Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capitol Hill Hearings 20130924 : comp

friend from virginia. assistant secretary who was responsible for making the decisions as security level in benghazi testified here and i know because it was my question specifically did budget consideration play any role. she said no. just for the record, she, by saying no, and making sure that it was a matter of policy and not budget, was -- she's been one of the ones relieved of her position. i wonder why she got relieved of her position after she was able to testify something like that before congress. mr. ambassador, we need to know a number of things. i want to go through some questions. was there an autopsy conducted on ambassador steven's body? >> yes. it was conducted be by the u.s. military at dover air force base. >> right. there are homicides committed again american citizens on are those autopsy permitted to be made public, for example, congressional investigations? >> i would have to -- the up was turned over to the by which was the investigating agency. i was informed he died of smoke inhalation. >> i'm not asking what he died of. right now. there is an autopsy, is that being kept from congressional investigators? >>ly take that question back to the fbi, sir. >> all right. when you talk about military unit not being dispatched. there was no stand down order and they weren't sent because it wasn't enough time. let me put you on the -- put myself on the record on this point, that is no one knew how long this attack was going to go on. how long would the attack last? anybody who didn't dispatch troops or dispatch aid or assistance of some kind to our ambassador who was under attack had no idea whether it was a one-hour battle, two-day battle. if we're not dispatching help that's a dereliction of some kind of responsibility. you say our military team was not ordered to stand down. there were other american government plosion perhaps the cia in benghazi that the time? could have gone our ambassador's assistance? >> were they ordered to stand down? >> the -- there was a team from the annex that did go to the temporary mission facility and did relieve the pressure on that facility. >> those -- yeah. those and apparently those two navy seals that got there were ordered not go; is that correct? >>s or in, -- no , sir i'm not aware of that at all. a quick -- >> not aware doesn't mean no. >> no , sir, i mean, no. a quick reaction team went from the annex to the temporary mission facility main building. then all of them -- then the annex was reinforced by the state department. >> there was no stand down alert even to cia personnel who were there? okay. now who made the choice to create this fictitious narrative it was a demonstration that got out of hand and not a terrorist attack? we know from the first minute of the attack we have been told they knew it was a terrorist attack. yet for a full week we had top-level people in the administration claim it was -- who created that narrative? >> i don't know if i can answer the question who created it. i can tell you, sir that the narrative about the -- what did cause an take on the american embassy in cairo. >> you can't answer the question. we're going have to go mr. -- from rhode island. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. and i've had the opportunity to as others to listen to the testimony of ambassador pickering and chairman mullen to review the report and the recommendations and to hear testimony -- 29 recommendations that involved 64 different tasks which seem to me very comprehensive. i agree with your teament service a hard-hitting report and respect the work that was done and the thoroughness of the report. as those are being implemented and the tasks completed. is there anything the congress can do to facility the implementation of the recommendation. or is any obstacles presently in the way that we should respond to to be sure that the work you are doing with the department of is doing to implement those continue appropriately? >> i think the most important thing is the past the president's budget request for embassy construction and security that is in the fy14 budget request. that will give us the resources to continue implementing the representation. including the necessary new construction and the upgrade we need protect our people. there's second and is we have the authority only in certain locations around the world do what is called best value contracting for guards. we now enforce in many locations to take the lowest bidder. having that in an authorization bill that i know that this committee is working on would be very, very helpful for the department in getting the best kind of local security forces possible. >> every time we have a hearing on this issue, we have to begin remembering the brave american heroes whose lives were lost. i think our solemn obligations to do everything question to prevent the tragedy from ever occurring again and protecting individuals who are representing our country all over the world. and follow up on my friend from virginia's point. the panel in this report has found, i quote, a more serious and sustained commitment from congress and call for a more serious and sustained commitment from congress to support state department needs which in total institute a small percentage both at the national budget and the national security. one over a conclusion reported that congress must do its part to meet the challenge and provide necessary resources to the state department to address security risks and meet mission impartive. as aside in fiscal year 2007, the budget passed be our leadership on the house side provided $320 million less than proposed by the senate. and fiscal year 2012, the year of the attack, the house republicans propose almost $200 billion less for state department security than the senate. so? notion that resourcing is important in keeping our diplomatic corp. safe something identified in the report; correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> and finally, would you address for a moment, you know, the department is obviously operating in high-risk, high threat locations all orlando the world. including places with a lack clearly defined and capable support. it raises security risks for our diplomatic core and development expert but imposes particular strain on the existing resources. and should we as a congress begin to think differently working with the executive way we plan and appropriately manage these requirements sort of in the changing landscape of the really high-risk, high threat locations with now serve all around the sphwhorld i think this is an effort that has to be undertaken by jointly by the -- outlined in the longer statement has made change how we look at high threat, high-risk posts. ic the two things needed there as pointed out. we need to continue to work with hose nations to help increase their capability through additional training of their security force and capital cities or other places. we need additional appropriations and the bill that passed out of the appropriation subcommittee and the bill does exactly that. if we can construct facility of the -- and in the attack that took place right after 9/11. the buildings held off the attackers and our people were remain safe. >> it's important that we hold the terrorist response with the activity in can -- the state department personnel leaved of their duty. congress has a responsibility to fulfill our obligations in ensuring that the resources are available to keep it. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> we go to mr. steve shall shab bot of ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to get some questions. i want to address something that thrubled me for some time. i'm speck -- speaking about the hoops the committee had to jump through to get the fact of surrounding the murder of our four finest. state department is clayed and delayed coming forth with information on the matter. when we were finally presented with relevant data a couple of months ago it amounted to what many call a document dump. thousand of pages of paper and disarape. and no particular oared in term of crinology. making it difficult to locate documents that were helpful. i brought it up with secretary clinton. she wasn't particularly responsive. you're welcome to weigh in, if you would like that. >> stindz -- as i understand it, sir, the state department was asked for every document it possessed which was relevant to benghazi. when we received the request we try to give out everything for fear to be blunt, accused of holding something back. it generates when you have worldwide security efforts. it generates many, many documents. >> it was a total mess and not particularly helpful. let me go on. i have limited time. on august 23rd the state department sent a letter which stated they were, quote, the only people responsible for the lethal attack on our special mission compound were the terrorists who organize straited the attack. they must be brought to justice and the government remains committed to doing that, unquote. now no one will argue who was directly it to blame for the attack resulting in the death in the american. as the arb and numerous congressional hearings have revealed there are other people who need to be held accountable for the fact the terrorist attacks succeeded. by the language of the later, the state department want us to believe that the department's bureaucracy could have done nothing more to protect our diplomats? >> that was not the finding of the arb. and the actions referenced in the august 23rd letter, sir. we are confirming the finding of the recommendations for of the arb. four individuals were held accountable. they were relieved of their position. >> okay. >> when former secretary of state, clinton, testified in january, she stated repeatedly and took responsibility for the attacks. in fact, she stated, again, i'll quote, as i have said multiple times i take responsibility and nobody is more committed to getting this right. unquote. do you believe secretary clinton has been held truly accountable for failure under her watch? >> i think what the arb did was take from the original intent of the congress which established. the congress in the legislative -- >> that's not what i asked. if secretary clinton has been truly held accountable. yes or no? >> she said she was responsible, i'm not going challenge her statement. but -- >> where is the accountability though? ? there is in every organization and cabinet department and agency, in effect, a line of authority. there are people who set the policy and there are those who then implement this policy or go back up to see leadership and say the policy cannot be -- i'm sorry. >>. >> let me move on. they described four of the state department employees as having, quote, failed in the perform of they're duties. unquote. with respect to benghazi. now let me get this straight. i know, it's been covered before. i think it's very important. the only disciplinary action knead out to the four who failed and the perform of their couths was being put on administrative leave for awhile. and reassigned to other positions within the state department. now there are benefit of federal employees continued during that time, of course, they are going to be subject to obamacare. arguably that force. and they haven't missed a paycheck. is that about right? >> it seems like pitiful discipline to me. >> sir, i believe that being an assistant secretary of any cabinet office or being a deputy assistant secretary of any cabinet office is a senior position of grave and great responsibility. to be leaved of your position in that regard, i believe, is a serious ability of accountability. >> let me conclude -- i think that failing to call secretary clinton actually interview her was a grows oversight by the arb and is really almost incomprehensible. you continue need to respond. i yield back. >> a poiivet clarification. it was probably up with secretary kerry when he was here. the comment that he made about the documents i think affects us all on the committee. we are still in a position where those documents, as you know, are not copy is not made available to us. we can't copy the documents. you can go down there and somebody can see a document, but we can't make copies of them. we have asked for a seventy those documents, and when we ask the secretary of state, secretary kerry said it's no policy of mine. we raised our objection to this. this is one of the reasons this is ongoing because we don't have copies of those documents. so, again, we would like to have copies of the documents turned over to this committee. thank you, ambassador. we go now to mr. alan grace of florida. >> ambassador, i would like to ask you a few questions about benghazi. the scandal that never was. who decided that ambassador stevens go to benghazi on september 11th, 2012? >> it was the ambassador's decision, sir. >> now was secretary clinton responsible in any way for viewing and approving the in-country movement of ambassadors ambassador stevens or anyone else? >> no , sir, under departmental policy ambassadors only need washington permission if they leave their country of assignment. not the capitol city. >> did the ambassador, when he went benghazi have a normal security detail and the -- rules at that time? >> yes, sir, he had two diplomatic security special agents who accompanied him from tripoli to benghazi. >> benghazi was a diplomatic post not an embassy? >> it was a temporary mission facility, yes, sir. >> is it even possible provide the same kind of security at the temporary mission facility as we try to provide at our embassy? >> we can never achieve the kind of perfect security we need other than a purpose-filled embassy. we have a series of standards, and we were working through the standards. we are constantly adding, i think in response to the subsequent lman from virginia. i offered to submit for the record a list of all the improvement we had made to the temporary mission facility in benghazi. >> there was no specific money appropriated for benghazi. we were simply taking money from other locations that all the requests they put forward as i mentioned, save one which was the guard tower which were determined unnecessary and too attention-getting. all the request were fulfilled. >> with regard to it itself. how long it was between the time the attack began and the time of the ambassador's unfortunate death? >>. >> i would say it was probably somewhere -- definitely under 90 minutes. >> now was there any kind of military force substantial u.s. military force close enough to even engage the attacker in the 90 minute period? >> no , sir. >> was think any forth even in more time that could have rescued the ambassador give the actual situation on the ground as it was. >> tragically, no , sir. >> did the white house ever ignore any report regarding attack? >> no , sir, not that i'm aware >> did secretary clinton ignore any reports regarding attack? >> no , sir, i personally spoke to the secretary clinton that evening. and it was constantly briefed by our operation center all evening. if you were the president on the united states on that night would you have done anything different? >> what i know that the president did of say to the secretary of defense do everything you can. i think that's probably what i would have done was turn to my senior military command authority and tell them to do whatever was necessary. which what he did. >> regarding the accountability review board report. did they vined them in any way liable for any kind of misdismuct. >> no , sir. >> did the board find the president liable for any kind of misconduct? >> no , sir. >> was it in fact within their power to have done so if they felt that were the case? they certainly could have found the secretary of state. their charge is to review state department operations. i'm not sure that legislatively legally extended outside the state department. but it certainly extended to the secretary of state. >> are you familiar with the term second-guessing. have you heard that term before? >> yes, sir. >> what about the term "20-20 hindsight? >>." i yield the rest of my time. thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll go to mr. joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman for your leadership to seek explanation for the murder of four heroic americans in benghazi. it's imperative we fully understand where the systemic break down occurred within the state department so no more -- servicemembers die while serving our country. i agree with congressman of california there's been disseat and denial. mr. kennedy, i appreciate your