that weve remember these four individuals were among our nations very best. They do a very dangerous job. I think it diminishes their memory to think of them as victims. These four men, i think it is better to honor them and their memories by recalling that they were very dedicated patriots. They are American Heroes. They trained long and hard and they prepared long and hard with extreme bravery. They went out to meet the challenges that they faced. They loved doing so on behalf of this country. Admiral mullen, in your interview with the committee, you said during the unfolding crisis like this, the president is likely to tell the military leaders to do Everything Possible to respond. This is the direction they need to start moving assets forward and formulating a response. Is that your testimony . That is my experience with two president s. Did it happen in this case . Yes. Did you find the defense department, the state department engaged quickly . As rapidly as they possibly could. The committee had the opportunity to interview our committee. And the opportunity to interview jake sullivan. He told us that secretary clinton and other senior officials were heavily engaged on the night of the attacks. Secretary clinton was receiving reports of what was happening and she made a series of phone calls. She gave direction to pat kennedy, to beth jones, to do Everything Possible with respect to our own resources and with respect to libyan resources. She was receiving regular updates and she was proactively reaching out. She spoke with director petraeus, she spoke with the National Security advisor, she participated in a secure video teleconference system and she made other phone calls that night. Secretary clinton was the only thing she this was the only ourng she was focused on. Mr. Sullivans quote consistent sullivans mr. Quotes consistent . They are consistent with what we heard from mrs. Jones and from undersecretary kennedy. And what we heard and what the Committee Heard and let the public heard. Were state Department Officials immediately engaged . In multiple ways and through multiple channels. Did they do everything they could that night . I believe they did. Admiral mullen, i have followed your careers. Your reputation is impeccable. Your service to this country has been in the highest standards. I want to say, i think you have en treated and fairly. Unfairly. Your body of work has not been appreciated. I think you are owed a debt of gratitude for your years of public service. Your diligence and your energy and honesty and integrity during this whole process. I now recognize the gentleman from ohio. In your testimony, you say, we operated independently as we deemed necessary. In your interview with the committee staff, the committee asked you, did you have any questions about the independence of the board . Your response the most important descriptive characteristic of it was that it would be independent. Is that accurate . In the same interview with committee staff, did you update the state department in the course of the arb . You replied, shortly after we interviewed charlene lam, i initiated a call to ms. Mills to give her a heads up because at this point, she was on a list to come over here to testify. In october. Is this the same ms. Mills who was the chief of staff and counsel to the secretary of state . It is. When she calls, you take her calls. Later in that same response to the committees questions about you updating the state department in the course of the arb, i gave ms. Mills a heads up. I thought her appearance could be a very difficult appearance for the state department. Correct. If this is so independent, why are you giving the state department a heads up about a witness coming in front of this committee . We had just completed within a day or two of that phone call you had a phone call with ms. Mills . That is what my statement said. We had just completed the interview with ms. Lamb. Can i answer your question . As someone having run a department and spent many times trying as a leader of the department my time is winding down. Let me answer this. Seven days later why was she one of the first people you interviewed . She was when the first people interviewed because she was not in control of Diplomatic Security. How did you know she was on the list . It was public knowledge. By the time i knew it what day did you interview charlene lam . Between the third and the 10th. When did you talk to cheryl mills . Within 24 hours. I did not think charlene lam would be a witness at that point in time that would represent the department well. Again, we have been told the arb is an independent review. You have said it twice. Within a week, you are given the counselor to the secretary of state a headsup about a witness that you think will not be a good witness. Do you know what else happened . Congressman went to libya and on that trip, ms. Mills sent a staff lawyer on that trip and he was instructed to be in every single meeting. Did you talk about that . No. He also testified that when there was a meeting at a classified level that the staff lawyer was not eligible to attend, you got a phone call from cheryl mills saying, why did you let this meeting take place . You are giving her a heads up. Yet were supposed to believe this report is independent. Did cheryl mills get to see this report before it went public . We had a draft report when it we briefed the. Secretary of state both cheryl mills and Hillary Clinton got to see this report one lastt went public . Question if you learned that Inspector General over the course of an investigation informed its Agency Leadership that a witness scheduled to testify before congress would reflect poorly on the agency, would you have concerned about in Inspector General doing the same thing you did . The intent it is yes or no. The intent of what i did was to give the leadership of the state department a heads up with respect to ms. Mills. You let them see the final report. The gentlemans time is i think the chair and i think the member, i welcome the panel. I do want to say to family members, i have heartache for your loss. I just lost three constituents at the navy yard last week. I am old enough to remember lebanon. I lost a good friend in that Embassy Bombing in the early 1980s. I did not remember an arb at that time at that time. Was there . It was before arb became a practice. We lost our embassy, dozens of deaths, i do not remember any investigation. I do not remember any charges. I do not remember the democrats exploiting Ronald Reagans management of that incident. We understood it was a National Tragedy and we tried to come together. I say to all four of you, i regret the tone of this hearing but it is typical of the so called investigations into benghazi, where apparently there is an agenda and the agenda is not getting at the truth. It is getting at somebody. The chairman used the word gotcha. We will make up for it by getting you. Trying to besmirch the finest Civil Servants in their respective fields. Let me say to you, there are they who see through that. Understand the innuendo and smear and badgering are not going to cloud the truth. But a tragedy occurred because terrorists perpetrated terror. We are trying to find out how can we learn from the tragedy . How can we make sure there are no more grieving families . How can we make sure we are at better prepared . I thank you for the courage you not only in undertaking the investigation but in weathering the partisanship that has clouded this investigation. Admiral mullen, in a partisan report leaked to the press, not shared with this side of the committee, which should give you a big fat hint as to the intent, you are the subject of an allegation. Mullen put cheryl mills on notice that the boards question could be difficult for the state department. I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that allegation. I tried to say. I called ms. Mills having interviewed prior to the first testimony on the hill. I think the 10th of october. I was concerned because i had run a major organization. A couple of them. Best presented to witnesses to represent the organization on the hill. It was very early in the process as far as what had happened. There were many unknowns and i was concerned about her level of experience. I expressed that to ms. Mills. That was it. You do not believe you gave her an appropriate headsup . No. With respect to the independent piece, it never had an impact. Did you want to comment on that . There are two issues running here. Admiral mullen has clearly explained what he did and why. It had nothing to do with the arb. The republican text which you cited is an error. It had nothing to do with testimony by cheryl mills. The third point is that i believed from the beginning of the arb, since we were to report to the secretary, that it was my obligation as chairman to talk to the secretary through the chief of staff about our progress, about where we were going, about the timing of the report. About what our expecations were with respect to the timing of conclusion. All of which i believed was in full keeping with our obligation. There was no direction, there was no feedback, there was no request to do this, that or the other thing. That happens every couple of thank you, mr. Ambassador. Admiralone more minute. Mullen, one of the things that has been yesterday, at the Foreign Affairs committee, there was an order to stand down that somebody gave the command that the military was not to respond. Could you put that allegation to rest . Did that happen . An order to stand down was never given. This refers to the four special operators that were in tripoli. They had finished supporting movement of american personnel in tripoli from the Embassy Compound into a safer place, having finished that, as every military person active or retired would want to do, they want to go to the fight to try to help. He checked out this chain of command, which was the special Operations Command, and the direction he got was to hold in place. He was remissioned then to support the security and the evacuation. Only in hindsight, had they gone, and we had a very good understanding of what was going on then, had they gotten on an airplane, they wouldve taken medical capability that was needed out of tripoli and most likely crossed in route with the first plane that was evacuated. Thank you. I recognize myself for five minutes. Admiral, i want my i want to direct my question to you. My understanding is that there is not a report. It seems odd and mysterious there is no such report. Did the arb talk to Stephen Gibson . Did you or anybody speak with anybody from the office of Security Cooperation located at the embassy . We were in touch and spoke with and interviewed the defense attache. Who is colonel George Bristol . I do not know. He was not interviewed by the arb. Did you ever speak with director of operations for africom . Not directly, no. We were aware of his input. Having spoken with the joint staff and the director of operations on the joint staff. They are different from the joint staff. The rear admiral, do you know who he is . He is the commander of special Operations Command at the time of the benghazi attack. Did you interview him . We did not. Did you speak with deputy to the commander for military operations . We spoke to his boss. All of these people, directly involved in the operations that night. You did not read a report or a review. All of these people are directly involved and they were not engaged. When i went back the second time, i listened to a report iith respect to what happened. Stand by what they did and what i saw. We understand the general was in washington, d. C. He was not in libya. These people were. What time did the d. O. D. Ask libya for flight clearance . The general was involved i understand he was involved, but he was not in libya. Did the department of defense ever asked libya permission for flight clearance . I believe the answer is no. Do i get to answer the what kind of flight clearance are you talking about . We already had permissions to fly. The answer is no, correct . The assets that came from germany specifically, we received permission to put them let me keep moving. When did the United States military reach out to our nato partners . I do not think it did. That is one of the concerns. The italians have 50 tornadoes. We never asked them. When did the United States when were they put on alert . Here is the problem. Their readiness status was upgraded. Admiral, with all due respect at the time of the attack, the readiness status, there were no aircraft ready to go. In cairo, hours earlier, the demonstrators breached the wall. They had torn down the american flag. It was libya on 9 11. We had been bombed twice prior. There is nobody that is ready to go . Europe had closer assets. Did you talk to anybody who did want to move forward . Everybody in the military wanted to move forward. There are plenty of assets moving. It became a physics problem. It is a time and distance problem. That is who we are. We try to help when someone is in harms way. I did not get there in time. There were other people but wanted to go. I wish you had spoken to them. We did not even tried, we did not asked for permission, we did not asked for flight clearances. I disagree with what you are saying. You just told me they did not get to the ready. You presided, you never asked those nato partners. I commanded nato forces and the likelihood that nato could respond was absolutely zero. You know, i am so outraged by the conduct of this committee today. 