Specifically incorporated into those. For section 861 we have designated someone who is not part of the office of Inspector General or the acquisition. This includes one who works only on these matters. The successful programs that have dedicated resources and policies and the referral process are important. We have all three and we have gone from this to date in fiscal year 2013. Several sections of the bill promote government wind changes in incorporation into the federal acquisition regulations. We are working on these matters as detailed in my written statement which is detailed in the record. Without objection, it will be. Under section 862, we are working with the office of federal procurement policy. In conflict areas that contractors oversee and managed by a direct higher of state personnel. Currently we have comanaged contract that protects our people and in conclusion raleigh recognize that Contracting Organization is organized effectively of the routine contracts we know we must try to learn to better align contacting especially with the guidance of the 2013 provisions. These procedures and strategies to ensure adequate resources and oversight are in place for future contingencies and i will answer any questions that you might have madam chair. The queue for the opportunity to discuss the action of the eyes States Agency for development that is taken to the contract seeing reform provision passed into law fiscal year 2013 the National Defense authorization act. I will ask my full statement be entered into the record. We welcome the subcommittees interest in these matters we have thousands of personnel working in more than a global health, environment health, environment, a food securities and development of these nations in support of foreign policy. Were often operating in areas of conflict and contingency. So we as an agency and i personally, recognize and support the emphasis of greater accountability, a sustainable results, and compliance of the provisions bright came to my current position of interagency contrasting experience of 25 years. I started my career with the department of defense and since joining the Foreign Service in 1998 i have served in ghana, jordan ghana, jordan, peru and recently spent two years in pakistan as the contracting officer. If now facing issues today with the legislation. Over the last several years under reforms i am proud and honored to say movie for religious station provides solutions to the most important issues that we continue under afghanistan and iraq under contingency contract in the future. In under the last few years we told the subcommittee we could strengthen the independent authority of the agency efficiency. While the current structure meets the requirements of this provision we transfer the duties out of the Procurement Office to the bureau of management. In 2011 we issued the sustainable guidance to make sure they are sustainable with Afghan National priorities. Were conducting regular reviews of our projects to cancel projects where necessary including infrastructure programs from afghanistan. We also have projects modified midway to increase sustainable results while preserving the existence of the taxpayer dollars. The bottom line is we leverage lessons from iraq and afghanistan to build a Stronger Foundation for contract seeing practices. During a time of four or contact with a core belief it is imperative for all of our operations. Is a focus area for the of the Senior Management accountability review process of those of the 25 million level will be assured it meets accountability criteria ince is for sustainable results. Additionally the administrators himself will provide the final authorization to make the award at or above 75 million. Also for the First Time Ever a corporate level acquisition that allows us for all procurements across the agency world wide. And contributed significantly to implementing a the mechanism. Agencies probably taking action. And i am happy to address. I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss these actions for input on your staff. For sustainable results across the spectrum for all government contract doing. Thank you again and i look forward to our discussions. Thank you very much. Before we begin asking questions and went to a knowledge everybody is making progress. European fully aware about holding your feet to the fire to make a point so some questions will be tough but i do want to read knowledge we are making progress. It is much better than it was in 2007 in every single one of your agencys but i have to start with obvious the awkward situation that i find myself having been reassured by the Defense Department over and over again that sustainability that when we argued with them about the sustainability analysis we always do. Will clearly we have a brandnew building the right hand did not know what the left than was doing or the right hand ignored in the lefthand door the commanders to to on the grants to let me give you the opportunity to explain how this got built with the people on the ground said stop. We dont need this. We dont want this. I dont have an explanation it is difficult to sit here to say at least as it is reported and clearly we now have a building that is not needed and i dont know how it will be disposed of. I do know the army has initiated an investigation to go through all of the analysis and until those facts are reported for the investigation is done at of think the department is in a position in two states what actually occurred and why and who was accountable but certainly in being told we dont need this and then to proceed does not make sense. Especially if you look at the time period before the contract was given. If you get the headset may 2010 it is not needed and the contracts are not executed until the following year, it really shows a system in kyushu and it is what i said. With the Infrastructure Fund and frankly we look at the audit. I think they probably know without me saying it i will not stop on this and tell who was that failed to read the file or said to the contract without Due Diligence and the sad thing is 34 million sounds like a lot of money but i am worried about the people who make these decisions. Cares it is only 34 million. What i do know is there has been four separate reviews and have canceled 1. 4 billion of other projects and also the group that does the procurements for afghanistan has taken 2. 5 billion out of that project. Excuse me. And again we are just making sure so this o went through, i cannot sit here to give you the explanation. I am on the edge of my seat to get this information. Please to explain to everyone the more quickly we can do this i think it is important we come up with an answer of how this happened sooner rather than later because it makes me very nervous it happens in other places. I am told the expected to date is between 30 and 60 days with the complete analysis. Let me move over to mr. Djahnbani i have read the audit. Have you read it . Day think all the people that work for you have read it . Yes. I am pretty sure. I wonder if they dont get red. That is something that blood to me when i did audits we work very hard and one of the goals when i was an auditor is how to get people to read them. When i read this audit, first of all, what actions have been taken against a contractor for the failure to cooperate with the audit . Were taking the concerns very seriously and we have recently received this audits and we are repealing a very carefully because it is an odd situation fat who we do business with would not want to cooperate with the auditor. So madam chair if i could get back to your office to understand the case to read it and discuss it and understand the situation because we are very concerned about this. It does not pass the common sense at this point. I want to make sure we spend more time on this in the second round of what we try to put in place. That failure to cooperate in an audit is a bad performance in taken into consideration future possibility for failure to receive contracts and with this wind but how much money have we spent to get the afghanistan people to grow poppy over the last 20 years . How many billions of dollars have we spent . And what are the performance metrics of that regard . , and success have we really had . I am not sure how Building Public parks gets them going off copy which was part of the contract. I get distributing we seed, fertilizer, the Agricultural Center toots teaches them ways to make money off the economy. But at what point do we throw in the towel . I bet if we take a look at the amount many we have spent to get them off of copy i think if we would get the numbers i hope i will be surprised that we have had a success but this make a wonder the headline of how long will we hit our head on the brick wall much to the detriment of the american taxpayer . Will give you the right numbers and if i may get those to you for the record i would like to do that. We will followup. Madam chair you did realize he would be asking about that 34 milliondollar building, correct . Day do make any phone calls prior to this hearing to get some answers . What did you learn that youll take another 30 or 60 days . I did learn there was an investigation ongoing that the findings of what that was in that i do not have. Why does it take so long to get to the bottom of something. Tres marias somebody built a 34 milliondollar building and i told them not to build and is still got built i would know who made that decision very quickly within a day. Wises some possible to get those questions answered from the government . I will step way back having been a part of a navy jag investigation for the 400,000 embezzlement it took us about 30 year 60 days to go through to find the individuals many of whom had left the ship to get that so many of the people i am sure theyre now trying to figure out where are they. There is a chain of command . Correct . We have the basic lack of accountability that is why it is so out of control. It is too fast and that is the problem. Talk about mccann ability september 11, a 2012 the terrorist attacks of benghazi did you review the march 282012 for july july 9, 2012, from the investor in to request additional security . And did you review those cables . You read those. Did you discuss those request with anyone . Did you discuss those with the secretary clinton or the deputy secretary . Those cables and that informations stopped with you . Yes. It went no further . We reviewed them senator. Ive always had extensive discussions of the colleagues in the Security Service if they rise to the point where we feel we cannot mitigate the risk based on intelligence available we react. You to that responsibility upon yourself to deny the request although we knew it was deteriorating . The request of several of those cases if that cable if my recollection is correct was talking about security in tripoli, not benghazi. We reviewed the situation very carefully and as i said if we cannot mitigate the risk just as we did in damascus we will close and move on. I will be glad to pull those cables as soon as i get back to my office. We have them and will submit them for the record april 19, 2012 the state department responded and it said it would continue to withdraw security despite the request by the way that cable borer secretary contends signature. That is my a cable regards tripoli not the temporary Mission Facility in benghazi. In addition to the september 11 memo that said the state department did want to maintain a presence did you review or authorize for redeployments the Diplomatic Security agency prior to the september 11 terrorist attack . Nosair. I did not withdraw of eddied Diplomatic Security agents. Did you confirm that the state department would not need it after august 2012 . I did. It was a tripoli based detachments that had been sent into tripoli. It consisted of eight shooters explosive ordinance detection people, aviation Experts Telecommunications experts in medical experts. Over the course of the standing of tripoli with nothing to benghazi that regarding tripoli the state department we had said tyrone medical personnel. We will talk about that. But remained maxwell civic do we know there next assignments . Nosair. We do not. I read the material senator but there was no intelligence by any of their partners of the u. S. Government agencies. Deal dere the intelligence committee. There was a rocket attack and a car bomb. Why would we primp down the security of bang gauzy when the people for asking for additional security . Why would we do that . We did not ramp down. The examples he were referring to were personnel assigned to the embassy in tripoli, not the temporary Mission Facility in benghazi. We did not remove people from benghazi. What about using u. S. Military . It depends on the host nation approval and the Fund Availability and the mission insets required. When we were questioning secretary clinton there was accusations that one of the problems of benghazi the funds were not available. Is a true the state department requested security it does not cost . Correct . Switch to the support is given on a reimbursable basis in some of it is not reimbursable depending on the situation. Sometimes we pay and sometimes we dont. What is the case of bang gauzy . I dont know there is not a request for military personnel. Thank you mr. Secretary. What to think the chair and Ranking Member for holding this meeting and the witnesses for being here today. Mr. Ginman let me start with contacting in afghanistan in section 8 to 41, a provision senator brown and i i know they worked on this issue very closely. To get the new contract in with the enemy provisions one of the issues we had in afghanistan as i understand it, some of the money was flowing into the hands of the insurgents. Is that right . Can you describe how he hundred 41 has been used effectively to cut off the funds to the insurgents and then again senator blumenthal and died after meeting with a Major General in afghanistan in july have provisions that will extend these authorities to the department of state and usc ids will be asking both of you about that. To make sure we can drop the amount from one hejira thousand down at 20,000 did you talk to me about this issue . This is an important issue to me i hope we pass this legislation to enhance the authority. Getting the legislation to years ago was important to. It has been used 11 times. 