attendance today at the senate hearing previously you acknowledged you denied an extension of the 16-american security support team sst; is that right? >> yes, sir. that was the team based in tripoli. not in benghazi. it was a tripoli assignment. they never assigned to benghazi. and if i might, i continue want to take your time. >> no, no, please. >> when we first went to tripoli, we were our embassy burned down in tripoli. we asked them for assistance. two of their officers went in with two of ours. we did a survey. we asked for 16 department of defense personnel. over the course of standing up the emily. they worked themselve out of a job. depament personnel.state they sent someone to do el continuer landing zone survey and look for unexploded order nation. they did their mission and there was no mission left for them to accomplish. there were eight, in effect, security personnel. the state department also replaced those security personnel with personnel on the state department roles. on the night in question, even though it's tripoli not benghazi. six of the poxes were still based in we are talking about people within the same country? >> it's just a really sad to me there was not prerks given or defense to the four americans killed. additionally, the security support team testified before congress last year that the team was facing the department of state. and that they loaned considerable support to the state department of security position in this uncertain and volatile and environment. additional on october 2012, regional security officer what justification do you have for the denial of the extension of the security support team until other resources became available. and the state department replaced the security part of that team not -- and with state department regional security officers and train other personnel we on the embassy compound. they worked their way out of a job. which is a case which we borrow personnel from the defense department. we replace them with state department assets. >> it's hard to imagine they work their way out of a job when four people died. >> tiply, sir, is not -- >> same country. >> same country. >> and the availability should have been made possible. i additionally i'm appreciative that the chairman introduced an accountability review board reform act of 2013. hr1768. it's for effectivenesses for a future accountability? >> we have provided common. i'll be glad to make sure i make a copy available. may i say one more thing about benghazi? >> please. >> if anybody had asked me to reassign the sst from tripoli 400 miles away. i might have considered. since no one ever asked for the relocation it was the question had they completed their mission in tripoli. they had completed their mission in tripoli. i would hope every resource of any means it would be provided to protect american lives and american foreign service. >> i agree with that. thank you. thank you for holding the hearing. i think the earn people. what are we doing catch the murders? the fbi. that is an important thing. there has to be a total effort. with i'm back home. that's what they're asking. they see the bickering back and forth. nay want to make sure we are, in fact, trying to get the terrorists that committed the acts. the president has said to state, justice, the imedges community deference defense. >> let me got arb. there's a lot of criticism here and a wall of deceit, denial, and bunch of notes here. the two people that headed up was ambassador pickering and admiral mike mullen. i remember he was the bads ambassador to el door. i didn't agree with the policy at the time would you criticize or not criticize him or the arb report. i find it somewhat interesting sin he was republican or democrat. age membership is including an officer of appointed by the director of major intelligence both republican and democratic presidents, admiral michael mullen who is ranks of the chairman of joint steve of staff. kathleen, long service in both, i believe it was in the bush administration with the department of agriculture and the united nations, and so this compilation of individuals represent the full spectrum, as i believe. as i mentioned earlier, when you read the record, it is not climate tear of the state department. >> i did the read report. it was not -- it was not up to the task here. it's experience as serving as a ambassador and undersecretary of state, and u.s. representative to the united nations, and in the assignment that is difficult as israel then soviet union. >> is he deceitful and underhanded? >> no , sir. >> let's go to admiral mullen. do you think he was someone that was confident to serve on the board? >> i have had the pleasure of working with admiral mullen somewhat when he was represented the department and the joint chief of staff and senior level meeting. i find him to be a hard hitting and intelligent, and -- >> do you think he's underhanded if any way trying to cover up here? >> no , sir. >> why do you say that? >> it's just the nature of his career and the position to which he rose to. >> those are my questions, thank you. >> thank you. we go now to mike from texas. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. prior to the attack in benghazi and the killing of our ambassador. there were many warning signs and cries for help. april 6, 2012, it was thrown over the wall. the u.s. facility in benghazi on may 22nd. they attacked by the brigade of the blind sheik. it was targeted by an ied that blew a whole. secretary clinton requesting additional assets. the cable requested is denied and plan scaled back and security is made. ambassador stevens response with a cable to secretary clinton asking additional security resources. and you, sir, on may 3rd, terminated effectively immediately the u.s. mission to dc3 to provide logistical support to official forces unit assigned assigned in beans. -- benghazi. we don't know what could have been done. ambassador stevens saying don't scale the assets back. and he said, again, in july the overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable with large numbers of armed groups and individual not under the control of the -- you denied the that request. if you receive that? >> yes, sir, i did. if i might -- >> respond in the affirmative or decline the request? >> this cable -- i did not -- we did not recline the request. >> was additional security provide order that day? before the september 11th attack? >> the cable, sir, i have a copy in front of me, is it closes with u.s. mission benghazi will submit request to u.s. embassy and staffing needs. we never received that additional request. >> there was no way i count respond to a request not yet been submitted. it was deemed high on the state department's threat list, but yet it didn't meet the minimum security standards as required by the congress and secure ambassador construction and counterterrorism act. somebody at the state department waive the standards known as imminent standards for our presence in benghazi. do you know who waved them? >> it wasn't the standard. they only apply to the buildings we build. what i believe we're talking about here, sir is what is called the ospb standards. these are the standards that we were using in benghazi, but sin e had to move in benghazi we didn't have time either to build a new building or to take the months that it takes to receipt to fit. we took the overseas security boards standards is our goal. we were running down those standards, adding additional items -- >> i have a memo that was sent to you from your staff saying we needed to bring the facility up to an acceptable standard to you, mr. ambassador, i don't know what the actual was. i fraternity -- apparently it was not proved. i would like to enter the memo, mr. chairman, in to the record. >> without objection. when marines were deployed to tripoli, and asked to des deplane and change to civilian clothing and it was delayed by several hours. we had already evacuated our personnel and closed our facility in beans. there was no purpose of them going benghazi. there was no americans left there. >> sir, the plane gone from straight from roe data to benghazi in the eight-hour span of the attack you're saying they couldn't have responded in a timely manner. the plane, sir, was moving to benghazi, moving to tripoli on the 12th not on the night of the attack. >> i think -- more people higher up should be held accountable. >> we go mr. joseph kennedy. >> thank you. mr. chairman. thank you for your -- if you need a stoked respond or finish the question. i'll give you the time. first of all on. the dc3 it was not there in sport of the special forces attachment. when we open, first, in benghazi then later relocated to tripoli. there have no commercial air service available at all in libya. no commercial air service. it was running shuttles in to iraq. it was never based there. it was based first in -- based in at the point. when commercial air service was established, there was no long aeroneed for that aircraft. it had nothing to 0 with support of the special forces except when they came to tripoli the first time. they flew that plane in. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. thank you for your service. i want to begin by recognizing the memory of four brave americans who gave their live and service to the country. the best thing becan do is ask tough questions about what happened and what we can do to mover forward. foreign poll and the arb process we should make them. the focus should be on lesson learned and moving forward not focusing on perceived imperfection with her assigning political blame for the day. to that end, mr. ambassador. i was wondering for you might be able to enlighten me. it began in 1986 after lex was passed? >> do you know how many arb have been convened since then? >> the account is either 18 or 19 depending on whether you count the -- [inaudible] as either two or one. >> and, sir, if we're going with that 189-figure. how many of those were under republican -- i will have 13 sound okay? >>ly accept that figure, sir. >> ronald reagan honduras increased, above oliva, peru. iraq, iraq, pakistan. >> that sounds correct, sir. >> do you i have any idea major reform efforts done initiated by the arb process? >> no , sir. once the arb started, i my only contact was to be a within. did secretary clinton have any influence over who was called? >> no , sir. >> did the administration attempt influence that process? >> no , sir. >> moving forward, you mentioned it's been referred several times today 29 recommendations that the arb found and recommended to state department and try to implement and broken it down to 64 different actions. a what can be done protect our diplomats. where should the resources resources did directed? policy, if you can do it in a minute. >> i think the two most important thing are the ar be,'s recommendation that there be capability of funding to construct new embassies that the characteristic and the quality of sudan. which were able to withstand attacks until either our own military forces can arrive or until host nation forces muster and do that. secondly, the issue about additional local guard capabilities. >> mr. ambassador, is there a way i see in your testimony you indicated can take up to four years to cite plan, construct, and finish. is there a way we can speed ?up is it delayed? because of bureaucracy trying to spend four years. it seem like a long time. entire from finding the land and you have to buy land overseas for this through a complex process. and embassy not just like any other office building. as you can imagine, because it's a security of technical and financial built in to the plan. and simply takes longer. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we know go to mr. poe of texas. unsatisfactory leadership performance. systemic failure in leadership and management deficiency at senior levels. it would seem to me with in the world world, outside of government. has been reviewed a business or entity and found there were deficiencies and lack of leadership and lack of accountability somebody would face the consequences. they would see the music. but not so with the government. especially the state department. four general employees place the on leave in december for their actions and judgment related to benghazi. secretary kerry said it's okay. come back. it's been promoted to deputy chief commission. nobody has been accountable as i quoted the accountability review board unsatisfactory leadership. in this case, it's not just like missing a memo. people have died. i know, there are those administrations who said it was a long time ago, but to those four families. it was a death of four individuals. when you mess up in leadership like this, and people die, it would lead me to believe somebody has to be punished. nobody has been punished at all in this situation. you look on the other side, to quote the president, here is what he said. the biggest priority is bringing the folks to justice. okay that's what he's said a year ago. my biggest priority is bringing them to justice. it would seem to me the president should be just as concerned as americans dieing in libya as syrians dieing in syria. that seems to be the priority now. not bringing the folks to justice. they haven't been brought to justice. any include as a prosecutor and judge. i've seen a lot of cases made bay lot of law enforcement. you're here and told us and said i can't what the fbi, d.o.e. and intelligence agencies are doing to capture the bad guys. i would assume it's classified. well, after a year, we can't find the people. but yet i see a cnn report care go to benghazi at the hotel, a coffee shop and have coffee with the suspected ring leader of this who has been indict by our government the fbi not bringing the killers to justice. my question to you do you they were responsible for the attack on the benghazi mission? >> thing is one of the questions that is still being sorted out. it's possible -- >> do you think they were involved, i mean. this was the guy that should know. do you think they were involved? >> i know it was a terrorist attack. it doesn't matter al qaeda or whoever. these were terrorists, and whatever organization they belong to, they are enemies of the united states. >> do you think they should be named as foreign terrorist organization? >> i have -- that is in my domain. >> i'll take the question back to my colleagues. it seemed like you want to know any group is involved. you believe it was terroristed involved in this murder? >> i didn't say i don't care. who was involved. i'm saying there were a rake of individuals who attacked our facility that night. they were terrorists. i'll be glad to take the question. they claimed responsibility for this the next day. withdrew the claim. but at the end of the day, here we are. nobody has been taken out. nobody in is custody. nobody is in jail. either on the side of the state department, nobody is in jail accountable for the murder. whether it's the people woo were response for the killing or people who may have made mistake about the administration of this. nobody is in custody. last question. people in the may i ask the question. >> i'm afraid your time that is expired. >> did you respond to the previous question? >> i'm going suggest we go to frankel. if you want to pass your question to one of the other committee members. i'm sure they can ask it. if you want to allow the ambassador to respond. i'm shower you can. we're going sphik to the clock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your gracious way of handling these meetings. mr. kennedy, ambassador, thank you for your service. please, if you want to answer. >> i just, in response to the last question, congressman, i believe that individuals in the state department were held responsible. and for one of those individuals resign as the assistant secretary and be all be relieved of the responsibility is serious ability of accountability to be relieved that the level. secondedly, benghazi has taken even since the event of 9/11 has taken a serious turn of the worse. they will let journalists in. they are not letting u.s. flairmt to arrest people there because the government of libya is not in control to that degree. that our diplomats do that play a role in securing the freedom that we enjoy including this discussion which i with great respect. i don't con -- concur on the tone. i want to thank them. that allowed me to visit. we visited nato. i went to africa. and i want to say we did have discussions with the highest military commanders about benghazi and they were all unanimous in saying that there was no military action that they thought could have saved the