83 years worth of service to this country by these two men and they are being treated shabbily and i apologize to you. It is totally unnecessary. We are trying to get facts and where trying to prevent this from happening again and badgering you does not achieve that goal. Let me also point out that there has been a classified briefing, mr. Chairman, on the whole issue of whether Lieutenant Colonel gibson was told to stand down. There was an Armed Services committee needing. I was there. There was a press release put out by the subcommittee after that classified briefing. I want to read to you what was posted. During the attack, colonel bristol was traveling in africa. Unreliable communications prohibited from participating in the attack response beyond an initial conversation. He confirmed to committee that in his role, he gave Lieutenant Colonel gibson initial freedom of action to make decisions in response to the unfolding situation in benghazi. Contrary to some reports, he was at no point ordered to stand down, but rather to remain in tripoli to defend American Embassy there in anticipation of possible additional attacks and to assist the survivors as they returned from benghazi. The colonel confirmed this account of events. When i asked will we ever listen to the facts . This came out of the subcommittee of the Armed Services committee chaired by a republican colleague. These are the facts. Let me move on and asked admiral mullen the question. Another allegation has been made by many republicans, including that the military should have sent the fighter planes to fly over benghazi. You still have to say, why werent there aircraft it capability heading towards them . The next time this happens, it can we count on this secretary to care about people in harms way . There are some things wrong with this statement. I do not even know where to start. Do you agree the president and secretary of state do not care about people in harms way . I do not agree with that. Page 32 of our report includes an excerpt from your interview transcript where you explain that these planes would have needed refueling twice. Is that correct . That is the same thing general dempsey said in his testimony four months earlier. Is that correct . That is correct. After conducting your independent review how did you reach the same conclusion . I did. On page 31, we quote from your interview transcripts. There is no one ive ever met and the military that would not want to get help there instantly. The physics of it, it just wasnt going to happen for 12 to 20 hours. I validated that in my review when i went to the pentagon to look at every single asset that was postured in theater. Is that correct . Correct. Both the former secretary gates and panetta raised other concerns about sending aircraft to fly over benghazi. Are you familiar with their concerns . I am familiar with their concerns and you always have to assess the risks. Our military is prepared to go into high risk environments if theyre able to do that. There was an awful lot that night. That precluded that. It was not for lack of desire to do that or help someone in harms way. The other thing i talked briefly about is the issue under the circumstances under which they gave their lives. They were killed in a very to individuals on top of the building shortly after that. There were three mortar rounds that landed very accurately in a very short. Of time in the middle of the night from a place nobody really knew where that mortar fire was coming from. That is how they lost their lives. Even the likelihood that we could have provided some kind of oversight over a long period of time for the likelihood that would have sorted out that mortar fire is virtually impossible. Thank you for your service and to the families of those who lost their loved ones. How did you choose who you interviewed . We basically, as the start of the interviews, we took the process based on the facts as been covered them over time. I did not feel compelled to interview a chain of command in south africa. I know it they were doing that night. I was very comfortable. We interviewed those we thought tomorrowd to interview. We will talk more about the investigation into the been sing attacks with cheryl sharyl attkisson. Syrian Opposition Coalition korkordvisor bassel advises the Syrian Coalition and interim government on international and u. S. Legal and Foreign Policy. Live atgton journal 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Span on my archives will redefine social study education. These are treasures. The cspan Video Library is a great resource for you to view and share content anytime. It is easy. Go to cspan. Org. To watch the most recent, good to the Video Library. You can also search the library for a specific topic or keyword or you can find a person here to just type in their name, hit search, and go to people. And scroll bio page down to their appearances. You can also show what youre watching and make a clip here it use the handle tools and then clicked share and send it by e mail, facebook, twitter or google . Searchable, it easy, free. Televisionthe cable companies. Nominees for two state department posts testified before the Senate Foreign relations committee. And patterson is up for position of assistant secretary for near eastern affairs. She was formally the ambassador to egypt. This is one hour and 10 minutes. I am pleased to bring before the committee to of the nations most experienced Career Foreign Service officers. Ambassador and patterson is the nominee for assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs. Gregory starr is no stranger to the committee as assistant secretary of state for Diplomatic Security. Anne patterson has been the last two years serving as ambassador to egypt at a tumultuous time in egypts history. I want to extend my thanks for her service. She was in the eye of the storm he as the winds of the arab spring begin to blow across the region. Her expertise and experience serve her well. She has a long record of Service Since she left her home in arkansas. She is exemplary of Foreign Service officers who put their lives at risk, often at times where an american presence is necessary but not always welcome. We look forward to supporting her nomination. In doing so, i want to express several ongoing concerns in the region. As you know, the impact of sanctions on iran has been significant. While i support a diplomatic solution to the crisis and hope we can find such an opening, with the newly elected government in iran, at the end of the day we need to have a partner that comes to the table in good faith and with real offers in hand. More importantly, offering real actions. Until then, it is my view we must maintain and increase pressure on the regime in order to ensure the success that we want. I look forward to hearing your views on the situation in iran. I would also like to know your views on the next ups moving forward in egypt to realize the promise we had hoped for from the events in Tahrir Square in 2011 that gave way to an increasingly undemocratic and insecure environment for all egyptians. In iraq, i have several concerns about our the dramatic relations following the drawdown of u. S. Troops. I am also disturbed by iraqs failure. I want to underscore iraqs failure, from my perspective, to protect the community, which most recently resulted in 52 deaths and the kidnapping of seven individuals who remain hostages. I expect the iraq ease iraqis to hold the guilty parties responsible, and i also hold them responsible for the security of those at camp liberty. I hope the administration will send the same message. Finally, on the peace process, i support secretary kerrys efforts and believe we must continue to keep the palestinians at the table and engage in facetoface negotiation with israelis. I have implored israels courage in agreeing to the release of prisoners, and i hope the palestinians will publicly commit to remaining at the negotiating table and not pursue statehood or enhance status to any International Bodies while this is going on. Only through direct negotiations will we be able to realize a durable and realistic peace. You are no stranger to these convex issues. You are a decorated Foreign Service officer and i look forward to your testimony. Let me turn to greg starr, nominee for the domestic security, who appeared before the committee this summer to discuss a bill. The Embassy Security threat mitigation personnel protection act. You provided us with insight and the benefits of many years in Diplomatic Security. A special agent of the Foreign Service serving in tunisia, senegal, and the democratic republic of the congo. Later served in the technical Security Operations as chief of division for the worldwide local guard and Residential Security programs. A Senior Regional Security Officer at the embassy in tel aviv. Now you are returning, coming out of retirement, to be considered for under secretary of state for Diplomatic Security at a time when we sorely need your experience and expertise. Let me conclude by saying, i have said in the past and will say again, lessons are to be learned from the tragedies in nairobi, dar es salaam, and benghazi. They are and the medic of the broader issue we will increasingly face in the 21st century. It will require our unwavering commitment to protect our and the seas and those who serve this nation abroad. That will be your charge as assistant secretary. To strike the balance between sealing off vulnerabilities and continuing to conduct a vigorous and effective diplomacy that serves the National Interest. The fact is, we can never have absolute security in an increasingly dangerous world. But security alone is not our objective. At the end of the day we need to address both the construction of new embassies that meet security needs and we need to do what we can to secure existing highrisk post where we need our people to represent our interests and new construction is not an option. That is what the Embassy Security bill seeks to do. My hope is we will get it through the legislative process to achieve that. We look forward to hearing from you about the progress we have made and challenges we may have, and how we pursue them. Thank you both for your years of service. I know senator corker had some comments. With that, ambassador patterson, i will welcome your statement. Both statements will be fully included in the record, without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member corker, members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you today as the president s nominee for assistant secretary for near eastern affairs. Mr. Chairman, i would like to introduce my husband david and my older son edward and my daughter. Mr. Chairman, i have prepared a longer statement for the committee, which i submitted for the record. I am grateful for the confidence shown by president obama nominating me for this position. If confirmed, i pledge to work with you to advance u. S. Interests across an important and complex region that is facing historic a people. Mr. Chairman, the changes taking place across the region carry the promise of a more Democratic Political order that will benefit the region and the United States in the long term. However, the region will remain volatile and often violent for some time to come. The challenges we face are complex, but our extensive security, economic, and humanitarian interests demand our continued engagement. The region has changed in the past few years, and there is no going back. If confirmed, my top priority will be to protect our country and our allies. Doing so will require vigorous effort to identify and disable serious chemical syrias chemical weapons. It will mean continuing to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We must continue to combat terrorism and combat violent extremism across the region. Secondly, we will continue to promote sustainable democratic transitions. But me stress again how hard this is going to be. The results of elections may not be to our liking. Transitions are often plagued by false starts and reverses. We will continue our efforts to promote democracy and universal rights, and we will stand up for the rights of women, christians, and other minorities. We need to support governments and the private sector to create Economic Opportunities and jobs. Many countries in the region need to fight corruption and cut subsidies to spur investment