10 times with sub contractors when time with a total of 31 million. We have looked at the legislation your bills submitted in the senate bill put out that provided statements with the legislation. We have to work with your staff to improve a bit and would say the current provision into again from my personal perspective as i am in agreement of what it says the web site to continue to work with your staff there is one phraseology that limits our ability to deal with head of contracting activity. But other than that we put in legislation asking for the 841 and also the hundred 42 for access to the records. The task force 2010 to do the analysis and the forensic work has got to be able to get to this sub contractor records and 842 gives us the authority. We also need 842 extended as well. Let me ask secretary kennedy as well as mr. Djahnbani, with these provisions that senator blumenthal and i have introduced essentially flow from the understanding that many, a taxpayer dollars flow to the insurgents of our enemies than the traditional contract to rules that may work well in washington they need greater authorities to cut off the fund sooner particularly in areas where there are obviously wartime situations but also other contingencies situations around the world. I would like to ask you what your position is to extend these authorities to the state department because it seems to me when i look at what they have said they said it is important as well as the commission on wartime contracting has identified this for you also should have this authority to cut off funds sooner what is the state Department Position . I have not seen the exact nature of the legislation i know my colleagues are reading it but i dont want 1 penny of u. S. Government money to go to any terrorist. So the independent grant of authority to the secretary of state to cut off a contract of hours if it is determined 70 is going to a terrorist i completely support that. I can add since one year ago because the parallel legislation coming from the appropriations bills, we have been running programs of this nature in five countries and a separate program in afghanistan. But as you say the ability to cut off a contract immediately if you gave me that authority i would gladly take it. But to be presented the usaid i apologize for not having his navy said it is just as much of an issue of usaid to major taxpayer dollars did not get in the wrong hands. He agrees of preventing the funds of the highest priority. And that is the reason we have such a robust system in afghanistan. The administration is still reviewing the legislation. We believe we do have Strong Authority in place currently and we would like to examine that more to be able to understand the differences of the authorities that we currently have. However were looking forward to working with your staff. Do you vet existing subcontractors . We do in afghanistan. Do you compare it to the known intelligence with the insurgents . There is a rigorous process. If it is so rigorous if you thank you have the authority now then lied to the commissioner of wartime say those usaid province for attaining 20 of the Contract Value to the insurgents for protection and the usaid general said they were average to fall into the insurgency and one of the recommendations that comes from the wartime commission is that there be Greater Authority is given not only to the deity but also applies to usaid side by the harvard to believe you have the authority you need to address this problem to look at the impact of what were currently doing and if it is an additional tool that we can use the and we do not have those authorities, we would gladly along with it. We would like to look at the differences between the authorities right now. I just want to correct that the principle is the same. My time is up but the fact you have come to this hearing to not have reviewed this legislation which has already been incorporated and pending for a while we have been communicating to your staff this a very much concerned me they would not want the authority to cut off funds to our enemies. I feel to not come to this hearing to not have any answer or a viewpoint really bothers me so i will followup on this than i expected answer. I will be submitting questions for the record and i would be shocked if you did not want this authority. Of a plea to say again we do have a wide variety of authority at our disposal for many years and we may want this in our toolbox but we looked at it and we will work with your staff. Thank you very much. The key for having this hearing. Explain to me how we got into our problems of how we built the base that the marines did not want and then three years prior to its completion communicated that yet we continue to do it . Please let me a understand what happened. I dont know the details but i do know the investigation has started to the dip it Defense Department reads 70 in 2010 the marine general said i do not need this building. As senator castle said construction started 2011 and was completed 2012. On the face i have no ability to give you an answer of how or why that occurred. Do know that i need to let the investigation and to lend its course so that we can determine as senator johnson said whod made a decision and at least from my perspective it defies logic. One of my observations having done this for a number of years we get hung up on process which is important but we dont look negative out comes. To people in the pentagon or at the state department or usaid, is there someone in any of those three organizations when something is obviously going in the wrong direction that has the authority to say stop . Where is that in the pentagon or at the stage or usaid . I will take a shot at the dot perspective. Id like to think anyone in that particular chain of command has the ability to say stop. Dont do that. I can tell you from the contract king perspective that i am responsible or zero when i held my job, a when we find contracts that are clearly inappropriate we do say stop. I do believe the undersecretary of defense has said stop on a variety of locations. It is a leadership issue. We certainly make mistakes. I am not critical of mistakes. It is much like fraud. We have the recent newspaper articles where we sentenced the individual 20 years. At the end of the day we attempt to have separation of power the person who sees the contract and pays it are separate so midweek end up collapsing those increases the risk. When people do not follow the ethical compass bad things will happen. I think the ig has helped us when they do do think we take action. But from my standpoint it is questionable for when they find those things if they have the power to say stop that i believe we do that. Any comments . We also have mistakes from our viewpoint if you looked at the command structure the minister read officer the senior operating officer did any of them sees something going wrong they have the authority to pause the situation and refer it to washington. Then there is the executive director of the Bureau Assistant secretary and to me. We get to material all the time from the ambassador saying we go on a direction the situation has changed changed, politically, econom ically, structurally, we need something. They sent in the justification and unless there is the overarching argument that they are not aware of, restocked them and make changes in our programs of the time when circumstances that say this is the right decision sydney make changes and then we make changes. I am very, very passionate about this when i was in pakistan the Inspector General came to me about the situation ive looked at the information and no doubt in my mind it had to be ended i went to the director and it was terminated. That is how serious we would take this situation. But through usaid it is the goal is to be sustainable but the cost is three aforetime to run with theyre replacing how was that with the model of sustainment when they cannot continue to run the hospitals . Regarding the hospitals, i have been briefed on them and my it is standing is the ministry of health has in writing has told us they will find funding for the hospitals to be sustainable. That is the information that we have. Lets assume that is right to. The question i would have as far as health care one thing that dr. Shaw has been so great to downgrade requirements we meet them but not the same way here whether it is resuscitating babies so we designed infrastructure at a level that goes against what he talks about for philosophy. We build two new institutions where they will steal money from somewhere else to maintain at our level rather than the expertise they think. How did we get so crosswise with what dr. Shaw wants to do to meet the needs but not under the level of sophistication . Again, the project designed is rigorous and we make sure that all of the criteria is necessary to be incorporated from sustainability, a cost effectiveness and all of the projects go to the process i will be glad to look into this matter to get more information for the record, but i will stay and by the process that rigo serve fed is very robust and incorporates all the necessary sustainability and Risk Assessments throughout the process. I am over time and i apologize but there is a problem in terms to sustain these hospitals. Is there not . There will be a problem even though they have to pay for it but there will be a problem so if we have a rigorous standard with sustainability me yet there is a problem with sustainability or there is not a problem sustainability or there is not a rigorous standard but one of the great things that dr. Shop brings to the usaid is common sense to accomplish outcomes rather than get tied up in the mass of requirements. Lets treat peoples illness and prevent diseases rather than transfer our cost to them. I yield back. Just to follow up what you mentioned, we have implemented just to the last week the accountability policy whereby all the ministers have to redo all requirements to make sure that of which sustainability is a major part is included in those requirements and dr. Shaw himself will be reviewing the 75 million. Thank you. I will try to go through in a fairly quick fashion over various sections of the war contract reform enacted into law. Starting section 844, all if you are using these spot database and the bear with me. We had hearings and the acridines i forget ends with next generation. What is it . There you go. I knew you could speak the language. But when we look at this that is very inaccurate me ask you a quick questions for cody believe you have the capability to collect a report of contracts on any given day . Yes. Yes. Yes. What is the total number of contracts to have entered into . October 12th thru may may 13, 271,000 actions in afghanistan and iraq with a total of 7 billion for fell 1,000,293 transaction is at a total of 18point to billion. I would like to have that document jealous like you have been eliminated. [laughter] i am happy to share it. You can give me the values and the personnel that you have right now . I think the actual personnel was three april. What is the number brett now . Today in afghanistan through april 107,796. To have the total number of security personnel 17,793. I do not have the other on the list. We have modified spots to account for casualtys wounded and killed but that particular part is the area that we need the most work to get quality. And a think anybody realize is your testimony right now in my world balloons should drop from the ceiling because when i started, and no one knew any of that. So that is a really good sign. Now what we do with that becomes even more important ones we get reliable data the excuses of taylor it failure to oversee becomes more labour code mr. Kennedy . Hi barack fyi joint Strike Fighter program and a 512 totals with me. I cant easily give you the of flight 13 to date but i did not bring a snapshot that we can and do that but i have f y e11 and 12. Security personnel versus contractors . Fyi 12 the number of Contract Personnel in afghanistan was 1878 and 809 was security function of cells and of those for iraq. Global acquisition assistance system this is how we award all requirements with the agency, 80 percent of all funding goes through this mechanism and it collects all of the assisted data and we will be glad to provide you those numbers including the number of personnel for the record. Section 846 is the requirement of Risk Assessments for support including the functions closely associated with