day once the attack began. ic is what you stayed to us. we keep hearing that no one is being held accountable. but i do want do you clarify one particular point, which is did the arb conclude that no individual had breeched their duty? it was that a finding? >> that's correct. the arb said two individuals had not carried out their responsibilities in the way they could. but they did not find a breach of duty. what secretary kerry's decision was to validate the ark rb's decision. to actually go farther than the arb decision and relieve all four of their senior level positions. >> i don't want anybody to forget. i think we all unthat responsibility pull responsibility is for the attack was on terrorist. that's correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> i think you told mr. grayson that mr. steven could move freely about in benghazi in order do -- freely about in order do his job. yes, sir. as he was authorized as an ambassador to go to any location in his country without washington approval. >> and of course an attack could have taken place out on the field. >> that is correct. >> there is an inherit danger to being a united states representative. >> my final question to you justice what have we learned from this helps us assess when the conditions are just too dangerous for diplomat to remain? >> our position is in -- this is something we are constantly enhancing. is every day we review the threat levels at all posts in the world. not only the highest threat posts, and if we reach a point where we believe that the mitigation tools that are available to us cannot lower that threat level down, then we close the post. if i might offer you one example. we were in damascus, syria, continuing to operate there several years ago. we kept monitoring the situation. one morning my diplomatic security colleagues and i concluded given the situation on the ground in damascus. we could no longer mitigate the risk sufficiently i went to seat sec taif of state. she gave me approval to suspend operations in damascus and pull out our people nap is intention or any other information available to u that our mitigation strategy are no longer vailed. then we suspend operation and remove our people. >> thank you, sir. >> all right mr. jeff dun cab of south carolina. >> i yield some time to the gentleman from texas. >> one question, mr. ambassador. the state department employee ever been asked to sign nondisclosure agreement after the benghazi attack? >> not that i'm aware of, sir. no. you don't know whether they have or haven't? >> the state department does not use nondislow sure greement. that's a foreign con stopt you? obviously we do sign agreement up to disclose informed information to individual who do not have classified access. that's different, i believe in the thrust of your question. you ask me did we put in place specific nondisclosure agreement after benghazi and i do not believe we did so, sir. >> classified or nonclassified? >> no. >> no , sir. i yield back. the sent lman from south carolina, thank you. >> i thank the gentleman from texas point being dismayed nobody is brought to justice. the perpetrator nor has anybody brought to the disciplinary action other than a slap on the hand. it needs to be happen. being removed and assigned to another position is not justifiable. people need to lose their job over the failure that were admitted to here today pointed out in the arb report. i want to thank the gentleman for mentioning and acknowledging it was a terrorist attack. that's more than the former secretary of state was willing to do in the very chair. a lot of questions remain about benghazi. questionses that won't be answered today. but questions that need to be asked. what was he doing in benghazi? how many are acowrchted for today? how many are recovered? -- >> i'll have to get the information from the record, sir. i don't have the information with me. was there a initiated by the state department on or prior to 11th, september,' 12. >> i believe there was, i know there were massive interagency telephone calls going on. i can check that. i know, i was on numerous calls with officials from other u.s. government agencies. >> i appreciate that. for libya and specifically benghazi. i want to know who was on the call. and what the substance of the call was. and we'll put in writing as well. when -- there are so many questions that need to be asked and answered about the displin their action as the department of state. is it true that you're required a daily report of the personnel in country. and personally approve every official american who went to benghazi either on official business or assignment? >> i set a cap. i set a cap for the number of personnel who were to be in benghazi. we control because it was -- >> i get questions from time to time about adding or subtracting personnel. gregory hicks -- deputy chief noted that. his testimony before. so my question it do you require that for every country. was it an obsession with libya that the point in time? >> it certain post, which are either under evacuation or order departure status, we keep track down to the single number. >> i can see -- >> i'm out of time. >> absolutely. you say you have other questions. i would be bad to see you or any other member of the committee individually and engage in fuller discussion. >> we appreciate it. and the documents we don't know what legal stand you have not to turn them over. thank you, ambassador. we're going from brad sherman of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are three things. first and redwretble, we lost four. there was talk show error as to the reason, and that the attack took place, and third, we haven't been able to bridge the culprit to justice. the gentleman from texas points out cnn was able to talk to some terrorists in libya, why can't we? point out very often terrorist make themselves available in clandestine meetings with american journalist. the trough may allow themselves to come in contact as well as hiding from the military. has the libyan government authorized us to take any action against terrorists in beck if we believe they are responsible for the death of ambassador stephens? >> we're working very closely with the government of libya. yes or no. >> let me take question for the record, sir. i would like to know. taken for the record mean we'll never get an an. we hold over $25 billion of libyan assets. i turnl be hemmed ton at least to cover our costs had had we done so we might have a little bit of leverage with libya. right now all we have the gratitude of the libyan government which exist without us. it seems to be insufficient for you to be able to give me a positive answer. these are murders of ambassador and you can't tell me whether we have the right to bring them to justice should we be able to locate them and determine who is guilty. as to the talk era. i would point out at my town hall if you asked anybody which state department person is responsible for stating on talk shows for the fact it was stated on talk show it was caused by a bad movie or youtube video they say i turned on the tv and saw -- susan rice. the statement wasn't accurate. .. >> ambassador stevens me that he was risking his life and he knew that he was putting his choppers and now we come back and say, well, well, hindsight turns out to be a bigger risk than the ambassador thought it would be. was there any pressure on the ambassador to go to benghazi knowing the number of security personnel that he would be taking with him. >> we put no pressure on him, ambassador stevens. >> it's very hard to understand, libya. >> but he understood it as well as anyone in our government. he understood as well as the number of our men that were there and the security personnel and understood the number of security people and he understood libya as well as possible. he decided to risk his life in the service of his country. and then we are told that nobody paid a price for the decision to take that risk. i think that ambassador stevens paid a price for his heroism and i think that it is very hard for me to say that there was anybody outside who made the decision who should have been making the decision as to whether ambassador stevens went to the benghazi conflict that day. >> it is the job of an american ambassador to go into harms way. we have tried everyday to mitigate that risk to the maximum extent possible. but it is inherently dangerous, as you say, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. going to adam kissinger. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate your service to our country. and also all the men who serve this country and especially those that were involved in this. the soldiers and airmen, like im, when we are taught, it is that your country will always be there. as i have said, that your country will move heaven and earth to make sure that you will be protected and find yourself under attack and they will come and get you. i heard a colleague mentioned that we need answers and this is not about waiting list splitting this for political gain. implying that our side of the aisle is disinterested in embarrass an administration engaging in politics. i take a huge exception and i have to get this on the record. when the four americans die and i say that we can see here that there were seven hours between the first and second attack, there were the department of defense individuals they came out and said that that attack was coming and hopefully they didn't know that second attack was coming and why they have this in the first place. but when i see that, it really bothers me because my belief, as an airman and a pilot and myself and a member of the military, when people die and when there is not a serious military response, i would hope that if i was in that situation that the house foreign affairs committee with the have a hearing for a year or two until they find out what happened. also that the government, i know what you meant, but it really doesn't matter who did it just because it was done it was terrorism. but i think it does matter. i think we need answers on that because ultimately gives us a blueprint on who we need to kill or capture, which i think is important. another colleague earlier said if there was any force nearby that could have responded between the beginning of the attack and by the time ambassador stevens was killed, that is probably true, there was a 90 minute lag. three other americans have died. some seven hours later. you also mentioned that the nearest military assets were in djibouti and i have been there. it is an important base and i appreciate that. >> or you can lay with that. >> yes, i am, sir. the reason that i cited djibouti is that is what the defense department has told me. >> i am sure that they are aware of this as well. the 1049 miles away from benghazi, the direct flight. and dallas to washington, which you mentioned, is a 1330 miles away. and there is a show of force, which comes in quite very low and scatters an enemy and i've always wondered why an eight hours we couldn't have made that happen. the question on this if you made the decision to terminate the sst and he testified that there was a replacement, is that correct? >> that is correct. the state department that replaced the capacity and six of the billets that were part of the 16 that remained in the country. >> and they were based out of tripoli? >> just. >> and they responded to benghazi? >> it was their movement from the attack and the replacement team to benghazi. >> just. >> and how did they get there? >> did they charter and aircraft? >> just. >> the dc three was no longer there. but it was never based in tripoli. it was based in malta. so when we would've had this -- >> but we utilize that, right? >> not is fine, but what we using it for? >> a commercial airport involves this and tripoli. before there was any commercial airline service is established. this commercial airline was established and -- >> but we had to charter and aircraft into benghazi, and how long did that take? >> i can look at. >> they were able to respond. definitely not probably in time. it is interesting that chartering and aircraft can be done faster than military can have an aircraft on alert and respond to benghazi in a short amount of time with f-16 power. thank you for your testimony, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. we go now to randy weber. from texas. >> your children are safe, but there is a phone in the white house. something is happening here in the world. >> you remember that? >> i don't ever remember hearing the commercial, but i am well aware of it, yes, sir. >> who didn't answer that call? >> i believe that the call was answered, sir. >> who didn't keep mary stevens as chris stevens mothers son, keep them safe? have we gotten to the bottom of who is accountable? >> yes, sir, i am. >> are you prepared -- would you like the task of going to mary stevens and explaining to her that for people getting reassigned is paying a price? >> sir, they were not reassigned. they were relieved of their senior-level positions and that is a serious disciplinary action. >> you said in your remark the presented on page six that under this convention of 1961, we do our part and we are sending marine security guide untrained guards. >> who sent the security guards into benghazi? >> at that point we in the department of defense had only 100 and enough personnel to deploy 152 bring security guard detachment and we had 285 posts. >> do you think that that is an acceptable explanation to ms. mary stevens? >> is the facts, sir. and it is also part of your helping us get the additional funding that is allowing us -- >> on page 90 also said regarding this accusation -- the department has created this for a high threat posed. and then you intimate who undoubtably will send marines. if they have asked for a new post, who is responsible -- whose responsibility without the for benghazi happened? whose responsibility when they created a post just for that. then he went on to say that you believe it was everybody's responsibility and security was everyone's responsibility. >> that is correct, sir. >> i agree with the fact that there are those -- you say that they were held accountable and i call it reassignment. was anyone denied pay or benefits of those for? >> with the secretary of state was carrying out was a review. under the american system of fairness, we do not, in effect, find someone guilty until the review is completed. >> you said that is an essential element and that is what he said. let me tell you this. the american public says that an essential element of fairness is that we get to the bottom of this and someone is held accountable. you said that the arb is that no one had a breach of duty. >> that is what the statute -- >> you just read testified that security was everyone's responsibility. what is the difference between responsibility and duty? >> i do not see a different. >> so there was a breach of duty than? >> no. >> was there? >> i don't -- >> and he would be okay explaining that? >> i said that there was no breach of duty. i concur -- to i am almost done here, mr. chairman. i would submit that it is congress' duty and your duty to get to the bottom of this and someone is held accountable. if we don't do that, then we have a breach of duty. mr. chairman, i agree with that. >> we go now to scott perry of pennsylvania. >> thank you, ambassador. i'm sure that you are busy. you are the secretary for management, is that correct? secretary for management? undersecretary? >> undersecretary. >> okay, thank you for the correction. would you help a friend if they were in trouble? >> absolutely. >> i would just like to point out for the record that the secretary had a hand in appointing for of the numbers and according to previous testimony and answers to determine comment you made recommendations regarding those potential appointees. the question regarding that. do you read your e-mails when a crisis situation is occurring? >> i read every e-mail before i go home in the evening. >> thank you. >> should the state department excepting issues of national security and operational security order classified information be generally transparent, should the department be generally transparent excepting those issues? >> absolutely. >> should foreign service and military service members have an expectation that the u.s. government is going to do everything that it can to ensure their safety? >> absolutely. >> so when did you know based on solid intelligence that the rhetoric your agency was telling the american people and the world is in correct? when did you know that? >> after the television talkshow. >> well, they went on for