and growth. Our Global Economic leadership and our Assistance Programs both can lay a role. We must stress for press for open business and trade environments so american businesses have access. Mindful that our country has 6757 men and women in iraq and afghanistan, i would focus on coping with the enormous sacrifices that our colleagues in the state department and the Intelligence Community and other civilian agencies are making. Supporting these professionals and their families as we continue to ask more of them. People working in this region has been deeply and disproportionately affected by of actuation, lengthy separations from family, and the sheer workload associated with living and working on the critical front lines of american diplomacy. Mr. Chairman, protecting our country requires us to practice diplomacy in dangerous places. Our people understand this. Accepting calculated risk is part of what it means to be an american diplomat today. Our bureau will work closely with our ambassadors, with mr. Starr if confirmed, and dramatic security colleagues and all other elements of government to protect americans overseas. I understand fully the responsibilities arising from the attack on our mission in benghazi that resulted in the murders of four of our colleagues. If confirmed, i will work to fulfill our obligation to bring the perpetrators of that attack to justice. Allow me to briefly review some of your key concerns. Mr. Chairman, i know that the secretary of state has briefed you on syria and the negotiations under way at the United Nations and in the hague. I will simply reiterated his point that there can be no room for anything less than full compliance with our consistent goal of deterring and degrading syrias ability to use these weapons in the future. The threat of unilateral use of force by the United States remains on the table showed syria not comply. I had just completed two years as ambassador to egypt. An extraordinarily important country for the National Security interest of the United States that deserves our continued partnership and support. Mohamed morsi was elected as president of egypt in the elections that were free and fair, even though the complex constitutional and Legal Process that produced these elections managed to confuse and upset nearly everyone. His removal from office on july 3 followed an extended series of political miscalculations and an inability to create an inclusive democratic process. In the end, egyptians will be the ones to determine whether that was correct. We have made our concerns of this method of government and the violence used against unarmed protesters abundantly clear. Our response to the situation in egypt will be consistent with u. S. Law, our National Interest, and our values. At the president s direction we have undertaken a major review of our economic and military Assistance Programs. As egypt changes, so too must our bilateral relationship. If confirmed, i will continue to urge the Egyptian Government to move toward a inclusive civilianled transition that year and hes universal rights for all citizens, including women and christians. I look forward to working with the congress to make sure we have the flexibility to respond to and influence changing events. Mr. Chairman, the United States is fully committed to helping israel and the palestinians negotiate a final status resolution to the conflict. We are fully and deeply committed to israels security. Our Security Cooperation has never been closer. Israel is our close friend and the regions only stable democracy. The United States also continues to assist the palestinians as they build governing institutions. As we mark 35 years since the camp david accords this week, the search for middle east peace remains at the very heart of u. S. National security interest. Secretary kerry has worked very hard for the resumption of negotiations, which has required courageous leadership by Prime Minister netanyahu and president abbas. Mr. Chairman, iran is the worlds foremost state sponsor of terrorism, including in iraq, syria, and lebanon. It continues to defy the International Community by pursuing Nuclear Activity in violation of its obligations. The United States will not allow iran to acquire Nuclear Weapons. Thanks to the indispensable role played by congress and with international support, we have put in place an unprecedented sanctions regime against iran. Mr. Chairman, i would like to knowledge the efforts you played, along with other members of the committee. Sanctions have hurt irans economy badly. The people of iran voted for change in the recent election a president hassan rouhani, who has demonstrated a remarkably different tone from his predecessors. But to make progress we need to see concrete actions. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed i pledge to work with you to assure the resources and tools to provide our bureau are supporting activities that advance our top National Interest. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Esther starr mr. Starr. Chairman, Ranking Member corker, members of the committee, i am honored to appear before you today. I would like to thank the committee for your continued support and interest in the bureau of Diplomatic Security programs protecting american diplomats abroad. This enables Diplomatic Security to safeguard american diplomats and facilities for the conduct of you and u. S. Foreign policy while maintaining the robust investigative programs that protect United States borders and our presence overseas. As the nominee to be assistant secretary at the bureau of Diplomatic Security, i am thankful to the president and secretary kerry for the confidence they have placed in me to lead to dramatic security in these difficult and demanding times. I have been a security professional for more than 30 years. My experience in the department and outside government has prepared me to take on the challenges of leading Diplomatic Security in the future. The world is changing, and so is the way in which diplomacy is conducted. Therefore, the way in which we provide security for our diplomats must change with it. We can never truly eliminate all risks faced by u. S. Government personnel as they advance our National Interests abroad. We in the department constantly reviewing evolving threats and seek to mitigate risk as much as possible. The challenges we have faced in the previous decade, over the Previous Year in particular, have been significant and growing. Increasingly, our people are called upon to live and work in difficult and dangerous environments. We operate in these environments out of necessity, because that is where we must be to serve our nations interest. I have learned we cannot shut ourselves inside embassies and embrace a zerorisk posture and forego helping build the rule of law and strengthen diplomatic Democratic Institutions abroad. It is these countries where it is toughest to serve where american diplomacy pays the greatest dividends. This is the face of american diplomacy today, and it is my job to keep my people safe while and still allowing the important work to continue. As a Senior Leader within the medic security, i can tell you we are looking towards the next challenges and threats. We must continue to embrace change across the spectrum of security requirements. If confirmed, i plan to focus on three broad priorities. Staffing and resources, improving coordination on our investigative elements, and continuing to improve our protections for u. S. Personnel serving overseas. In terms of staffing and resources, i want to ensure we have qualified people with sufficient training and the right resources at our posts overseas in order to respond to each posts unique to cure the environment. We improve the training of our Foreign Affairs colleagues by expanding our Foreign Affairs counterthreat courses. On the investigative side, i will continue to ensure that our criminal investigators, background investigators, and Cyber Security personnel are working closely together, as well as with other department offices. Under my leadership, we have improved our coordination within the department and with my interagency partners in the department of defense and the Intelligence Community. Finally, we will continue to work closely with our partners in the bureau of overseas buildings operations and regional bureaus to provide safe, secure, and functional embassies and consulates that represent the United States abroad. In conclusion, i want to assure the community that we realize our work in securing outpost than protecting our people will never be done. We take great pride in our, judgments, but we are focused on the future. If confirmed, i pledge that through my leadership everyone in ds will understand they must lead by example, properly delegated authority, and be committed to continuously improving how we deliver security to our constituents and achieve our global mission. Having said that, i want to be clear that i believe that responsibility for the provision of security lies with the assistant secretary of Diplomatic Security and, if confirmed, i am committed to shouldering that responsibility. I will be glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your statements. Ambassador, thank you for the indepth statement. Let me explore one or two of them with you. Over the last two months we have had over 1000 People Killed in egypt. Hundreds have been arrested for their political allegiances. The mubarak euro emergency era emergency law has been reinstated and extended for another two months. I look at our efforts here, and i see that canceling bright star exercises, suspending the delivery of16s f16s, it has not indicated much in change of behavior of the present leadership inside the country. What other leverage do we have here to get back on the track to ensuring a civilian governments moving towards an inclusive egypt . What are your views on conditioning or restructuring aid to egypt in the current environment . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me say that certainly the incidents in the past few months, the killing of unarmed demonstrators and the reinstitution of emergency law, have been quite worrisome. Let me also point to a roadmap that the government has put forward. We will do everything we possibly can to push them along that path to reinstating a civilian government. This does provide that opportunity to look at the Assistance Program in a new way. The president has instructed us to undertake a fullscale review of our Systems Program in egypt emma and egypt, and to look in the very least and ways to restructure those, particularly in the military assistance package. That process is ongoing, so i cannot predict what the results will be, but it is an opportunity to look at things in our assistance relationship. I might add that it is not just assistance that will encourage the government to resume a democratic path. Tourism has dried up. Investment has dried up. We have not seen a great deal of disinvestment for the moment, but engagement with the west is much more widespread than the assistance relationship. There are many in the Egyptian Government, certainly in the business community, who appreciate that they need those ties and need that revenue. I would appreciate, and i hope you will take back to the department, that it would be good to engage with this committee as they evaluate what the new Airline Might be for assistance. Paradigm might be for assistance. I was one of those who argued strenuously against freezing all aid to egypt, but i have to be honest with you, as i see circumstances unfold i increasingly am concerned about whether that now at this point is the right decision. I would look forward to a dialogue with the department to share views about how we move in a direction that achieves our goals inside of egypt. Let me turn to iran, quickly. I know there is a lot of bubbling expectation and hope, and i certainly share the hope that some of the words and limited actions that are being taken are an expression of something deeper. But at the phinney two the day, only actions as it relates to the International Communitys position, not just the u. S. Position but the international position, will believe us to lead iran is sincere about changing their course toward Nuclear Weapons. The expression that they will never have Nuclear Weapons is not enough. If the world could just trust everybody, like assad who said he did not have chemical weapons but now admits he has. To say we will never have Nuclear Weapons is not enough. Since the iranian election, iran has added 2000 centrifuges, including 302ndgeneration once. O ones. It is looking at a plutonium process that is very worrisome. Yet the United States has issued very few new sanctions. I would like to get a sense from you as to what more can the administration do to send a message to the iranians that we appreciate the words but we will only trust actions that go in line with the International Community. Mr. Chairman, i