these functions. Even though it is not required at this time to have the Risk Assessments for afghanistan . At least as to ask that question i dont think i can tell you we have a Risk Assessment we have routine Risk Assessments with plans Going Forward to i do this through contract door with Civil Servants or with military . So in theory they review for risk of. Barre when the process for you have that . The two sections of the under 46 as a and a stand them, the first piece is we are doing planning to consider risk. We do that today i cant do this off the top of my head is covered in the instructions to talk to how we do planning and in it the Risk Assessment is covered. The second half is when rigo begin to the Contingency Operation to have done a Risk Assessment in we will do that as well. Host keep the with the legislation and make which that we tried to adopt based under legislation because if you do the right to Risk Assessment you dont have to pay off the bad guys because you make a determination we will enhance our enemy if we try to do this project with this environment. Time after time a few of the failures, it has been because by the way the cando attitude of the military in state department in usaid is what we are proud of as americans. Nothing we can do. On the of the hand if we think we can build a highway through the middle of the territory where everything is controlled by the bad guys and we will do that without contractors shot or paying off the taliban that is a dumb mistake. And we have done that. What about the Risk Assessment from your perspective . That high way. Which one is it . It is state. I will go back and check. Is usaid. Is him. [laughter] i missed a lot of things but not back. Peter has anyone else. Three points. We have to engage in a private program of afghanistan and five other countries with the extensive vet operation that has been in place about a year we have an office that does the vet in six countries including afghanistan. We have put into place a request for contract being services, a template which people must do that comes to your point coupled with one of the working groups set up the organizational briefing structure in we are working through that right now should we be faced with the state department to go into the contingency we would use a structure like this in my plan is to said the unit response before this. Basically we had the initiative implemented in dan afghanistan broken down into three different areas with award a mechanism santry utilize the project cost. A and we are limiting the subcontractors. We are conducting were we have a system but in addition into financial controls, we need to audit one hedger percent said he incurred cost to identify fraud and waste and abuse. I dont mean to cut you off but i have went over my time if we have to start votes. This is what i would like from all of you. I dont quarrel that you all are beginning to put into place a system that would try to embrace i get it we do councils, working groups groups, all of that and but sometimes it feels like blah, blah, blah. I need you to find a project that needs stopped because of Risk Assessment. Bring to me someplace where somebody would build something that because of see questor shimbun based on the Risk Assessment you decided that we have to pay off the bad guys are there is the way they can sustain this or it is a bad idea because a water park in iraq that is now crumbling or that power grid in the area to be blown up, i need some Success Stories and they need you to tell me some places you have done that. If you can bring the Success Story we you cut off projects because you appropriately evaluated for risk in sustainability you will be on my website as long as you want to be there i will send you a balloon bouquets but that is what were looking for. We are looking for a sense that all of this work for itself in the field of culture. If we dont get that change of culture from i have to tell you you will be here every six months until misery kicks me out or i decide i have had enough. Depending on which comes first. I would like to go back to the security contract the because i have to remit particularly in warsaws it puzzles me why we would use military force with those individuals so for mr. Ginman you have a metric for the cost using military personnel versa is contracting or Security Forces . Cost per person in . I dont have that off the top of my head to have a cost per metric. The combat and to a commander makes his decisions on it do i want somebody or have a soldier or sillier sailor still being at the gate or with a contractor . From the Defense Department standpoint with the cost of these when we make the decision this is to read three times with the military personnel. We dont look at that. So i honestly dont know the answer to the question. How does the state department to evaluate that . First of all, senator i did run numbers. I would commit. I will take the ball park. Were currently at a number of the high threat of a concern spending about 87 million on contracted security. If we replace a bare skin and local staff entirely with contractors henry rigo from but if we use the military, and i have not had a chance, the cost is either a 3 billion or 9 billion. The distinction is the military as a planning structure, for every soldier that is engaged there is also to other soldiers better coming off a Mission Going into training so you have three divisions one just coming out one in iraq and one getting ready as you can see the difference between 86 million it is a serious fiscal smith this does it make sense to me so we need a detailed evaluation with the cost of military personnel. I ran operations continuous shift, and im very sensitive to how you can work individuals so theyre effective. And in this record theyre talking about the contractor, their guards were working 72 hours per week when the state departments guidelines would be 36 to 42 hours per week. Right there that concerns me if that is true. Would you dispute that . I absolutely dispute that. Absolutely. If i could add one just contextual matter with your permission. Sure. Our embassy in kabul is under very high stress. There had been two direct attacks on our Embassy Compound in kabul during the tenure of this current contractor. Both of those attacks were rebuffed, and the contractor, along with the Diplomatic Security colleagues there, performed superbly. And the proof is in the pudding. We were attacked andward off the attacks with no injuries to u. S. Government personnel on our compound. Well, again, i would appreciate dish this is very disturbing, particularly in light of benghazi. I recognize you werent ready to talk about those cables. Just to correct the record, all the cables too mention specifically benghazi. Not just tripoli. Ill be glad to come up and go over those with you or your staff, because the cables have both tripoli and benghazi in them, tripoli after certain things, benghazi after certain things, and we met those requirements. Who did make the decision to ramp down security in benghazi . There was no decision, senator to ramp down security in benghazi. So we dont have to keep the sst, the Security Support Team that was a tripoli placed outfit that was never assigned to benghazi no ever proposed to the state department or anyone else, that the unit be shifted from triply to benghazi. Who made the decision never to fully ramp up the five requested Diplomatic Security personnel. The request for five in benghazi. The request from the department was, give us your needs assessment. What were those identify individuals do . The need assessment came backment three Diplomatic Security special agents, one driver, and one which we call crip crip to guard. We send out a Technology Professional and driver. So they wanted three Security Officers must two others and we had three Security Officers there to meet their request, senator. One final question. I have herd this rumor, is it true that secretary clinton had a goal of setting up a permanent presence in benghazi and one of the things she talked to ambassador stephens about before giving him the job in. I had one or more conversations with the secretary, and there was no decision, no decision had been made. I saw the same report you did, senator. Maybe not the decision but was there desire to do so . No decision had been made. When christy fence was there the fiscal year was ending in 19 days. There is no way in the bureaucracy, both of the state department and our requirements for congressional notification, when you establish the permanent post or reprogram money. There is now way that no decision made but did ever talk to secretary clinton about setting up a permanent presence in benghazi . That was obviously an option but no decision had been made he you did discuss that with secretary clinton. I had one discussion about, this is whether to continue the temporary operation there. That was the decision made at that time. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Certainly. Thank you, madam chair. Really appreciate your passion for these issues of contracting in afghanistan and elsewhere, and id be happy to post things on my web site as well, praising them for stopping projects. I wanted to follow up first of all we particularly secretary kennedy, and mr. Can you pronounce it . Djahanbani. Thank you. General dunnford said he believe its critical that they state department and usaid have the same authority to cancel contracts as the department of defense, and also said that expanding that authority would include nondod organizations makes a lot of sense. So word from ground, and im hoping youll look at that very carefully, and also i know mr. Ginman has a lot of experience with this issue, and i hope we can have this consistency across agencies when were all working together, and its the three agencies are working together on some of these projects in afghanistan that youve already been questioned about. Senator, as i said, i like the secretary of state to have all the same authority the secretary of defense. Great. Thank you very much. And by the way, as mr. Ginman talk about, this authority in its initial inception has allowed the department to stop contracting with certain contractors and subcontractors, and while i think we can do a lot more the initial run has been effective, and certainly theres more we can do if we give you Greater Authority. I wanted to follow up, secretary kennedy, on some of senator johnsons questions. Heres what is bothering me about the attack on our consulate and the prior cable. So, i also serve on the Senate Armed Services committee, and in february of of this past year, general dempsey and also mr. Panetta testified been the attack on benghazi before the committee and both of them testified that they were aware of the prior cables, particularly the cable of august 16th, coming from ambassador stephens, which described concerns about the adequacy of the security at the consulate in benghazi. I believe you said you were familiar with that cable. That is correct. They said they received that information from a report from general hamm that went up to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense as well and as a result of that, in fact general hamm approached, according to the testimony before the armed selfs committee, actually approached the state department asking whether the Site Security Team from tripoli should be extended in ben georgia si, and according to the testimony before the Armed Services committee of general dempsey, he was told, no. Are you familiar with that testimony . My rex was i just read it. I thought it was the general hamm approached ambassador stephens about whether the sst should be extended in tripoli. Thats my recollection. I would need to refresh myself by looking at the papers if they called the embassy its not clear who they spoke to according to the testimony and they were told no. I guess the question, according to the testimony before the Armed Services commit year, its not clear who said no, for the extension of Site Security Team. Do you know that . What i am aware of, senator, is that there were 16 people on the sst. Eight security people, two medicals, two communications, two helicopter landing zone people, two eod, and then eight security. Those at ladder eight had worked themselves out of a job because the state department had replaced them. The eight who were security had been replaced by a combination of state Department Personnel and, if i might make clear, six of those eight were stayed on in tripoli, which is not right. But my question is just so im clear, i just want to understand, there was general hamm knew about this, reported it up his chain of command, and duo he said, according to dempsey, hamm called the embassy and said because of the cable received, he said do you want to extend the Site Security Team . And were you aware of that and who made the decision . No. I was not aware that general hamm contacted the embassy. I dont know ill give you a copy of the testimony. Heres my question to you. If what troubles me was that if general hamm, the commander of africom reported up the chain 0 command a cable involving security and other issues in benghazi and that went to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of defense, how is it that you, with your responsibility, given this was a state department obviously our ambassador and the personnel, state Department Personnel would not have reported that up your