those officials when in fact no significant action has or has occurred. there is a shuffling of the deck chairs. do you find it acceptable that state officials responsible for this lack of leadership and mismanagement for ignoring security requests during the benghazi attack and before and remain employed within the state department? also the accountability report cites several systemic failures at the department that cannot be overlooked or ignored. given that they were aware of the dangerously declining situation at ben gazay and pointed out by the chairman and attempt on the british embassador and attacks on western interest. why did they immediately not revamp the protocols prior to the september 11 attacks. the state failed to act
right once. like all my predecessors, i trust the diplomatic professionals with my life. let s also remember that as the chairman and the ranking member pointed out, administrations of both parties in partnership with congress have made concerted and good faith efforts to learn from the tragedies that have occurred to implement recommendations from the review boards to seek the necessary resources to better protect our people and in a constantly evolving threat environment. in fact, of the 19 accountability review boards that have been held since 1988, only two have been made public. i want to stress that because the two that have been made public coming out of the east africa embassy bombings and this one, our attempts by the state department, by the secretary,
questions in that, mr. chairman. let me begin by saying i was aware of certain incidents at our facility and the attack on the british diplomat. i was briefed on steps taken to repair the brief breech after the june bombing and to reduce off compound movements. our team led by security professionals and intelligence and others did not recommend based on those incidents abandoning benghazi. in part because over the last years and in pakistan and iraq and afghanistan and yemen and elsewhere. we rely on proprofessionals to implement the protocols to keep our people safe and as i said i have a lot of confidence in them and most of the time they get it right.
revolution against gadhafi, we needed somebody in benghazi who could begin to build bridges with the insurgents and to begin to demonstrate that america would stand against gadhafi. nobody knew the dangers or the opportunities better than chris. first during the revolution, then during the transition. a weak libyan government and militias and terrorist groups, a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel. he never wavered. he never asked to come home. he never said let s shut it down, quit, and go somewhere else. he understood it was critical for america to be represented in that place at that pivotal time. mr. chairman, we do have to work harder and better to balance the risks and the opportunities. our men and women who serve overseas understand that we do
and finance long-term care services to the millions of americans who need them while balancing our debt and deficits and our overall financial picture. as we look ahead, we will have to do more with less. we must find better and more efficient ways to provide care because the money simply will not be there. today, we are here to talk about some of the ways to save money without doing material damage to long-term care. the cost of long-term care services, more hundred $300 billion a year, are already massive for taxpayers and families. unless checked, this will continue to grow as our aging population requires more long- term care. medicaid projects $1.90 trillion in long-term care costs in the next 20 years with an annual increase of 6.6%. we are seeing similar cost increases for medicare and the long-term care insurance industry. unfortunately, there is no easy answer. our two largest publicly financed health care programs, medicare and medicaid, pays for the bulk of long-te