think that is right. We have seen some encouraging signs in the last few days. A limited number of political prisoners, some statements about the Nuclear Program. The fundamental issue is that iran has to comply with the provisions of their international obligations, both through the iaea and Security Council resolution. Getting ready for this hearing, i looked at the sanctions. I was surprised that how effective they have been. This is the most effective sanctions program i can ever remember. The effect on petroleum exports, cutting off iran from the International Financial system, the effect on inflation, the effect on the depreciation of the rial, this might the what has brought them to this point. I think we need to see how the sanctions regime will play out. There are some targets coming up. The evaluation of the reduction in oil imports. I think we need to give it a little more time, but again, i look forward, if confirmed in this position, to working closely with you on the iranian sanctions program. Again, i think it has been very successful. One demonstration of that, i believe, was the election of president rouhani. Since the iranian people clearly voted for change. Let me close by saying, look, sanctions are a means to an end. As strongly as i have been an advocate and the author of them, if iran were to act in accordance with the positions, the International Communitys positions, the Security Councils positions, then upon acting in that way, in a verifiable way, i will be one of the advocates of seeking to lift those sanctions. Because im sure the iranians wonder whether the sanctions would ever be lifted if they actually comply. I, for one, would be ready to do so, but only if in fact we have compliance in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the efforts of the p5 plus one. I will turn to senator corker. Thank you both, again, for distinguished careers. You are both very suited for the positions you are nominated to, and i look forward to working with you both. In your case, ambassador patterson, moving from a field commanders position to a strategist. Some of us have watched and feel like sometimes the response to what is developing in the middle east are ad hoc. Especially in syria until recent times. I am just wondering if you get a sense as to whether there is an overarching strategy in the region, or whether, in fact, our Foreign Policy and our relationships in these countries are more dependent on events as they evolve. I would like you to expand on that, if you could. Thank you, senator corker. I know this is a very difficult issue, because frankly i think that changes in the arab spring, or arab awakening, as we now call it, came very rapidly. I think there is an overarching strategy towards the region, and i tried to lay that out in my longer written statement. The first is to try and promote some kind of democratic transition. These societies are not going to go back to where they were. They have gotten rid of old autocrats. There is a high degree of violence, a lack of institutional structures throughout the region. That, i think, is our first priority. It is going to be really hard, because each country has a different level of development. At the same time, we have these enormous security interest in the gi, syria, iran, libya, and we are going to have to pursue those simultaneously. Those would be the two overriding elements in our strategy, but the implementation of them is going to be extraordinarily difficult. I might hazard to say it is going to be expensive at times. Look at the syria situation. I would say those would be our two priorities for the region. To promote our security interests, which are different from country to country, and to promote an overall broad strategy of democratization. A recent observation in the middle east would be that democracy means to many of the folks in the middle east that democracy is and election, almost a one and done mentality. An election occurs and then there is the consolidation of power. In iraq one of the reasons they are having the Security Issues they have there is maliki is focused on appealing to the base. We have the same thing with morsi in egypt. Is there any light you might shed to us regarding how you see that evolving over time to real governance issues . Senator corker, that is going to be a huge challenge, because these countries elections obviously are not enough. These countries have no institutional structures. In the most fundamental way, they have weak structures even to support an electoral process. We are going to have to help them develop rule of law systems to help them develop commercial regulations, to help them develop all the things, participation by minorities, which i think is probably the most critical element throughout the middle east. To have adequate participation by minority populations in the overall political environment. That involves working with political parties, working with civil society, and it is going to take a really long time. Because there is no history of this. I do not want to come before you and suggest this is going to be easy. We may be aided by having the support of many of our allies in this respect, but it is going to be a long, hard slog. I appreciate your comments about the sanctions on iran, and i do think they had a big effect. No question that our chairman has had the biggest role, and i want to thank him for that. I also want to say i think the committees actions relative to syria a few weeks ago had a big effect on moving towards the discussions that are now underway. Now, recently i read this morning and heard through conversations last night that maybe the iranian issue is now being discussed. Do you have any sense of what is happening right now relative to negotiations and how the syrian issue may lead to other conversations in iran that we might not be aware of . I do not have any information about that. Let me ask you this. The arab spring or awakening as you just call it, i know the chairman mentioned something about how we look at our National Interest in egypt. I felt like at the time of the debate it was not the time to cut off all aid. Something like we will figure out a way to pursue aid in a way that does further our National Interest and of the same time sends a signal to the Egyptian Military. Can you tell, with everything that has happened, we had a dictator that left, we had an election. Now we have a different situation. Has the arab awakening, as you called it, ushered in any difference in egypt at this point . Has anything really changed . Are we back where we started a couple years ago . Senator corker, i do not think we are back where we started, because the population is energized. This huge number of largely unemployed young man who have now the ability to communicate through means that they did not have even five years ago. The population is hugely energized, and at least in egypt believes that taking to the street and demonstrations is the way to express yourself politically. The trick for the International Community will be to try to have countries, not just egypt, get past that and challenge channel this enormous enthusiasm and, frankly, frustration of young people, which is very multifaceted, into legitimate political structures. I do not think it is going to go back by any means, but i do think that because of a combination of factors we may be in for a prolonged period of instability in this region. Not just in egypt. I know my time is up and we have other panelist. I do not know if we will have another round. If we do not, i want to thank you both for your desire to serve in this way. Mr. Starr, i know we talked at length about the dramatic security. I know you have emphasized the the box stops with you buck stops with you. I like that attitude. I hope in the state department you will figure out a way to have a different degree of accountability than what we now have. I think the bill we have looked at here in the senate may help without. But i thank you for your willingness and look forward to working with you. Thank you, senator corker. Senator shaheen. Thank you, ambassador patterson and mr. Starr, for your willingness to continue to serve the country and take on these important posts at a critical time. Ambassador patterson, i especially appreciate the kindness you show to a number of us when we visited pakistan during your tenure there, and your great work in egypt at a turbulent time. I actually want to start, ambassador patterson, by asking you about the special immigrant visa program. Having served in some of the countries that have been critical to the efforts in iraq and afghanistan, and, as im sure you are aware, the special immigrant visa program was established by congress to address those people in iraq and afghanistan who have been very helpful to our efforts there and in many cases risked their lives and their families lives to help ensure that the americans who were on the ground were safe and able to accomplish their missions. I am very troubled that we are here with the special immigrant visa program for iraqis due to expire at the end of this month. I hope we will see willingness on the part of the house to extend this program. I know the senate is very committed to this. There is language on the Defense Authorization bill that senator mccain and i have offered to address it. Hopefully we can reassure those people who are in the queue to come to the United States to safety that they will have our assistance in doing that. I wonder if you could speak to what might happen to some of those folks if we are not able to extend this program and allow them to come to the United States. Thank you. Let me start off with my son, who is here today, edward. He was a captain in iraq a few years ago. He sent me an email about one of the interpreters with his unit who had pulled somebody some of the injured soldiers in his unit to safety. I feel a personal connection to this issue. The administration is asking for an extension. I know the number has been under the cap. 2500 people have been processed. We are trying to speed up the process, and i hope we can do that. I certainly promise you i will do everything we possibly can to speed that process up. But we are going to ask for an extension. Thank you. I appreciate that. It is a twopart problem. One is to make sure the program gets extended, that the authorization gets extended passive temper 30th. The other problem is to make sure the at the state department we are processing the special visas in a way that keeps people moving through the queue. Sadly, i think to date the record has not been as good as i would like to see it in terms of addressing the people who are waiting. I appreciate that there are Security Issues that we need to address, but it would be tragic for us to fail to help the people who helped our men and women on the ground. And as a result, they and their families are at risk and threatened. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you. Can i also ask you if you would give us an update on where the current israelipalestinian negotiations are . All of us have applauded the effort to restart those, and secretary kerrys tireless work in doing that. But we are watching with great interest and some concern about whether these talks are going to go anywhere. I have talked to secretary kerry about this. He is very optimistic. I must tell you, we all admire his leadership on this issue. He really put an enormous amount of his personal prestige behind it. I frankly do not have any details offer you, because he has said he would like to be the one that will engage on this issue. So i will certainly convey that to him, but i think he may be back in town and perhaps we can arrange a discussion with members of the committee. That would be very helpful. I hope, mr. Chairman, you will facilitate that. Thank you. I am a must at of time. I wanted to ask mr. Starr one question. With the focus on what happened in benghazi, we know security in our embassies is critical and that, despite the to to medical role diplomatic role, anyone assigned overseas is in a risky position and there is a potential for danger. At the end of the day it is really our host country that we depend on to address our Embassy Security. Can you speak to whether there is more that we can or should be doing in terms of working with those host countries on ensuring our embassies are protected . Thank you for the question, senator. Yes, i think that despite the fact that we work so closely with the Intelligence Community, the department of defense, others in the federal government all of these issues, in many cases it does come down to the state Department People on the ground and the host countries. We believe programs like the antiterrorism Assistance Program and other programs where we are trying to help host countries develop the capabilities to protect themselves and protect us of the same time, protect our persons, are critical. We need to continue these programs. They have been