chain of command . Because we had replaced those individuals with state Department Personnel, and six you received six of them remained. It was important enough for the africom general on the ground, wasnt a dod facility they thought a secretary of state a state cable should be reported to the chairman of the joint chiefs of stop and the secretary of defense and you did not report it to the secretary of state . We replaced those individuals that cable said that security was not adequate there. From your ambassador. Not important enough to report to the secretary of state . Because we were repairing or fixing the shortfalls that were outlined. Im just shocked that the general in africom was important enough to report it up his chain of command and you did not. Again, senator two things. One, were talking about tripoli, not benghazi. The tragedy took place in benghazi. The sst was a tripolibased unit. So two separate things. Okay. My time is up. But the august cable clearly involved benghazi, not tripoli. No question. But there was no offer there was no offer or request from the post to request from the post to keep the sst and shift them to benghazi. Were talking about reporting up on a cable on the security of state Department Personnel. So thats my issue. But my time is up and i appreciate your being here. Try to get back to contracting. Lets go to section 853, past performance. I know that omb was set a 100 reporting goal. This is a section that requires the far counsel. Chair to have a strategy on past Performance Indicators which has been a problem in this area. What is the current level of past performance report fog reporting for each of you. Start with aid. Your current level of past performance what percentage do you think youre reaching right now and what is your goal for this year and next year . Madam chair, this is a number one priority for myself. Back in 2010, the percentage was 7 . Since 2011, we put a very aggressive strategy in place which has doubled the number to close to 30 . About 27 right now, and as the end of this fiscal year comes to a close 0 a lot of the reports will be coming in. So that percentage will go up, and we do have a we have set aside november for the past performance month and well have another standdown day to make sure we achieve the 65 , well on our way to the toe the 100 in calendar year 2015. I appreciate the effort your making with you standdown days. Mr. Ginman, are you using any other techniques to get us up to snuff on reporting. Were not using standdown days. Were using directed orders to the people to get this. We have also started out, will fully admit. We have doubled that. The last snapshot we took, 17 but just at my colleague said, the data flows in at the end of the fiscal year. We believe well be 45 or 50 at the end of this fiscal year. I hope that all of you can get to 50 . You guys have better news, right . Were closer to 80 . I know youre doing really well. Well, to get to 100 is a challenge. It is a challenge. I issue a quarterly letter to all of the services and agencies that report it. We discuss it. Mr. Kendall hosts a once a month business sig and we report there as well. Each of the Service Acquisition executives, mstackley and mr. La plant and miss hsu, all understand where theyre at. Imembarrassed to say my own office is delinquent on reports. Thats embarrassing. I well good, for you for admitting it. Point for that. Lets go to section 862. Mr. Ginman have you completed your report on implements uniform contract writing which is would do earlier this month . The report is written dish believe it was released out of the building just not certain. Okay. I want to make sure we get that for the record for this hearing. Let me ask about 802. Past contracts. This is obviously a big problem. And what this basically were trying to do is were trying to make sure that we dont have somebody who is passing through more than 70 of the work theyve contracted to do. There is a pending far world that the agencies have put forth. Do any of you have anything you want to put in the record about the pending rule and whether or not there are problems with it, and anything you want to address on past due contracts today . Madam chair, if i may, yes. I would like to just mention that ive gone ahead and issued a new policy directive to all of our Contracting Officers implementing this right now. Once the rule is effective well resend that and of course follow the rule. Okay. What about section 843, requires to establish a chain of authority for policy execution and contract support. Part of this is when i began realizing how bad this was, there was no way you could find somebody who was responsible. It was so disparate and so many tentacles of al of this based on i know other things do you feel like that you are getting at the operational contract support . Do you think youre getting there . Yes, maam. If i could, your last question, i am still in coordination so the report has not left the building. We have 30 days so somebody needs to get it out. Yes. I refer to this ive heard you in earlier hearings. I refer to this as who is in charge question. Exactly. I believe, one, dod directive 20. 39 is this is from orchestrating, sin crow nicing and integrating Program Management and operational execution lays out clearly who is in charge and what each of the individual roles are and what it is they do. Who is in charge at the top . So, at the end of the day, within the department, the one person that everybody is sect hagel. I dont want i understand. You have the undersecretary of personnel and readiness who has very distinct responsibilities when it comes to managing the force which the contractors a piece. Very clear responsibilities kindle. When it comes expressly to those issues with acquisition and contracting and the management of contractors on the battle fooled. We have the comptroller who has clear responsibilities associated with money and fund asking. The undersecretary of defense for policy has very clear responsibility, again, with how we do this so the question was Risk Assessment analysis. Were all engaged in that. The joint staff plays a significant knoll how we do all of this. This investigation is going to be interesting on this building because what its going to do is maybe its going to answer our question. It may. Because it doesnt appear that i mean, i get what youre saying. I know you cant just say, okay, this is the crag pubah over here and if anything goes wrong its his head or her health what dont want or her head. I just dont want to get to gnaw bunch of jargon replacing the old jargon that was very much not clear. In the i mention the action plan, the ocs, fcib put together, cochaired by mr. Motzak, the assistant secretary of defense lmnr program support. And by Brigadier General crenshaw. The ten capableity areas is getting its not the policy, its the doctrine and getting so it that the peopleeverybody understands what it is. When you go back to the commission, in 2007, it was its the professional training, its the execution, its the exercises. I see you as a joint exercise scheduled for january. And i know you have gone from 48 people been trained four years ago to over 400 trained now. I am aware that we have really and when i started this thinks low man on the totem pole was handed a clipboard and said it doesnt matter. This is your job. I know we have done a lot of good work on this. The magnitude and the size of the number of personnel, the civilian and military, from Second Lieutenants and first lieutenants to senior enlisted, all the way up through general officers, getting it inculcated in, were encouraged when both general petraeus and general allen send letters out to say that contracting is the commanders business. For 100,000 people on a battlefield, and who is managing them and overseeing where this goes, the getting that so its understood is by far and away the largest gap we have. It is one were actively working but not one were going to solve today or tomorrow. I mean, i think we as you say, i think weve made significant strideses and we have a long way to go. Yes, you do, and ill make sure you get it done. Im way over time. Well have to go to a vote here, and certainly we can hold the panel if you want to do more questions. I do want dish have some specific questions for you on your Remote Monitoring project. This is all kinds of bells and whistles going off. The motion were hiring contractors to oversee the contractors . Its just always a really dicey proposition, and i know its a dangerous area but i have specific questions about the fact that msy worldwide is hiring people on this when the rfp has not been completed . That seems weird to me. And i need to have some specific answers to that. So, if the rfp is not out, and a contractor is already hiring people under it . That means something is rotten. I just have one quick question maybe not quick but one. Were looking the Afghan Mission ring. The aircraft version of a 34 million building. We have already spent 122 million, projected spending 772 million, its looking like aircraft that afghans are not going to be able to operate effectively. Contracts being let out to a russian contractor that has been actually barred from providing that but they were able to continue the contracts because of the 2012 spending verse 2013. Mr. Ginman can you address the Afghan Special mission wing. A little out of my personal area but i believe the letter that the deputy secretary sent over, one, acknowledged the mi17s were being bought with 2012 money, and also went on to say, if they would be bought with 2013 money, i would have signed the waiver. I think thats what the deputy secretary said in his letter that came over identifying it. Being actively reviewed . Is this project being actively reviewed and is there any chance of stopping it . And who is actually reviewing it, under whose command . Well, sir, the mi17 the requirement for mi17s comes through the stka, mtma. From theater requirement. Its been thoroughly reviewed inside the department. The decision clearly was made and went up to the deputy secretary and his letter articulates what found and what did. Significant time and effort was put into the decision associated if the mi17. The decision had already been made or continue to be reviewed . I think we can just spend the 772 million the continuing to review is the department continues to spend significant time ensuring that we will have an adequate throughput of pilots to be able to fly the mi17s, we have the skillset and then that gets reviewed regularly at the fighter sig, that is led by the deputy secretary. Okay. Well, thank you. Thats all i have, madam chair. I thank all of you for being here. I appreciate it very much. I know everyone is working hard on this and there is a difference in attitude about it. I think everybody now recognizes contracting has to be a core competence for all of you because of the reliance we have on them. We will look forward to some of the specific answer wes have asked for. Ill look forward to hearing those projects that have been stopped based on sustainability and risk and congratulating you on my web site once i get the Great Stories of success. Thank you, and this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] coming up, senators propose change hogue the military handles reports of Sexual Assault. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds hearing on security at u. S. Embassy and later the debate on the nomination of Richard Cordray to be the head of the Consumer Protection bureau. Had been taken in a plane flash 1948 so rose is literally seeing her children almost in birth order disappear from the scene. Not only that but in 1964, in the summer of 64, rose wrote in her journal what it was like in high hyannis that summer, and gone are the president ial helicopter, bringing my son, the president , and i would see his children run out to them. She missed that and she even whysfully says when we were said to be the most powerful family in the world. Barbara perry talks about the kennedy matriarch. Rose kennedy, and her contributions and influence over the family dine city. We dont know enough about our first ladies. Scratch the surface and youll find lives that often surpass their husband in drama and fortitude. President ial historian, Richard Norton smith. Our original series efficients ladies, examined the public and private lives of these women and their influence on the presidency. Watch the encore presentation of first ladies from Martha Washington to ida mckinley, starting august 5th on cspan. Republican senator rand paul today joined democrat gillibrands effort to change how the way Sexual Assaults in the military are handled. Senators ted cruz, bosh bra boxer and Chuck Grassley also participated in the news conference. Good morning. Others will be joining us. They had different time commitments so well let everyone speak when they arrive. I want to thank all of the senators who have fought on this issue so hard. I want to thank senator boxer for her tremendous work on the issue and for bag tireless partner and leader in this effort. On behalf of the brave Member Office the service, and i want to thank senator collins for standing firmly with us since we introduced the well, as well as senator grassley for bag true champion on this issue. Thank you. Ill say that again. I want to thank senator boxer for her tremendous work on this issue and for being an amazing advocate and unbelievable champion for victims