effective in the past. We look for opportunities to expand its programs. Quite honestly, that is an important factor beyond just continuing to say things like, we will hold the host country responsible. We have to help them be responsible. There are ways we can do this, and we will continue. If im confirmed, i will continue to look closely at the antiterrorism Assistance Programs. Dramatic security is the implementer. The bureau of counterterrorism is the director. We will work closely with them. Thank you. I hope you will share what happens with this committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I had a series of questions for you on syria and on egypt. But im going to set those aside because i have to tell you, i am shocked, absolutely shocked to sit here and have you describe the sanctions against iran after you have reviewed them, as you said, in your conclusion that they have been effective. You describe them as successful. I am one that was a sponsor of those. I have promoted them. I had reservations about them, but i got to tell you, if this is the administrations view, that these have been effective and successful, i hope you will take the message back to the state department that this is not a Mission Accomplished moment. I think they have been an abject failure. You heard the chairman described the new centrifuges they have brought in, about the new technology they are using. I do not understand this. I am taken aback by your descriptions of what the sanctions have done. The sanctions were not put in place to impose some kind of pain or Something Like that. They were imposed to change, in order to make conduct different. They have been an abject failure in that, and i would really hope that you and the administration, if that is their position, would rethink this. Senator risch, i certainly did not mean to imply that they have been successful in changing behavior. But they have certainly been very successful in causing pain in the iranian economy and hopefully they will be successful in bringing iran to the table to discuss these other issues that actually affect behavior. I totally understand your point that it is not just to cause pain in the economy, but also to change behavior. But causing pain in the economy is how sanctions work. The reduction in oil revenue has been dramatic. Cutting them off from the International Financial system has made it almost impossible for them to export or trade. Again, the distress in the population, which we think had an impact on president rouhanis election. So it needs time for diplomacy to work. We think there is still time, but let me again stressed, senator risch, the president s position that iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon. But i certainly understand your point. Let me say that i absolutely understand what matters is the result, not just economic pain. As we all know in this dogmatic business, vocabulary is important. I hope you would remove the word success and remove the word effective from the vocabulary when you are talking about this program. They are not in any way, shape, or form successful or effective in making these people comply with the conduct the world demands of them. So i would hope you would review that. Instead, go back to the point that we were going to try these things first. We were going to try sanctions first, but if all but that all options are on the table and every day that goes by it looks more and more as if we are going to have to turn to other options. Which we do not do want to do, the world does not want to do, and when we are done the iranian people are not going to want to do. I hope you revisit the language and the adjectives and vocabulary will we are using. Let me finish up with something much more colloquial. I understand this is difficult to do in an open setting as opposed to a classified setting, but i have a constituent you are familiar with, who has been held now for 418 days in prison in iran for doing nothing but being a christian and speaking about christian matters. I understand we do not have dogmatic relationships with the country and we all understand how difficult the relationship is. We also understand there are other channels that we cannot talk about here. I hope you will take back the message to the state department of how important it is that this man deeper be released from prison for doing something the world does not condone, simply for exercising his religious freedom. My time is up. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Let me take a moment i appreciate what the senator had to say about how you view the word success or effective. I personally believe that if we say the endgame we want, that is iran to deter its Nuclear Weapons program, have we succeeded in that no, not yet. But i do believe that, as i understood the ambassadors use of the word, which i would embrace personally, they have been effective in moving the iranians to a point to understand the consequences to every day iranians in their lives, and therefore to the regime. The regime ultimately once to wants to be able to stay in power. They may think our efforts as it relates to the Nuclear Power is about regime change. It is not. It is about, as the International Community has said, not to pursue Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Capacity that could turn into a nuclear weapon. Not regime change, as much as i have issue with the regime. That is not the focus. But part of the consequences of sanctions, especially if they continue to be vigorously enforced and ratcheted up, is the population inside of iran will increasingly clamber against the regime to change the consequences in their lives. So the regime will have to think about regime change, not from without, but from within. In that context, i think it is very important. And i do believe they have been the authorization for the use of military force as it relates to syria, each issue is different. But the absence of continuing to pursue the sanctions that may be what we see in the elections of rouhani. In the comments that have ensued since. The result of the economic pressures they are facing, continuously ratcheted up. If that is not successful, the only option left will be a vote for a use of force. And i hope that colleagues who feel, as i do, that iran at all costs cannot have the wherewithal to achieve Nuclear Weapons, will be in a position at that time to support the use of force. Because otherwise either we have sanctions vigorously pursued, hopefully with the goal we collectively want, or there is only one other option after that, assuming that is not yield the diplomacy we want. Mr. Chairman, first of all i thank you very much for those words. Again, i come back to the fact i think we should take out of this description of what is happening there the word success and effective. As you pointed out, they have not even been effective or successful in getting them to put their Nuclear Program on hold. Indeed, they are expanding it, as you eloquently described in your Opening Statement. I think that by using in front of a Committee Like this, Foreign Relations committee of the United States senate, for the administration to say, well, we are pleased they have been effective and successful, back in iran, who watches these statements closely, they will breathe a sigh of relief and say, i guess they are not thinking about other things on the table. I think people should understand there and should understand in the International Community, the administration should understand that the other options on the table, we are getting closer and closer and closer to because of the ineffectiveness and lack of success with the sanctions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, and i will not belabor that. We have a disagreement. The use of the word is in the context of having a biting economic consequence that may change part of the equation. But the gentleman and i share the same goal. I just hope that, as he and i share the same goal, that others who have expressed the willingness to share that same goal are also going to be willing to be supportive of what the president will need if diplomacy does not yield of the end of the day. Thank you, mr. Chair, and the committee. Thank you for being here today. I look forward to supporting your nomination and working with you in my subcommittee chairmanship capacity. I decided to give mr. Starr his money where for coming, so i will direct my questions at him. Some were things have happened since we went into recess. It would be helpful for the committee and all those watching this to understand your recent actions. On the fourth of august, the state department ordered the closure of 22 dogmatic missions Diplomatic Missions across the middle east and north africa due to the potential terrorist threat. If you could, in the unclassified way, quickly walk us through making that decision. Then how you made the decision about when to reopen those consulates and missions please. Trying to keep this unclassified will be difficult. We have specific threat information that was credible. It was not specific to where something might happen against us. In close collaboration with all of our partners, decisions were made that closing some of our facilities would give us time to develop what that threat information was, to more adequately put protective measurements in place, to work with host governments who protect us while and we worked to counter that threat. It is important we have the capability to do things like that. I would not like to put something on i would like to put something on the record. Oftentimes we say that embassies have closed. In many cases we may have to close operations to the public, but the essential work that goes on in many of our embassies continues, in many cases. We do not abandon our facilities. There is much that still goes on while we may still be close to the public, but you are correct, there was specific threat information. We needed a broad brush to address that civic threat information. I think is indicative of the administrations willingness to balance that yes, we need to stay there and need to be able to continue in the long run with sometimes we need to take short term steps that are effective and help us mitigate threats. Mr. Starr, within the last week there was a significant attack on the consulate in Afghanistans Herat province. There were no casualties. I am hoping you could describe in an unclassified way the attack and how the state Department Personnel and others work to make sure it was rebuffed without any u. S. Casualties. Sir, at 5 30 in the morning a group of individuals which we now believe were led by the haqqani or wanted by the haqqani network, attacked our facility in herat, first with a large truck bomb that exploded, then followed by attackers wearing suicide vests and carrying attack weapons assault weapons and rpgs. That post is one of our posts not protected by the department of defense. It is to Diplomatic Security along with a cadre of very experienced contractors. It benefited from the fact that the nondefense personnel, the regular Foreign Service officers have gone through it before hand. Every one of them donned protective gear. They have been drilled to get immediately to the safe havens, which is exactly what they did. The drilling on the part of the Regional Security officers and defensive personnel was incredibly effective and we neutralized the threat. The total number was eight attackers that our personnel neutralized. I would like to go on record saying that it was not without casualties to our side. When we look at the Afghan National police and guard force members that were killed in that attack, some of our own Afghan National employees that were translators and security personnel, and some other personnel that were wounded. It was significant, but the defense of the facility was effective. Our personnel were not injured. A very grim reminder of the challenges of the job. It sounds as if it was a job effectively done. Finally, we talked before, most recently in july, at a hearing about future embassy Training Needs for state Department Personnel. It is still the position of the state department i know there is additional dialogue is it still the position of the state department that the best option for training is a center at fort pickett, virginia . It is my position. We very much understand that our world has changed. With that world, it is not just a question of training Diplomatic Security. The entire Foreign Service needs to be prepared for the places that they work. Have a consolidated Training Center in a nearby area for all the other equities, the Foreign Service institute, the department of defense, the marine corps. This is still the most effective solution. I have some final questions. Will you commit to me upon confirmation that you will make an effort with the iraqis to make it clear to them that they are equally as responsible for the security of those individuals at camp liberty. And