and someone who has worked so tirelessly from the virgining. I also want to thank senator blumenthal, hagen, who have been working with us on the committee from the virgining as well. Today i want to thank senator rand paul for being here. For deciding to take a leadership role on such an important issue, to really tack this crisis head on. I also want to thank senator ted cruz for his very stead fast vote in the Armed Services committee and helping us lead this new amendment Going Forward. I think both of them are going to add deeply to this extraordinary issue that needs dramatic leadership and bold action. I also want to thank senator grassley again for being with us on the first day, for being the lead sponsor amongst the republicans, with senator collins, that early leadership made all the difference in the world. Our effort now is to build a very strong Bipartisan Coalition that is going to end Sexual Assault in the military, and the way we want to do it is create an independent accountable military Justice System that is not partisan, not ideological, that can create the kind of accountability and transparency that our men and women who serve in the military need so they can receive justice, our carefully crafted proposal was written in direct response to what the victims told us, the stories that came from them. What happened to them. The fact they didnt trust the chain of command. They were retaliated against. They didnt believe justice was possible. So this is not a democratic idea. It is not a republican idea. It is a good idea that meets the needs of the victims, creates transparency and accountability and creates the needed objectivity this issue deserves. So i want to now turn it over to others and i will speak at the conclusion of my colleagues remarks. Now going to turn it over to senator grassley. Thank you. Im glad to be part of this effort to build support for military justice improvement act. The status quo is not working, and we need to shake it up. If we dont crack down on the cor rose cor rosesive with dont crack down on individuals who use Sexual Violence as a minneapoliss of personal power and personal gain, well create lingering institutional problems that will jeopardize morale and impact recruitment and retention of troops. The Bipartisan Legislation introduced by our colleague, senator gillibrand, will give members of the armedded service more confidence in the military system of justice. The reform will do justice to the u. S. Military code of honor, which is based on integrity and fidelity to the rule of law. Sexual assault is a Law Enforcement issue, and when young adults make the commitment to serve their country in uniform, and put themselves in harms way to defend and protect americas freedom, they deserve to know that their rights will be protected including access to justice and not have that access to justice intervened by somebody who, for reasons unknown, may short circuit and not see that justice is delivered. Thank you, senator boxer . Yes. I am proud to be part of this Bipartisan Coalition for change. Thats what we represent, change, change that has been coming for 20 long years, and im here to say ive been in the senate for that long time, and so has senator grassley and we know, and weve seen, every secretary of defense call for zero tolerance on Sexual Assault in the military, and everytime nothing happens. I want to tell you a story. I could tell you many, each of us could. That reflects why we have to do this. Stacy robinson, at 19, joined the marines. For every right reason. How much she loved her country and wanted to put her life on the line for her country. She was asked out on a date bay sergeant. He took her to a bar, he drugged her at that bar, he took her back to the barracks and he raped her. He dropped her on the ground in front of the bar at 4 00 a. M. None of those facts are in dispute. I want to tell you what happened to Stacy Robinson and what happened to her perpetrator. Im told its thompson. Stacy thompson. What happened to her perpetrator. The chain of command suggested to the perpetrator that he get his butt out of the military. In order to avoid any consequence whatsoever. And stacy was investigated for drug use. From that night. She, after ten years or more, is coming out to talk about this story, which has scared her forever. So, do we need change . Yes. And what happened in the Armed Services committee was some good, good, small tweaks of the system, which we strongly support, but the main change that was supported in that committee by senators gillibrand and her other cosponsors here, didnt happen. So im going to close just showing you quick lay couple of charts. In no particular order. Doesnt matter. Sexual assault by u. S. Defense secretaries over the last two decades. Statements by secretary hagel. Its not good enough to say we have we do. But what does that mean . How does that translate . Well, he should be supporting us. Sect leon panetta. We have absolutely no tolerance of any form of Sexual Assault. Secretary gates. I have a zero tolerance. This really gets old. Very quickly. Secretary rumsfeld, Sexual Assault will not be tolerated. Secretary william cohen. 1997. I intend to enforce strict policy. A zero toll tolerance of Sexual Assault and hazing and race civilment and secretary perry in 1994. We have zero tolerance for sexual harassment. And secretary cheney, 1989, we have a major effort underway to let everyone know we have a zero tolerance policy when Sexual Assault is involved. Its enough. Its enough with the empty promises. Its time for some real change, and senator gillibrand is leading us to the change. Two more much quicker charts. 90 . I want you to remember that. 90 of Sexual Assaults are not, underline, not reported. Because they tell us, and as senator gillibrand has said eloquently, they tell us they wont report us but a they dont want it in the chain of command. Look. This isnt something the senator pulled out of the air. Look at our allies. In israel, since 1955, outside the chain of command. Canada, 1998 remember outside the chain of command. Australia, 2005, outside the chain of command. United kingdom, 2006. So, dont let anyone tell you this is some idea that is so out of the mainstream. Were in the mainstream. The status quo is out of the mainstream. It isnt working and im as proud as i can be to stand with a coalition like this and just make a statement to those victims who are waiting for justice, and who to our colleagues who are deciding. Please put your faith in change, thank you. Senator rand paul. I try not to look at issues from a partisan view. Im sure i do sometimes but i try not to. As a physician, i look at problems and i try to fine solutions. Im concerned about justice, and i wanted to occur in the military for the victims as well as potentially those accused. Justice is very important to me. Both for the accused and the victim. Im concerned that victims of assault, though, may be deterred from reporting theyre assault if they have to report it to their boss. Im also concerned, though, about interposing too many lawyers in the everyday life of the military. The vast majority of our soldiers are honorable and upstanding individuals. Were talking bat very small percentage, but if they commit crimes they should be punished in finding justice for the victims we must make sure that theres due process for all. Some say we have no bipartisan cooperation around here, and i disagree. I think this is a great example of how people from both sides come together and are willing to work on a problem and look honestly at what the problem is. So when i heard about this, my First Impression was a positive one. As i looked at the bill i asked, and senator gillibrand asked to come come by and talked to me. I thought there were one or two things that were maybe clued that we should exclude. She was open to the discussion and it makes my support Even Stronger for this, there were a couple of things removed that werent Sexual Assault, disobeying orders and into things. And we said well still leave that in the line of command. Keep serious crime, murder, rape, Sexual Assault in here, and its made the bill Even Stronger, and i always thought to the motive was good for the bill but the bills Even Stronger. I see no reason why conservatives shouldnt support this. The only thing i think standing in the way is the status quo, and senator boxer is right. Everybody says theyre against Sexual Assaultment if it appears as if there is some deterrence to victims reporting the crime, why dont we fix it . I see no reason not to fix it. Im glad to be part of the process. Thank you. Thank you. Sexual assault is a grave violation of the trust and duty that we owe our service men and service women. When our sons and daughters sign up to defend our nation, they willingly anticipate facing hostile fire from enemy forces. But they dont sign up to potentially be subject to Sexual Assault from their colleagues. The Supreme Court rightly described rape as short of murder, the ultimate violation of self. Now, every senator is opposed to rape, opposed to Sexual Assault, and wants to act to prevent it. And ill tell you, having spoken with a number of our commanders, im convinced our commanders in the military want to see this problem go away. They understand. Have third the message, but unfortunately this problem has per sissed, despite good faith efforts. And i have to say, the process whereby this amendment has gone forward really underscores the way the deliberative process of the senate is supposed to work. I entered the Committee Hearing on this matter undecided. I think there were good and reasonable arguments by the chairman of the committee and by others, about preserving the chain of command, about keeping responsibility in the chain of command, that i think have real force, and i have to tell you entering the Committee Hearing undecide. Way per saved i by senator gillly brand passionate and able advocacy and two points she made that moved in the and convinced me this was the right and responsible thing to do. First of all was the point that the most persistent problem weve seen is an unwillingness and inability to report these crimes. The victims of Sexual Assault, for whatever reason, have consistently remained reluctant, afraid, to come forward and report the crime and there can be no prosecution no deterrence if we dent have reporting of crimes. And despite all of the efforts that have been made in the past, senator gillibrand made a persuasive case that keeping the reporting in the chain of command, as rand said, having to go to your boss and raise the problem that the crime of Sexual Assault with your boss, has proven in fact to be deterring victims from reporting their crimes. And secondly, was the point that a number of our allies, including great britain, and israel, and germany, had implemented policies similar to this and the results in practice had been the reporting rates have increased other. Im a big believer in following the data where they lead, and the fact that other professional military had been able to maintain discipline, maintain the chain of command, maintain effectiveness, maintain readiness and at the same time improve reporting, and improve deterrence to me was persuasive. So im proud to stand with senator gillibrand, all of the senators up here. I appreciate their leadership, and im proud to see the Senate Working to fix this problem, to make sure that we protect every young man and every young woman who signs up to defend our nation and make sure they have a safe secure environment where they can trust their fellow soldiers and be secure from any threat of Sexual Assault. Thank you. Definitely see the political spectrum of support represented right here. And im proud to stand here with not just the kole legs here but others who are very much concerned and want to tack some specific action relating to sexual trauma in the military. Yes, this has been going on for far too long. Theres no imagine july but magic bullet but one is to remove the chain of command from making the decision to investigate and go forward. On the other hand, there are plenty of other thing wes need to do because we are dealing with a culture in the military that has allowed this to occur for decades and decades, so the commander has a responsibility to change that culture. Theres a whole huge prevention aspect that the commanders should take hold of. Theres education opportunities. There are all of these other things that can happen, and the navy is doing some of this, starting in a small way, where they address the incidents and the use of alcohol, which is very much a part of these kinds of crimes. So, there are so many ways we can address this, but this is one very specific way that we believe will result in more of these crimes being reported, and we think that is one of the first things that we have to address. So i thank all my colleagues and of chris kirstens leadership. Im very grateful for the leadership of everyone here and several other cosponsors. Close to 30 cosponsors on the bill who provided leadership. So, we all know that our military is the best and the bright nest the world, and theres such a small number of criminals within our military that are undermine going order and discipline, undermining command climate and destroying lives and those are the individuals we have to find. These case must be prosecuted and they must be held accountable. So i believe when we look at this issue we have to look at it from