also to do all that they can. They will return the hostages that were taken . I want to ask what i have asked weve be responsive to questions from the committee . Absolutely. Mr. Starr, how often will the state review the presence of highrisk posts through the board mechanism. We did the first review earlier this spring. This is something we call the security environment threat list. When we have that, it will be up by the end of this month and i will conduct another review in october with conjunction with the regional bureau, and the other section of the department that is critical with usaid. The department panel, to thoroughly review the Securities Organization and paper they concluded their work on may 1. I am not aware that this has been released publicly. It will be released to congress. This report is ultimately releasable. I would ask for the department to release this upon i understand that for up the 35 were not accepted. Is this the final determination . More or less. Can you speak to why those four were not expected . There is the chief of staff and we dont usually have chief of staff positions. This is just a technical response. This is with the threat Analysis Section and if they should be part of the Intelligence Community. This would be part of the Intelligence Community while what we are is users of intelligence. Over the last year what we have done best is to increase our reach and depth into the Intelligence Community, and expanding the collaboration. This is the best answer to become part of the Intelligence Community. This is part of the intelligence that we need. We are linked very closely, and finally two last things. There is the high risk and high threat boasts, the committee has not received an official copy but has had to rely on al jazeera and their link copy. The new position created for the undersecretary and the responsibility would be shifted from the young secretary management to this position. Do you have any recommendations . As i am there hoping to become confirmed, if your committee concurs, that is my first hurdle. Looking at that larger question of whether or not my position should be the undersecretary position, this is a larger issue that the Department Needs to look at holistically. One reason the recommendation was met was to ensure that the head of security, had access to the secretary of state and other senior officials if they needed it. I think it will be a long process to determine if we need the undersecretary of state for security. What i would like to do is assure you that i have the access that i need, so far, and should i be confirmed i will have the access that i need. When necessary to the deputy secretary. And the undersecretaries of this department. This is the critical issue. I would expect you to have that access. Upon review of this committee. Let us know if you are not. Finally with reference to the Marine Security guards, which i applaud, my understanding is that two such detachments of 35 new Marine Security guards are in place, with another expected by the end of september. That is three out of 35. How long will it take to get the full complement . I hope to have another six or seven activated by the end of this calendar year. We believe this is possible. There are issues to undertake like leasing the facility, making sure that this is safe, and the embassy and consulate profile so they have the right area to work out of. This does take a little bit of time. Ultimately this will be a three year process to put the detachment out there, but by the calendar end of 2013 i hope to have six or seven more activated this year. This is a threeyear process because of the physical aspect . Is this the resources or what . This is not the resources. First, we have to have the facilities. We have to alter the embassy and consulate properties so that we can have the electronics and secondly, the marine corps is upping the number of marines that they can provide for us and this activation plan is in accordance with how many marines can be turned out of the system in a timely fashion. 35 detachments is a lot of detachments. I believe it was the 1990s when we increase from about 112 to about 150 detachments. We have done this before and there are problems there are issues that come up that we must solve. And we have to set the three year timeframe, which is a realistic timeframe. I would also note that there are other programs, such as increasing the number of marines that we have at the high threat posts, which are a high priority for us, and sometimes instead of activating another detachment, we take the marines that could be available for that an increasing the number of marines we have at an existing facility. Committee wants to work with you to ensure that we can effectively and as quickly as possible achieve these goals. Let me say that we appreciate the men and women who serve and we see firsthand there efforts. Very briefly and i appreciate your patience and your service. Mr. Starr, we talked about the position that you have to fill, the Deputy Assistant with high risk, high threat posts. We have a piece of legislation out of committee that has some recommendations about qualifications for that person. I know that you had some concerns about that. For the record, can you state what those concerns are . I want to thank you for the work that has been done on the Embassy Security bill. It gives us resources and guidance that will help us go in the right direction. The Deputy Assistant secretary for high threats, which reports directly to me, is a very big position and something that we need, and works with us very closely. The committee was trying to ensure that this position met the highest of requirements but in trying to do that, some of the requirements were perspective prescriptive and i have concerns on if i can meet some of these requirements at were put down. What i need to be able to do is pick a most qualified person that i have within my organization to fill that position. This is just my concern, that some of the requirements were put down, with the best of intentions, to ensure that this person met the highest level of qualifications. It may be difficult to fulfill. The committee worked well under the chairmans leadership, the goal to make it work is also a goal and i believe we should be able to resolve that issue. There were some concerns about narrowing down or shortening the Training Program down to 10 weeks. I thought this had been done solely for monetary purposes but you believe the length of the training and what is being implemented, what is being put forth in the Training Program is exact the what you need for the folks moving into Diplomatic Security posts . At the current time, this is what i believe that we need. I will submit that what i have said is to have two iterations of the training, and then determine if we got out of it what we needed to do. We will review after we run this twice, and make sure this is exactly what we need. If you would share with us your sense of the shortcomings, what these are we would appreciate this. We will have a debate about this, i dont know when it will occur. You are trying to think of the best way to handle that and we talked a little bit about that yesterday and the day before. People go down to the senate floor and they talk about our influence on egypt. And i think on the other hand, some of us talk about our National Interest, will you just talk about the influence component, with other countries, supplying other types of aid, and whether or not this is what we should look at, or if this is in the National Interest in how the aid is flowing . Let me talk about our National Interests. The relationship with the Egyptian Military. Let me say that i have been deeply influenced by some of these issues by my experience in pakistan, where we cut off assistance to the Pakistani Military for 12 years, with disastrous strategic consequences because now we have a generation of people with no contact with the American Military and no exposure to our values. I think that we have some very difficult political issues to work through. I think our relationship with the Egyptian Military and their relationship with their counterparts in the Israeli Military on the important issues of cap david implementation and border issues, this is the cornerstone of peace in the region. I think we have to look very closely at the role of our assistance in preserving our National Interest in egypt, protecting and working with our allies in israel. Sometimes countries dont do things exactly the way we wish for them to do them, but we still have an interest in preserving the relationship. Is that what you are saying . Often they dont do what we tell them to do, frankly, we have conflicting interests in many cases. We have to balance our interests and in this particular case, the camp david accord and the implementation is the cornerstone of peace in this region for decades. And it is important to sustain that and sustain the ties with the officer corps. Not just in egypt but other countries throughout the region. My sense is that after your experiences, you will shape the policy that will help influence egypt in a positive direction that maintains our natural National Interest. I look forward to working with you both. Thank you, senator corker. We urge countries to consider a course of action that we share our interests as well as theirs. In any event, we appreciate your answers to the questions, the record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow. If there are any questions that come to you, we urge you to answer so that we can consider you for the next is this meeting. With thanks to both of you and your families, who are here. The hearing is adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] therom capitol hill noun to National Mall for the National Book festival. Live coverage of look ratings and authors are going on on c span2s book tv. This is a 13th annual National Book festival all day today on cspan2. Will be erring book readings from the history and biography tent and taking phone call today and tomorrow, and you can catch all that on our companion network, cspan2, and always cspan. Org. President obama talked about the debt limit and the bill that passed to defund the to find the federal government and defund the Health Care Law. He talks about the economy and federal spending as well as issues in his home state of nevada. Their addresses are about 10 minutes. Hi, everybody. It was five years ago this week that a financial crisis on wall street press spread to main street and very nearly spread a recession into a depression. In a matter of months, millions of americans were robbed of their jobs, their homes, their savings. After a decade in which they had already been working harder and harder just to get by. It was a crisis from which we are still trying to recover. Thanks to the grit and determination of the American People, we are steadily recovering. Over the past 3. 5 years, our businesses have created 7. 5 million new jobs. Is healing,market we have become less dependent on foreign oil, Health Care Costs are growing at the thorough the slowest rate in 50 years. In just over a week, millions of Americans Without Health Care will be able to get coverage for less than 100 a month. Though our economy is gaining traction, and were finally tackling threats to middleclass prosperity that washington neglected for far too long, but isnt he middleclass family that is listening right now knows we have a long way to go to get to where we need to be. After five years of digging out of a crisis, the last thing we need is for washington to manufacture another one. But that is what will happen in the next few weeks if congress does not meet to headlines. Two deadlines. Basic dutymost congress has is passing a budget, but if it is not passed on before september 30, one week from monday, the government will shut down. And so will many service of the American People expect. Military personnel, including those deployed overseas, will not get their paychecks on time. Rurall loans for communities, Small Business owners, and new homebuyers will be frozen. Critical research and the life saving discoveries and are noble and Renewable Energy will be halted. All of this will be permitted if Congress Just passes a budget. Second, Congress Must authorize be treasury to pay americas bills. This is done with a simple, usually routine, vote to raise what is called the debt ceiling. Since the 1950s, congress has always passed it, and every president has signed up. Democrats and republicans, including president reagan. If this congress does not do it within the next few weeks, the United States will default on its obligations and put our entire economy at risk. His is important raising the debt ceiling is not the same as approving more spending. It lets us pay for what Congress Already spent. It does not cost a dime or at a penny to our deficits. Now, our deficits are already falling at the fastest rate since the end of world war ii. By the end of this year, we will have cut our deficits by more than half since i took office. By reducing our deficits and what the not even current standoff in Congress Seems to be all about. The fact is, democrats and some Reasonable Republicans are willing to raise the debt ceiling and pass a sensible budget am a one that cuts spending on what we dont need so we can invest in what we do. I want to work with those democrats and republicans on a Better Bargain for the middle class. But there is also a faction on the far right of the Republican Party who have convinced their leadership to threaten a Government Shutdown if they cannot shut off the Affordable Care act. Toe are actually willing plunge america into default if they cannot define the Affordable Care act. Think about that. It actually plunged this country back into a recession, all to deny the basic security of health care to millions of americans. That is not happening. And they know it is not happening. The United States of america is not a deadbeat nation. We are a compassionate nation, we are the worlds bed rock investment, and doing anything that threatens that is the height of irresponsibility. That is why i will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the u. S. I will not allow anyone to harm this country go the reputation or threatened to inflict economic pain on millions of our own people just to make an ideological point. So, we are running out of time to fix this, but we could fix it tomorrow. Takehouses of congress can a simple blow to pay our bills on time, then Work Together to pass a budget on time. Then we can declare an end to governing by crisis and government responsible. By putting our focus back where it should always be, creating new jobs, growing our economy, and expanding opportunities not just for ourselves but for future generations. Thank you. Hello, i ms. Brian sandoval, and i have the honor of serving as governor of the great state of nevada. When i first came to office, our country was in the depths of a great recession. No state had been hit harder than nevada. At our peak, nevadas Unemployment Rate was almost 15 , and we lead the nation in foreclosures and bankruptcies. Jobs disappeared almost overnight, leaving behind steel skeletons of half built buildings and memorialized the day the economy frozen the work stopped. But despite those dark days, i knew that a Brighter Future was just around the few around the corner. S and all americans are resilient. Overcoming adversity is part of our national heritage. Enough. Vival was not we needed Decisive Action and a significant course correction to meet the challenges that lay ahead. Upon taking office, i ordered an immediate rees to all state regulations until they could be reviewed. Because our staple of the budgets this situation was so dire, we reduced spending by more than 500 million. It limited approximately 600 positions across the state government, and merged or eliminated more than one dozen state agencies. Unlike washington, we had to balance our state budget. If nevada could not borrow its way out of problems. While working to balance this budget, we began putting in motion our plans to help create jobs and get nevadans working again. Economic opportunity has been and continues to be the foundation of this country and is the source of the American Dream. Thense that the future of American Dream was at risk. Ronald reagan stated in 1964, i believe that we face a time for choosing. So we chose a simple approach to state government, it should be a protector of all rights and a partner in prosperity. To that end, i fight against successive tax increases and instead was able to expand the tax inventions for businesses and extend tax abatements to encourage businesses to grow. When it comes to growing jobs, it is my responsibility to leave no stone unturned when it comes to getting nevada working again. Can you just imagine what our economy would look like today if washington would just take that approach . Like washington, nevada has a politicallydivided government, but that has not stopped our efforts to grow nevadas economy. The good executives, like all good leaders, must expect opposition when making decisions or when making or enforcing the law. But executives must engage those that disagree with them. ,hey must listen to all ideas persuade when possible, and respectfully and firmly disagree when the necessary. Despite having a politicallydivided government, in the last two years, nevada has been able to accomplish much. We have strengthened employment come our economy and education and our state and large part because we sit down, put partisanship aside, talk through our disagreements, and find common ground. Say i will be the first to there is still work to be done, nevada has now experienced 31 straight months of economic growth. We have had the second strongest decline in unemployment in the country. And we continued to add much needed jobs. Of companies wanting to relocate to nevada wants to fit on an index card. Now it is long and diverse. When it into schools, we eliminated teacher tenure to improve education for our children, and are now focusing on ensuring that our children read and write a great level, which benefits everyone. Fortunately, good policy, true principles, and effective leadership work whenever they are tried. When we reduce government, balanced budgets, and keep taxes as low as possible, states respond in a positive way. When tough times force tough choices, we acted decisively and move forward. It is no accident that the fastestgrowing state with the best economies are all red by republican governors. Differ is geographically, economically, and even politically, but our ideas have and continue to work. Our Founding Fathers got it right. Free enterprise and limited government have made and will continue to make this country great. Despite all we have endured, i could not be more proud and optimistic about the greatest nation on earth. Im am confident that our core convictions for vide surest provide the surest path were Economic Opportunity still abounds and the dreams are still realized. We just need washington to pause, reflect, and see what is possible in our great nation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, god bless the great state of nevada, and god bless the United States of america. Tomorrow, we will hear from louisiana representative steve scalise. Stateve is the Republican Study Committee chairman. Heres some of what he had to say. Public outcry growing on throughout the country, and the problem that so many of the senators, like senator landrieu of louisiana, she will face reelection next year, how do they go back home when they cast a deciding vote for the president S Health Care law, they will keep in place even though the president himself has admitted is unworkable. So whatever comes back, if anything that comeback, there are a lot of legislative tools we have available. Youve got the debt ceiling that is coming up shortly as well to your we plan on tackling the debt ceiling next week also and saying we are going to make sure that the country pays our debts. We are also going to make sure that the president for the Health Care Law will be delayed, and also we are going to put some provisions like the Keystone Pipeline in the bill and say look, this will create 25,000 jobs, the president has listed special interests and turned those jobs away from. Why dont we actually say yes to those economy those american jobs, get our economy moving again . The bills we will continue to pass over to the senate, we will continue to fight to keep government funded but to address robbins in our economy like the president of the Health Care Law. You can watch all of the interview with representative scalise tomorrow on newsmakers. Tweetsa look at some from members of Congress Regarding the bill that passed in the house yesterday. Texas representative kevin brady said the Senate Must Act to keep the government open and protect americans from obamacare. Another tweet from senator john cornyn, he talks about president obama not negotiating with Speaker John Boehner over raising the debt ceiling, and offender john cornyn tweets wont negotiate with john boehner, but he will with putin and a thought. Posthere is a tweet on the office from new york represented at jose serrano who writes my legislation would stop the sale of post Office Buildings until the Inspector General has a chance to review proposed sales. Topicst office what the of discussion during a recent Homeland Security Committee Hearing in the senate. The u. S. Postal Service Officials testified on ways to improve the agencys finances. This portion of the hearing is about a one hour and 45 minutes. We will come to order. Actually, there is a lot of order here already. And i hope some optimism. It is a Beautiful Day out there, and i hope that the future turns out to be just as bright as this day has been so far. Thank you for joining us. Joining dr. Coburn and me, and some more colleagues will be coming along shortly i am sure. I want to thank our staff for helping us prepare for this hearing for the work that you have done preparing for this day. We need today to examine the financial challenges facing the United States Postal Service, and to consider proposals that have been put forward to address those challenges. Since i first joined this committee all those many years ago, actually, 12 years ago, as a freshman senator, what is my top goals have been to not just help the Postal Service get by, but to help its be strong once again and remain viable for the long term. I think that is a goal we share. Back in 2006, i worked for senator collins, our house colleagues, it and the bush administration. A lot of our Key Stakeholders to give the Postal Service some of the tools that it would need to deal with the challenges posed by increasing use of electronic forms of communication. Time ito idea at the was the worst recession since the Great Depression just run a corner, and that it along with the growing use of email, electronic bill pay, and other communication innovations would so dramatically road mail logging. Today, as i mentioned before the Committee Hearing, we find ourselves close to losing the Vital Service that the Postal Service offers, along with the 8 million or so jobs that depend on its continued vitality. As we sit here today, in the fall of 2013, the Postal Service has maxed out its credit line with the treasury, u. S. Treasury, and is rapidly running out of cash. Economy andmproving some positive signals, particularly from Package Delivery and advertising mail, the future for the Postal Service is not bright. Absent legislative intervention, the Postal Service will likely ,imp along for a few months uncertain of what the future holds, it can only limp along this way for so long. This situation is on except will. Avoidable. It calls for urgent action from congress and the administration. Unfortunately, despite repeated request for assistance, we failed to act. After months of effort failed to find common ground, dr. Coburn and i finally succeeded in introducing bipartisan comprehensive legislation on august 1 that have a potential to set the Postal Service on a path toward selfsufficiency and relevance in the 21st century, and i wanted to say here publicly how grateful i am to him into the folks on his staff for working with others on our staff and those who really represented this room and outside this room a lot of hard work, a lot of give and take. In the end, it will be worth all that effort. Goal attends to primarily address the Postal Services longstanding health and pension issues, and right size the process and Delivery Network while providing you with the tools to generate new revenue in the digital world. Some of you heard me say this before, i will say again the Postal Service is unique in this country. Nobody else goes to every mailbox virtually at every door, business and residential in his country, six days a week. There is a Great Potential to earn additional revenues from this. We have to figure out collectively how to access that and realize that potential. My goal with this ale, and i believe dr. Coburns goal as well, is to enact a set of reforms that are fair, really three groups of people. One, postal customers, two, postal employees and retirees, and taxpayers. Our third goal is to fix this for for the retrieval the foreseeable future and not kick the can down the road. We will focus largely on the provisions in our bill that relate to postal rates, potential rates changes in the levels of Service Provided by the Postal Service, and integration the postal management must put in place an order for the Postal Service to survive and thrive in the coming years. It is important to note at this point that despite this relatively positive Financial News weve seen in recent months, some tough decisions are still needed in order to get the also service out of trouble, and whether it happens today or next month