the eyes of the victims and thats what matters most. Their stories. Now, for 62 of those who reported the crimes, of the 3300 report last year, 62 said they were retaliated against. Because they reported the crime. Of the 23,000 that didnt report, more than half about half said they didnt report because the didnt think anything would be done. Close to half said they didnt report because they saw someone else be retaliated against. Close to half said they didnt report because they feared retaliation. And thats why this kind of reform is so important. To be able to have that objective, trained military prosecutor be the doesmaker. There may be less fear of retaliation, more hope of accountability, a greater belief that justice can be done. Thats what this change is trying to accomplish, and im just going to read the story of one survivor to leave you with, because you have to imagine these crimes happening to your son or daughter. More than half of the victims are mail. And until you picture that in your mineses youre not going understand the depth of destruction that is taking place in these victims lives. One mother said she didnt want to divulge her daughters name. She said i reluctantly supported my daughter going into the army, fear showing may be a casualty victim in combat overseas by some foreign enemy. I never imagined she would be a victim on u. S. Soil from the very army she partnered with to protect the u. S. And our rights. She was sexually assaulted at the end of 2012, which is a case that is still pending. She has lost her lust for life. She has become dependent on drugs to mask the pain, and now she is being push out of the army because the captain is derelict in his responsibility and failed to responsible to her plight. He has revictimmized her emotionally by exposing her to unsafe conditions, verbal abuse, and total disregard for her as a soldier or a woman. Help me, please. That is what we are here to do. I want to thank all my supporters behind me and also those who are not here for the press conference. We have to answer the call for these victims. Senator, senator levin said this morning his proposal to move these further up the chain of command to the colonel level will take care of the problem of retaliation. What was your response to that . I disagree with his assessment. Just to be clear, think senator levin cares deeply about the issue and is putting forward his best effort on what the believes will make a difference. The reason that change doesnt do enough is because of this. Right now the commanders are putting forward cases that are reported and that their attorneys are suggesting should be prosecuted. Sometime this commander will say lets go forward even if the prosecutor is not sure. Thats only 300 cases and so starting with 26,000, and only 300 are going to trial, if that commanders decision is being appealedded and he says no, thats not the problem. The commander and his lawyer only disagree one of the time. So thats one percent of 300 cases. Thats a handful. Thats not our problem. Our problem is not the disagreement between commander and a lawyer. Our problem is exactly as general amos said, they dont trust us. The dont trust the chain of command. So its if the victims do not trust the chain of command they will not report these cases. If they witnessed other people reporting, being retaliated against, if they witnessed other people being shoved out of the military because they reported these crimes, they will not trust the system that the chain of command has put into place. So our only hope is that by making the system more objective, not depep dent on the judgment, that decision, by the commander, they will have hope and confidence that this objective, trained military prosecutor the training is seeksll. Theyre trained for Sexual Assault in military. Sexual assault and rape within the mail military. They know how its covered up and retaliation and the pressure put on the victim. They though the law and whether they can win these cases. So i want that trained military prosecutor not any commander, because not all commanders will have the determination that we saw the military brass pledge in the last hearing. Not every commander is going to understand that rape is a serious Violent Crime of domination. Often not even related to dating ore romance. More often related to dominance and violence and power. So, you need someone who is trained and knowledgeable to make the assessment whether these cases should go to trial. So victims have a chance to see that justice is done. I agree with senator levin, and theyve tweaked the system and done some good things which we support and keep in the bill. I want to make people get confused. They sometimes think what senator jillly brand and we do is take the whole thing outside the military. But we keep these crimes in the military, but with people who know exactly what theyre doing. Theyre trained, prosecutors. And theyre objective. Its an important point to make. Id like to invite senator blumenthal to say a few words. Thank you. Let me just thank senator gillibrand for her leadership on this issue. Ive been working on it for some time, with proposals such as mandatory punitive discharge, victims bill of rights, other measures that will greatly enhance the credibility and trust in the system which is critical to reporting, and none is more important than the one that she has been championing for separating the prosecutorial decision from the command chane. And i am very, very encouraged by the support were amassing. I see it in the response among my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and i think we are making inroads all across the senate, including on the Armed Services committee, where i serve and she is she she does, and i think that success is within sight. Whatever the threshold of both required, i think that a majority and even 60 votes are within our grandparents. Within our grasp. So thank you. Senator, this is quite a crosssection of the senate. [inaudible] how you were con convinced to sign on this. Meetings, testimony . I think what is lost so many times up here, people say theres no bipartisanship. Senator gillibrand toll told me about and i saw the news reports and i was inclined to it and i needed to read a little about it and a few things to modified and she was receptive to that. And wasnt like a big deal to try to get the bill even better, and i think the changes made should bring more conservatives onboard to this, and i dont know itch really, truly dont see things in partisan. Im more than willing to good against my party anytime or against the other party. We should go for what we think is right. This is an issue that is obviously right and were all trying to get to a more just situation. And ill mention as i described, that i was really persuaded by the argument senator gillibrand presented at the Armed Services meeting. I went in undecided and visited with a reporter who was genuinely astonished and said you mean every vote didnt depended before hand and actually arguments can persuade . I said, well, i cant speak for everytime but here i think all of us, republicans, democrats, and i think also the commoners in the military, want to solve this problem and the question is whats the right solution that will fix it that will prevent Sexual Assault and also maintain good order and discipline, maintain the integrity of the chain of command, and senator gillibrand has worked hard with a number of others. The suggests that rand made, made the bill stronger and i was supportive of those, and i think this is a commonsense approach to fixing a problem to make our military stronger and make sure we can stand by and protect every service man and service woman. Changes made to the bill. The exception when correct. Any changes made since the last markup . Senator rand noticed two additional crimes he felt were better dealt by commanders and i agreed with him. I think the changes were smart and make the bill stronger. Specifically a direct order, which for whatever rope was overlooked. If you are given a direct order by a commander, youre not going to go call a lawyer to investigate whether you should respond. Thats not the appropriate response. So he was very smart to recognize that and say that should be included in the 36 specific crimes that i believe and we all believe, because we wrote the bill this way, are military in nature. That arent no parallel in the civilian system. So going awol is the most clear example. The military commander will be in charity. If you dont show up for duty he will decide what is change you. He nose what is going on, whyup didnt show up, whats the appropriate response, keep you in the mill tar military. So he found two i agreed should be determined by the military commander. Theyre serious but military nature. One last question. The Defense Department yesterday put out a report that shows Serious Problems with some investigations of Sexual Assault and rape. Amazing discrepancies like not correcting collecting clothing, not interviewing witnesses. Exactly. They seem to have bigger problems than thats the as senator boxer said, this crime is this challenge is pervasive. Its a cultural top to bottom issue that needs to be looked at every step of the way. What we were able to do in the armeds services committee, we had a number of bills authored by many members of the committee and people outside the committee that would strengthen the process. And one bill that senator patty murray was the lead sponsor is is every victim will have a victims advocate. We included that in the bill. So theres a number of reforms i urge you look at we can summarize them for you. Probably a dozen really strong reforms that will help victims and help the process better. Also accountability in terms of the punishment and whether youre sent out of the military if cop viced, better recordkeeping so we can find resid row repeat offenders. I think thats a very important question. And it speaks to the need for a trained experienced prosecutor. I was a federal prosecutor. I served as state attorney general. Ultimately the prosecutor can insist on standards and excellence in investigations. He is ultimately in charge. He is the one who has to present the case to a jury. And make the case. So, this proposal is integral to the entire Justice System, and i might just go back to the question, how can people who normally disagree come together on this issue . Criminal justice has never been a partisan issue. Under any administration. At any time. It unites all of us. Justice, and particularly criminal justice, effective prosecution, should not be about republican or democrat, and certainly not about ideological differences on other issues. So theres nothing surprising about thoughtful people coming together who may disagree on other issues. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] in the years immediately leading up to the revolution, his name was better known than washington or franklin. Wrote many of americas first state papers and many of the highest level documents, policy documents, constitutions, legislation, but he also wrote many more things for ordinary American People, and spoke to them in a way that very few other leaders did, and these include newspaper articles, poems, and americas first patriotic song. My interest in john dick inson came from my interest in early american political theory and religion. I started out studying quakers in the colonial period and when i got to the revolution his name kept coming up, and i couldnt find anything about him, or very little, and what was there was very conflicted, and nobody seemed really be able to understand his actions. When the government effects a new economy, it grants everybody a life pension with which to raise the standard of existence. It increases the value of everybodys property, raises the scale of everybodys wages. One of the greatest favors that can be bestowed on the American People is economy in government. The very first sound film we have featuring a president is calvin coolidge, talking about economic policy. Its not the most scintillating film in the world but it is fascinating to see him, this very early sound technology, the photo film. Were going to reach a day very soon when theres just tremendous amounts of material out there waiting for a new generation of researchers to discover it, and make something meaningful of it. Theres a lot theres a lot of stories that can be told in our collection, and were just so eager to make more of it available for people to discover. In reaction to the deadly attack on the u. S. Consulate in benghazi, libya senators have proposed a bill to improve Embassy Security. The head of the Diplomatic Security at the state department testified about the bill at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This is an hour and a 2 minutes. Hour and 25 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] this hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. Today our real focus is ensuring the security of missions abroad and the safety of our Foreign Service personnel. That has always been and will remain a priority of this committee. Having said that i hope to have the support of my republican colleagues for the Embassy Security act ive introduced, name for christy sevens, sean smith, tyrone woods and Glen Dougherty who gave their lives to service of the nation in benghazi on september 11th. The lessons we learned from tragedies like benghazi are emblematic of the broader issue we will increasingly face in the 21st century and will require our full unequivocal, unwaiverring commitment to fully protect our embassy and those who serve this nation abroad. We have studded what went wrong. We stud yesterday what went wrong, looked back, and now it is time to move forward to prevent another tragedy in the future. After benghazi there are 29 recommendations to state and congress. While we must do our part in overseeing states implementation, we must also do our part to provide the resources and necessary authorizations to ensure full implementation. And we must make whatever investments are necessary to protect our embassies and our missions. Such investments are not an extravagance. They are not simply another budget item. We must strike the proper balance between sealing off vulnerabilities in highthreat areas and continuing to conduct vigorous and effective diplomacy that serves the National Interest. The fact is, we can never have absolute security in an increasingly dangerous world, unless we hermetically seal our diplomats in steel tanks. But security alone is not our objective. At the end of the day this is not an either or choice. We need to address both the construction of new embassies that meet security needs and we need to do what we took ensure existing highrisk posts where we need our people to represent our interests and where new construction is not an option. The state ited clearly, and i quote, the solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs, which in total constitute a small percentage both of the full National Budget and that spent for National Security. One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress Must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the state department to address security risks and meet mission imbaretives imperatives. The bill i introduced turns lesss into action. Total security is next to impossible. Our diplomats cannot encase themselves in stone fortresses and remain effective, and disengagement is not an option show. Solution must be multifaceted and include enhance is security and make sure the diplomas have the Language Skills and security necessary when they document from behind the walls of the embassy. Where conditions require enhanced security, this bill gives state additional flexibility to contract guard forces based on the best value rather than the lowest bidder and also means Holding People accountability. When at employee exhibits unsatisfactory leadship that has security consequences the secretary must have the ability to act. This bill gives the secretary greater flex inability disciplinary actions. It also includes Embassy Security and construction, arabic lange training, construction of a Foreign Affairs Training Center to consolidate and expand stewart Security Training operations for state Department Personnel so instead of piecing together or training at facilities up and down the east coast, we streamline them in a single facility that can provide comprehensive training to more people. The bill requires detailed reports from the department on its progress in implementing all recommendations made by the accountability review board and specifically requires the identification of and reporting of security at highrisk, highthreat facilities. At the end of the day, with we fail to address these issues there will be another incident. The responsibility is ours. And the failure to act will be ours as well. This is a time for solutions. The safety of those who serve this nation abroad is in our hands. With that, let me turn to my distinguished ranking colleague who has work with us to have this hearing, senator corker, for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for your efforts to focus on the issue of Embassy Security and candidly, just the way you conduct our efforts here in foreign religiouses in a bipartisan way Foreign Relations in a bipartisan way. And i want to thank the state department for bringing forward the witnesses that carry the weight on this issue that matters to all of us. So thank you both for being here. We have a procedural issue occurring at 11 00. I might be stepping in and out before the vote. I know offices have been in contact with you, and let me just express a couple of concerns. I think we all i dont imagine theres anybody here that doesnt respect what our Foreign Service officers around the world do. And we know especially after what has happened in libya. It just highlights the threat theyre under. The threats are taking place all over the world. I know that the state department has requested funding for numbers of new facilities that take many, many years to build, and yet statement we have people today that are under a lot of duress now and candidly, have some security issues. So i do hope as we move along well figure out a way to balance between some of the longer term projects that are taking place not under serious threat, where some of the shortterm need wes have, and also some focus on building a Training Facility which i know is very expensive, and yet were aware that maybe theres ways of doing that training in ways that dont require spending hundred office millions of dollars to build it. So i just hope well move along in an appropriate way, and i certainly dont want to rehash the past. I think the chairman know wes have tried to move away from some some of the things that happened in the past. But i would like someone to explain to me we have four employees that were involved in some reporting on the aarb. I want to thank you for your invitation to appear here today to talk about the future of Diplomatic Security. We appreciate and share your current it to enhance security as evidenced in the security and personal protection act of 2013. The attacks on said diplomatic facilities last september and subsequent attacks against diplomatic facilities and personnel remind us that the world is a dangerous place for diplomacy. Unfortunately it is nothing new. Being on the front lines of u. S. National security has always been inherently risky, however we strive to mitigate the of risk the risk to the minimum extent possible we will not even with the most willing and capable partners as we had in many places around the world, we will not let terrorist or extremist attack us in every instance we must balance this risk with pursuing National Interests. We have learned some very hard and painful lessons from benghazi in rio or with the acting on those lessons. The state department a precarious of 284 locations, and many in challenging environments where Key National Security interests are at stake. Every day the Department Works to protect our people by constantly assessing threats and our Security Posture overseas. The bureau of Diplomatic Security advance is foreign interest policy by protecting people and property and information by eight maintaining a Security Program that includes the allies in the threats to manage the situation in mitigating the rest. Too costly research and analyze the threat of the diplomatic facilities or personnel, misinformation with Trend Analysis and case studies and terrorist acts and crime form the basis of the threat assessment that we use that are provided to Department Senior managers to support the policy Decision Making process. From this analysis whether shortterm or longterm in the shed take to mitigate the potential threats against our assets. From washington d. C. Monitoring the threats to a regional Security Officers we strive to provide the platform to conduct american diplomacy. Building on the recommendations of the benghazi accountability review board the assessment teams, and our own considerable experience a of expertise we are diligently working on the way we improve our diplomats natalie at the highest post but all facilities around the world. In large part to your general generous support with the continuing resolution in progress is well under way. Pursuant to the recommendations we are trading more Community Personnel to deal with high threat at high risk in court environments. We are experiencing the duration of the high threat Tactical Training courses and incorporating elements of that into other courses so that regardless of the debt diplomatic assignment we have a cadre of agents trained to operate in different environments overseas. Were hiring 150 Security Professionals, 1301 total. They will directly serve for provide security to our posted also working closely with the department of defense to some expand the marine Security Program and enhance the forces in response to threatened u. S. Personnel and facilities. Read recently worked with the u. S. Marine corps and dod to elevate personal security that we provide for our people overseas as a primary mission. Each of these enhances the departments ability to supplement as necessary if they did not fulfill the obligation under International Law to protect diplomats and property and personnel. The increased security funds you have provided will supply our bureau to provide facilities for additional Marine Security guard at detachments of new facilities and projects on some of the most critical post. The bureau of Diplomatic Security realizes our work will never be done. We take great pride in our accomplishment coming in we look forward to working with congress. I about i may be brief but i will be glad to take questions after you have heard from my colleague and he will provide his marks remarks at this point. Good morning chairman and Ranking Member in distinguished Committee Members for your invitation to appear here today. I appreciate and share your commitment to enhance security as evidenced by the recent introduce stevens, a smith, a woods nbc security impersonal protection act of 2013. The attacks against personal have been concerned since the inception almost 100 years ago. To encounter these threats the Diplomatic Security was formed in 1960 but not until 1985 with the aftermath of the beirut bombing that they were a hero with of the state department. The mandate was solidified when Congress Passed the omnibus it terrorism act of 1986 at the same time i was preparing to leave the marine corps where i was an officer in wanted to continue my service to the government and that mission was part of the team that demonstrated what i wanted to join. In 1987 i was a special agent dances that i have devoted my 26 year career to fulfilling the mission of with the station secure environment for the conduct of foreign policy. Early in my career i was part of the secretary of state detail and also the chief of security of lawenforcement investigation and the director and i have managed programs as a Regional Security officer and but to demonstrate the depth of cover experience seventh like to but for it to impact the lives of americans like the kidnappings of missionaries in the philippines. One of the main perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing. When United States return to iraq i was asked to serve as the first or so to manage the volatility to reestablish the diplomatic presence. Most recently i was in cairo egypt during the era of spring. That informs my Decision Making to ensure Security Resources during the transition in egypt. After the attacks of but the Diplomatic Security for the high threat posed along with providing Security Professionals prefer the department assessed assisted replied in then would determine which ones are highrisk in the list will be reviewed annually at a minimum and more frequently as they substantially change but she commissions will be added or deleted. The high threat protection. Also for Strategic Planning and with the us up responsibilities. We work closely to ensure that at the post but as the Deputy Assistant and response will free by writing, a managing and the keating the Security Threat as well as directing resource requirements. I continue reassessed the Security Posture to medicates threats and pull their ability. Although the post and designations remus continue to focus on it but for security throughout the department and interagency to make sure the strategies address the risks of our dedicated personnel to advance the u. S. Interest however has the protests every place the highest priority on the security of our personnel and will continue to take the steps this is jerry which in some instances include extraordinary measures to provide for their safety. Id like to thank you again to discuss the future of the Embassy Security. I of available to answer any questions. Thank you both i have heard from some of my colleagues what we need is greater oversight but we dont need money. The question is the mccann new under the existing budget with no additional revenue with a higher risk the lives of those that are assigned to the diplomatic corps world wide . Senator, thank you for going right to the heart of what is important to us to give us the resources to address this. 2013 continuing resolution and the offending plus the generosity of congress, and i believe that this is the proper level of resources that we can utilize effectively now. This year and the 2014 budget request that rolls those pots of money into the request as well. I believe that amount of money gives us the ability to move forward to do the things we need to do. The second point is as all of us have mentioned. But the. Fat level of funding and resources to deal with the to address the type of threats that we need to address. Doesnt mean youll have levels of security across the board it is where we put our resources manpower, the technical equipment, where we build the new embassies that is place where we have low levels. What i am trying to get 50 i 80 alps your account with next years budget, what would you do . Dont think we could stay with the highest National Interest is important. So there are identified identified, number 10 recommendations 5. 