or next year, it is likely the postal customers will need to sacrifice at least some of the convenience that they enjoy today. Our bill would give the Postal Service the Authority Needs to adjust its operations, to reflect the changing demand for the products and services it offers, and the changing needs of its customers. The Postal Service today needs to be granted the authority from congress to make decisions similar to those that Auto Companies made in recent years and rightsizing their industries and enabled them to succeed despite the challenges that they faced in the 21st century marketplace in this country. But the solution to this problem we have gathered here to discuss today cannot be just about cutting. We are not going to cut away out of this dilemma. Innovation. About it has to be about finding a way for the Postal Service to be almost as important for my generation, while we serve our country during the vietnam war, and my parents generation during world war ii. He Postal Service has been attempting to do just that, and has aggressively marketed package offering, making them more userfriendly invaluable to customers. It also partnered with Companies Like fedex, ups, amazon. Com to deliver items the last mile or the last five miles or the last 10 miles through their customers. , i seemple in my state the trucks every night. Defendant to Postal Service facilities all over the mid mid atlantic and northeast to deliver overnight items that people order the previous day. Next piece of business, actually. Ie bill that dr. Coburn and put forth would also expand a range of products and services the Postal Service can offer i eliminating what was in retrospect a shortsighted restriction placed on postal revolution in 2006. Allowing them to compete with ups and fedex and the shipping of beer, wine and spirits, and give postal management the tools they need to make greater use of its oneofakind processing distribution and retail network. Day, what of the Congress Must do is to provide some certainty to both postal employees and customers to ensure that taxpayers along with all the fiscal challenges we face at the country are not also saddled with drawing up sailing Postal Service. Dont want to be back in a few years discussing how we can dig ourselves out of yet another postal codes crisis. Of us wantlieve any to do that. And if it turns out if we are smart enough and creative enough and bold enough, we will not have to. In turning this over to dr. Coburn for whatever, and he huge to make, we face a fiscal challenge in this country. It is better. We had a big deficit 1. 4 trillion a few years ago, and it is now only about 700 billion. Only. Coburn has worked a lot on these issues, i have too. I think there are three ways to put our country on the right track. One of those is we need to overhaul entitlement programs anyway to save money, save these programs, and does not the least of these in our society. The second thing we need to do is raise some revenues. Hopefully we get by doing more on the tax exclusion side, and eliminating a lot of tax breaks, some of them with the least productive rates. The third thing we need to do is what we are talking about here. We need to almost everything we need to do, ask this question how do we get a better result for less money . The Postal Service cannot continue to be a burden on the treasury and tax revenue. We had a meeting yesterday, and one of the discussions is how can we most help get the economy moving Even Stronger . Some people had different ideas. For my money, i think the best way to do it is to demonstrate in a large part to the business community, we are not hiring people who sit on a lot of cash that we can govern, that we can be fiscally responsible with respect to the tax code, and there are 7 million jobs that float in the Postal Service. They need some certainty. To be in business, they need to revive services that meet needs. A lot of it involves jobs. Not just the people who work for the Postal Service. We value their efforts. But the people who need your service in order to survive and thrive. Dr. Coburn. Well, let me say to you, hardor carper, we worked to try to get a draft, a bill out. I am committed with you to try to move this process forward. Your staff as well. I think we have a great working relationship. The input we got it from all the outside groups as we attempted to do this. My assessment is that nobody likes that we are right were reviewed to be, since everybody hates it, and that its a good middle ground, but it is a draft, it is a starting point. The reason were having these hearings today is to hear and waysl ways in formal rather than in the office what is positive, what is negative, what are the negatives from everybodys viewpoint. The fact is when we finished the postal bill in congress, everybody is going to have to get something. We are not going to solve this problem. I would note that professor getty from cornell, 75 of the ready the rest of the world has privatized the Postal Service. His other recommendation is you cannot shrink to grow model. What you have to do is you have thatve product and pricing is based on what your net revenue can come by hitting the sweet spot for your customer and for the Postal Service. Is a draft because we intend to make further changes based on input. The reason we dropped the bill before the august recess was to make sure that both the customers of the Postal Service and the workers that work in the Postal Service know that we are committed to getting a deal done. And we have demonstrated in our compromises that we are willing to do that, and we are willing to listen. Im going to work with three priorities in mind. Shouldthe Postal Service cut costs. They got to. I would congratulate the postmaster general on what he has done thus far, but he has a way to go. The second we should look for more revenues. Not just through price increases but ingenuity, new ideas, new markets. In ways that do not unfairly allow the Postal Service to compete against the private sector. Third and last, we should look to the taxpayers as the last resort. Carper can tell you, i actually believe we ought to let the board of governors have a lot of power in running this business. So they can react to markets, so they can make the kind of changes they need to be competitive. I will note that yesterday, fedex raised its prices, if the onck went up five dollars the basis that they saw an economy that was thriving in terms of their package service. That bodes well for the postmaster and all the employees who work for the Postal Service. It also creates some slack and give them some working room. Hose are positive developments what the Postal Service and the postal employees had done with packages needs to be applauded. Way to ensure that they have a capability through their Management Structure to be nimble and quick and reflexive so they can compete in that market. The question before the panel today is quite simply how did we do with the draft . We have heard the blowback. We recognize it. We want to take that in, and then we want to work some more. There is no bill until there is a bill signed by the president. Be it is going to have to balanced, and everybody is going to have to make a sacrifice. If we are going to solve this problem. The Postal Service deserves a great deal of credit for staving off liquidity problems, but that is going to and within a year. Ofwe have a short period time to create an organization that can compete as longlasting and represents a service that americans deserve and recognizes the dedication of the employees that work for the Postal Service. The chairman entire committed to getting this done. That is why we are here today. Tom, again, i thank you, and i thank all of those who will testify for their input. You bet. We have been joined by a couple of colleagues. I want to thank senator johnson he has faith in coming to these hearings, and im grateful for that. Senator tester has been a fair amount of time talking about issues of specific concerned to montana. I value the contribution and look forward to your strong for dissipation as we go forward. These welcome our witnesses. No strangers to this panel. They will be glad when they do become strangers to this committee. Our first witness is patrick donohoo. People say how do you announce your name, and i say it is like who, tlike the who. That mr. Donna who has spent his entire career at the Postal Service beginning of a clear that a clerk in his hometown of pittsburgh and spending many years in top leadership positions before being appointed postmaster general in 2010. Ruth,xt witnesses chairperson, how do you like to be referred to . Thank you, senator. We had a long discussion about this at the commission and determined that it should remain chairman, that is the term of art for the position. All right, chairman it is. Has served on the commission 15 years dating back to former president clinton in 1998. She has led the commission as its chairman since 2009. Final witness for the panel c. Williams, Inspector General for the Postal Service. In addition to his current position which was appointed in 2003, he has served as an Inspector General to molest than for other agencies, including department of the treasury. We thank all of our witnesses for being here. We would ask you to keep your testimony to seven minutes. We know you have a lot to say, and we want to make sure you have a chance to say it. With that, i will say senator high camp, welcome. We look forward to welcoming you too, thank you. All right. Ahue. Onn thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing. The Postal Service is a tremendous organization. It is a proud, dedicated workforce that delivers mail and packages to every business and president and america. It does so affordable, securely, and reliably. The Postal Service plays an incredibly Important Role in the American Economy and any american communities, yet it is in the midst of a financial disaster. Over the past two years, the Postal Service has reported roughly 20 billion in net losses, and it on 11. 1 billion payments toenefit the u. S. Treasury. We will default on another 5. 6 billion in payments due september 30 of this year, and our cash liquidity remains dangerously low. The Postal Service as it exists today is financially unsustainable. This burden by an outdated and and flexible business model. Largel continue to record financial losses without significant changes appeared we must get on the path of Financial Stability quickly, and we need your help to do so. Earlier this year, the Postal Service published a comprehensive Business Plan designed to restructure and return it to probability. If fully ample minute, our plan will generate 20 billion of savings by 2017, including repayment of our debt. The Postal Service is pursuing elements of this land and is seeing great results, especially in the area related to consolidation of Mail Processing facilities, a limitation of delivery routes, optimizing our retail and generating new business. Our package unfortunately, this strategies that we are allowed to presume cannot get it to the 20 billion mark by 2017. To fully implement our plan, we require the enactment of legislation that reforms our business model. I want to make the point that legislation we are seeking is not nearly about closing merely about closing the large budget gap. The marketplace for mailing and shipping services is changing him and the Postal Service requires Legal Framework that enables us to act with speed and flex ability. Flexibility. We always meet the basic russes and Service Activations of the American Public, this legislation could determine whether we can continue to do that in the future. Level andmuch more efficient and continue to invest in the future of the nailing the milling industry . Yes, but we need the flexibility to do so under this law. In 2006, the Postal Service was given additional flexibility i congress to better compete in the Package Delivery business. We may do most of that flex ability. We have created effective products and marketing campaigns, and now our package business is growing very record very rapidly. We need that kind of flexibility all across our businesses here and we believe there is tremendous opportunity to leverage that to make mail more americang for businesses. We also believe there are great opportunities for the Postal Service to provide digital offerings in the future. If we are able to operate with greater product and pricing flexibility under the law, and if we can do so from a Strong Financial position, i am confident that we can i am confident we can develop the product and services that drive growth in the economy and benefit this. There highly focused on health of americas mailing industry. It competes against digital, print, broadcast and others. Very important. The postal Service Needs the flexibility for support and speed. We need to keep it affordable so it remains competitive and continues to deliver value for