2 billion at the current funding level and level. With the of 514 budget not just a number from this guy abased with the accountability review board about what the challenges are and what the needs are and what you can realistically a minister over a period of time . Is that a fair statement . So from the security standpoint do you have a sense of how many new facilities high threat to high risk . With in the list of 27 countries a certain amount have gotten new facilities but there are still 15 of those that we dont have the proper level. There other places around the world. Going back to the bombing in nairobi 1998 we need those facilities to be brought up to the highest security standards. In the past 13 years maybe 80 hr 90s with the facility is really like to continue working diligently to put new embassies with the proper level of stand debt standoff with the level of protection for people overseas. What about us security update . We cannot retrofit many buildings to withstand the blast without the ability to move to a new location. With new construction not an option with the inability inability, how does the department seek to look at the high rents high risk or threat facilities . We have withdrawn to of the amazing and cut down to move to what we absolutely needed to work with a host government said ask to maintain space and not have a setback. But also they look to us to move facilities so they can reopen the street. Then we would try chewed train horses case is best but the one that we were really met with was the government to put up but then make sure we happily the people necessary that we need. To recap, money is a consideration with your ability to say to this committee we are doing as best as we can in order to secure our people across the globe . I could not say a better. Yes. Absolutely. Finally i and the stand it is prioritized the primary driver is the security we provide a list to the highest priorities. Within the last well understand obtaining real estate and it is with certain flexibility but we have reinforced as recently as a month and a half ago for the highest threat posed to determine to make see mccann progress. So to find the construction of a new facility we feel we will be successful and it looks like we have land and we can actually replace the facility in beirut we have tried to replace for many, many years. The office of overseas building operation. I am sorry i know the chairman asked go via of questions that he said. Immediately favor talking about money, and that is the first place that we may need to live with that but i know you currently have one and asking for a hundred million more. Icy were spending huge amounts of money on the facilities. And even with construction under way. So candidly is it is not necessary urgent and with that immediate security with all of us that they are not aligned with what they hope to do. And can you respond to that . I appreciate the point you are making and everyday basis were trying to address the immediate security concerns of increased training of the personnel. So how do we increase safety or Counter Measures . But what the host difference would be the best but it is clear progress also asking the ability to redress the longer here needs to put this in a better position. In 1987 hour embassies had a lowes threat posed but we didnt know at that point we would see the phenomenon of terrorism working outside that small middle eastern post. Today, we know that global terrorism is global. A worldwide phenomenon. We did not foresee the air of spring rise. So the best answer avail long term but also to address the longterm need to be put ourselves over all in a better position. If you look from the vulnerability standpoint, we said we probably need. Note last resistance resistance, provides have very low level of safety but for we go along in the future. To the answer yes. But also doing with the media issues but it is a combination of those with the immediate issues come first. Of the military team with the aftermath of benghazi with resources trying to with that Training Facility but as i am understand you can share with your experience at a time when we need capital to deal with the long term needs that you talk about, why would be be spending so much money to build a new trading facility when they had 40 been taken care of another facility . Thank you for that question. With a facility on the weekend it is a race track in western jack. We use a five days a week. We can train approximately 2,500 Foreign Services officers not for agents like best buy regular Foreign Service officers. They get training basic fire arms and how to make it safe and expose them to expose them and to know if theyd put this level of fact training we have found through the years has definitely save lives overseas in prepared people to serve in the environments in which we send them for regretfully those that i could train per year but they generally give the three hour course to say please take this course for those that we lease in West Virginia cannot meet our Training Needs of longterm girl coal overseas is to train every single Foreign Service officer every five years with the securities training we believe Foreign Service officers need and in many cases hittle family members as well the current facility does not meet our requirements for our highest rebels or some point may not be available to us so we seek to put into one place close to where we put our partners the Intelligence Community to seek to build a Trading Center to put it hater 10,000 people per year to give us the ability in addition to pardoning Power Facilities to the most important side to train people before we go overseas. We talked at the level and the capital expenditures. We will be a much more detail between our staff and we hear about training and how important that is and we will get into more details there but the last piece is you require people to execute. We had a situation with the state department has reviewed functions and more personnel and still being paid and for what it is worth it does feel there is a degree of the lack of accountability maybe you could address that. But not with that accountability people are in situations they should not be in. Could you address that issue for us today . Sitting next to me and me coming back after four years at united nations, and there is nobody that takes this responsibility more seriously than we do. The people we manage the staff in the agents with the Diplomatic Security is ready to give their lives to protecting people overseas. We had to make decisions for the rest of my senior staff and there are still questions about the four individuals. I was not here at the time within the Foreign Service about discipline but it is my clear understanding that this entire issue is that the signatures level in to get recommendations how to do this to make the decision of the hell come with the people there. Three at of four individuals i know well and have worked with closely. To have given their careers to Diplomatic Security and i have a great deal of admiration for them. Does not excuse the fact we had a terrible tragedy and benghazi. That is the same Management Team when our embassies were attacked in cairo, khartoum cairo, khartoum, all through the years as multiple attacks in yemen yemen, afghanistan and iraq those people perform to admirably and it is my hope that entire career is not by one single action because they are as dedicated as we are. But i will tell you that we would do him what is best and would never needs to be taken. Item think anybody here is on a witch hunt and i cannot pick these individuals in a lineup pages think it is important for the culture of the state department that but they made mistakes but its this probably needs to end soon. I will hope that this happens quickly branded forward to work with chairman as this moves ahead. I take this obligation very seriously. At least on my watch and a huge risk as a result of inaction. So i will engage with a followup to have a sequential record there are two things that senator corker said to move to the next. It is a good question immediate needs verses long term needs of course, to the expense of what exist because if you dont have a setback you cannot mitigate that fully. In the end hardhitting without a setback so in the balance then it gets to a point to where all the locations under what we could envision today where the movement of a terrorist activity will take place and then we will all regret and to me that much by way of example but you are mitigating and correct me if i am wrong, would you mitigating in the short term . If you have an embassy or any other site the team to the specifications of what is a secure location . What we can mitigates is first the analysis of the threat of what it tells us we have a full functioning staff and of his seat despite the fact we dont have a setback for a secure facility. We do not have the information that indicates to us by leaving them in this facility and we have National Security imperatives to work on Different Things every single day. Quite a robust facility when she changed dramatically in cairo with a social of people on the ground last several weeks we have ordered departure moved out all the families and all nonessential nonemergency personal. This is what we can do to mitigate the highest level of standards. To ask of post government if they would cooperate. I dont want to cut you short but senators corkers concern between the immediate and long term is this a fair statement . The you can mitigates something you are seeking to do that . Now that doesnt mean mitigation of the immediate is the goal because you can do the setback if you dont have the other elements in play of what we consider a fully secured facility. Yes, sir,. But with the immediate versus though longterm. I a degree in accountability and performance. I read the recommendation that says the findings of an unsatisfactory leadership performance in relation to the incident under review should be a potential basis for recommendations by future accountability boards and in essence to testify to this question under the existing authority there are limitations. Whether the of points to discipline somebody . With section two 03 with that recommendation to fire individuals who have exhibited an unsatisfactory relationship would give the secretary that ability . Yes, sir. To give that flexibility and it helps us. Thank you. Let me just concur with a very important responsibility it is our responsibility to review the steps taken of the resources is that we have the we also have a responsibility to make sure the tools are available with the Appropriations Committee this committee has the responsibility of the policy is right. But that gives us of way in order to manage and i thank you very much for your leadership on this issue barrasso the responsibility of oversight with the tools and resources available. But to visit the embassys when youre able to talk with the personnel that we could be better. With the progress that weve made and i suspect this is updated by circumstances but is it time for us to do another evaluation and globally to recognize that circumstances have changed . I believe we need to do a better job. An important ally or friend, i have been to that embassy. Is not high risk and the United States does not have the combination of space and security that is ideal to carry of the mission. I believe it is an accurate statement. It is more than just security more than the overriding factor you are accurate when you say we dont have the types of facilities that we need. That is why when we build these facilities the primary thing we try to achieve to but what does of Staffing Levels need to be and what types of operational and functional space and it is all wrapped into what it is were doing and how we build buildings and where we build buildings. Is a combination of factors but. I would say what we need globally with those challenges i applied secretary clinton to recognize the importance of the National Security every the resources to carry that out in a safe in the vicious manner and we could use a better blueprint than five or six or seven years ago. I will take that back in to work with any of your staff but the confidence and support the is differential than Different Countries that you have to undertake. Could you briefly outline how those factors are taken into the equation with the confidence we have with the ability to respond more work with us on local security . Mr. Miller . If i can go back to the team to go about assessing the missions that we very quickly assessed one of the lax was the host nation capability to defend the mission. As we look of that we will set into week on one leg we have to strengthen the other. From tunisia and khartoum about eight hours and by strengthening of another it is not always possible with the greater requirement to of the diplomatic collegeage to work with the host nation political counterparts to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities like we do in the United States
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.