weeks. can you be specific? >> the information that ambassador rice used on the television talk shows was based on information -- >> okay, so you're not going to be very specific. you are far away, with all due respect. but this is a transcribed copy of an e-mail in which you are included. it is as of 12:46 p.m., a quarter to one on the 12th, a day later in which all sharia is noted by the assistant secretary beth jones. so at that point, for your testimony, you knew by that afternoon, since you review your e-mails at the end of the day, you knew at that point. >> if i might, sir, all sharia, a spokesperson from sharia -- >> i understand that. >> at that moment -- at that moment -- at that moment you the next day that they withdrew. >> but at that moment -- what did you personally do to set this straight on the talking points in the message that was going on to the american people? what did you do? >> i knew at that point that all sharia spokesman had with john that claim and i am, as you said, i am aim management officer of the state department. when you get complex issues like responsibilities -- >> when the government of the country recognizes that was a terrorist attack -- yorty said in this hour that you recognize this was a terrorist attack and you don't do anything collectively to change it. the collectivity of the intelligence community concluded that what they concluded with this. that is a terrorist attack -- three weeks, your administration were department put out to the american people that it was a spontaneous eruption of a demonstration. let me move on. -- you are a manager. so you can get things done. you are at a high level. why must this committee transcribe -- this is an e-mail to you. it's not in uniform. why must we transcribe all the information that we get. why can't we get it and we will make the copies of it. why can't we? why must we subpoena you? why are you not forthcoming? >> determinist already -- the chairman has posed that question and i have taken the question. >> what was your answer? what are you doing about it? >> i'm taking the question that the state department commissary. >> you're in a position of managing. what are you going to do to answer right now? >> i'm telling you, sir, that i'm taking the question. >> i do not want to point fingers. i'm not here to point fingers. i think it is abundantly clear after year to the american people what is happening here. this administration and your department, in particular, they are stonewalling. they don't want to give up the information that they have been doing since this began. they actively misled and continue to mislead now regarding the facts and we just want the facts. it is apparent that the information came out regarding the talking points do not comport with the president's narrative and an election time with the presidential election looming. so they have to be changed and that is apparent. it is also apparent that the administration continues to hide this factor with the american people in regard to foreign service officers. it is apparent that if that happens again, with the president's narrative, they would be killed, sodomized, have their bodies drug through the streets for all the world to see instead of having this administration find out what really happened. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back the. >> mr. chairman, may i respond? >> yes. >> sir, i have been a foreign service officer for 40 years. we do everything we can to have outlined here in an attempt to mitigate risk to personnel overseas. being a diplomat is an inherently risky activity and i cannot work -- nor can i believe it that anyone can end that risk. we do everything we can to mitigate the risk. but we cannot and the risk. >> we are going out to mr. trey rado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we know that the four people are relieved of their senior positions. they essentially get reassigned somewhere else. can you tell me -- you got eyre, scott, shelley -- what are they doing today? >> one of them has been reassigned to a lower-level position in the bureau of african affairs. one of them is the director of the office of foreign missions and the other two are being reassigned to positions of lesser responsibility with no worldwide pure view. >> still undoubtably, unquestionably, not higher seniority levels. >> they are being reassigned, they have been assigned to positions of lesser responsibility. >> lesser responsibility. okay. >> quickly with what mr. william maxwell -- i don't understand why he gets put on administrative leave when his duties do not include any review or approval or even formations or recommendations regarding security resources in libya. why is this? >> mr. maxwell was the deputy assistant secretary of state in the bureau of middle eastern affairs responsible for the band of countries across the north african area, including libya. libya was within the deputy assistant secretaries area. >> i think he you would agree with me that all this here -- regardless of what side of the aisle we are on, we know that it's important to learn from our mistakes. part of the improvements that we have made on this committee, we have passed some legislation and i worked with the congresswoman on the protecting americans abroad act, which allowed states to hire the best of the best when it comes to security, not the cheapest. we are proud of that and we have a bipartisan committee here. it is not political what we are doing here. we know that it is important to learn from mistakes and but we also need accountability. which is why we are here today. we can show need to show the american people who we are to hold and to it is also said that this will not be tolerated and this will never ever happen again people are dead. i don't know, but there are four men that are dead. the young girls will never walk down the aisle with her father at their wedding and the young boys will never be able to toss a football with their data. the people who are responsible for this have been relieved of their senior positions. reassignment equals accountability and this is not equal. reassignment is not equal accountability. whether they would never make the paycheck, whether they would have their cushy government jobs and get attention. in the real world this would never happen. if the four people including the ambassador said, this is unacceptable. we are required in some way shape or form to have someone be held accountable. not only within our own government, but let's pray that we find the people that are responsible for this attack. because everyone has blood on their hands. it is unacceptable. reassignment does not equal accountability, and mr. chair, i've read the rest of my time in your hands. i yield my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i agree with the congressman on my left to the left over here that we should focus on making our embassy and personnel safer around the world. in order to do that, we must look at our failures of the past so that we do not make the same mistakes again. i would like to reference a report here. the deputy chief, gregory hicks, stated that secretary clinton talked about a permanent constituent host and ambassador pickering when asked when this was discussed, he looked both ways and asked if they know about this. a broader questioning that they should look at this through the arb. which stands for accountability review board. the 1999 arb report says that the response to the bombings, this report urged that the secretary of state should take a personal an active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of u.s. diplomatic personnel abroad. and the board should have questions to which the secretary of the phils or does not fulfill this mandate. with ambassador stevens making multiple requests for security, and being denied in lieu of this report so that we don't make the same course again, would you agree that we should have probably question higher up in the chain of command? >> your first question about the permanent host an ungodly.. you know, i would've been the person who would've launched this -- >> mr. chairman, i have the report. i will submit for questioning. >> the second one? >> the secretary does take the responsibility very responsibility seriously. it reached the point that we could no longer mitigate the risk. and we instantaneously replied take the people out. we have no actionable intelligence as the director of national intelligence has said about this threat in benghazi. therefore -- i never went to the secretary of state and told her it was time to leave benghazi. >> i'm going to cut you off the. >> do you think that the arb should a question higher up? >> that is a judgment for the arb. >> booty report directly? >> you said you are accountable to the secretary. the logistics and contracting and security for the operations and as a principal advisor on managing the issues. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you oversee the day-to-day operations? >> yes, sir. >> you are accountable? >> yes, sir. >> if they miss an objective, would ultimately be your responsibility? yes or no? >> absolutely. >> is it a sign of lack of management? >> not necessarily. >> would be a lack of responsibility on your part? >> not necessarily. >> due to the subordinate, you say that it is not necessarily your superiors fault either enact. >> yes, sir, that is correct. >> mr. clinton was part of this at the time. and i was president of this committee and we interviewed mrs. clinton, she said she requested personally for ambassador stevens to come and take this assignment. >> yes, sir, i am the one who set up the appointment. >> he said that this was understaffed at the time. is that correct? >> that is the conclusion. >> you also said that this was part of local personnel in benghazi's population? >> that is what was first reported, but there were no threats against the u.s. temporary mission organs that personnel? >> ambassador stevens had increased security, requested increase security on more than one occasion? >> that is true. >> who turned those down, do you know? >> i have reviewed the situation and every request is that testified, it every request was made for improvements were okayed and funded with the exception, which i mentioned earlier. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you, sir. the gentleman from new york is now recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. kennedy, that needs to be discussed before we can restore the trust of the american people in terms of what happened in benghazi or what could happen in the future. i would like you to refocus our attention on these four people, you say that they have blocked their titles. but let me be clear. they have not lost any money or any benefits. yes or no? >> no. >> okay, so they had an eight month paid leave while the state department is under investigation. is that correct? >> correct. >> so they have been off for eight months. i also serve on the government reform committee and i know that we have made a number of requests that have gone unanswered. were there any adverse -- other than changes and post changes, were there any adverse personnel actions that were taken against the four people, according to the arb, they were systemically involved and mismanaged. so that is talking about two people -- >> okay, two of the four. did any adverse actions happened to those two people? >> -- >> yes or no? >> i understand in your opinion, a title change is a big deal. that we are talking about four dead americans. so let's look at it like this. >> removing someone as a deputy set terry is a major act. >> it is troubling for me to hear this report. these two people are being considered for very high profile and secure pros overseas and knowing that the state department takes about 12 months to go through that, it means that that review process had to have started while they were on administrative leave. are you aware of that? >> you are correct, sir. the process that we assign. >> are you aware that they are being part of these high-profile situations overseas? >> they have not been assigned anywhere. >> you are avoiding my question. are you aware that they are being considered for high profile and secure positions overseas? >> i guess the answer is no. obviously -- >> is either yes or no. obviously yes or no while this is pending. one has to look at this. >> but you are in charge. >> yes, but the secretary of state, as he expressed in his letter. >> are you aware? yes or no. >> obviously have to have options. the secretary said he was going to fire them will make another decision. >> that this is a high-profile post. >> i'm afraid that i don't know. >> are you willing, as the person in charge -- you just said you were in charge. are you willing to report back to this committee to make us aware, from your response, but you would be supportive of any high-profile posting for these two individuals. is that correct? you would not be supportive of it? >> i would not be supportive of any position which these individuals have the same levels -- >> that is not what i'm asking. the high-profile post overseas. you are supportive of it. >> no, sir. i am neither one or the other. profile and responsibility are two different things. >> that is a judgment call on your part. this report talks about bonuses between 10 and 15,000-dollar bonuses are given to the state department. up until 2011, those were disclosed publicly and it now appears that either you were secretary clinton have made a decision not to disclose those. is that correct enact. >> i am unaware of that. >> so you would be glad to support it, because it has been suggested that some of the people got bonuses and that now we are not disclosing it because it would look bad? are you not aware of that? >> i am also not aware because i cannot say that anyone got a bonus. >> okay, so who made the decision? you were secretary clinton to not be transparent in regards to bonuses. >> i have to go back and find out. i may have done something. but that is a level of detail -- >> i yield back, thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you so much, mr. tim meadows. >> sir, your next. >> thank you. i have to comment on the brief exchange of my colleagues, mr. meadows. i asked if you knew some words and what i am puzzled about is that you earlier mentioned and it hasn't made a determination of what caused the attack, but we heard it was a video including the president. and he was asking if you need some words and i'm going to ask you if you know some words. do you know the word stonewalling? do you know the word cover-up? >> yes, sir. >> do you know the word scandal? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to yield my time to the gentleman from california. i think mr. meadows line of questioning fits those three questions or definitions. >> thank you very much, thank you for yielding to me. let me just note that there are two distinct views of this whole episode in american history. we have you telling us that sends that murder, that terrorist attack, but there has been a full-court press on the part of the administration to bring those to justice to get the word out about the american people. it is expressed by my friend, mr. stockman, what seems to be part of the stonewalling from iowa and a cover-up. i think that it is vital for the american people to understand the truth of which of these views reflects reality. let me ask you just a couple of questions. how many government employees, including the agency and etc., how many government employees were in benghazi the night of the attack? >> madam chair, i respectively cannot answer questions that have classified information in the session. >> if i could interrupt the gentleman, could we do that in a classified setting, as early as tomorrow or the next day? >> i am prepared to appear any time -- >> okay, let me ask you something to your knowledge. have any of these -- because we have been told that there are a number of figures out there in terms of up to 40 people or 45 people. many of whom had skills enough to be engaged in defending our ambassador in preventing that attack or thwarting it. any of those people who were there, of course you cannot tell us how many, have been asked not to cooperate with congressional or media inquiries were to take a lie detector test. >> i am unaware of any state department personnel being instructed like that in the state department is not used by detectors like that. >> okay, i am unaware of the state department. i don't think i asked about the state department. i don't have knowledge of any of those individuals on the scene, you can't tell me how many that there were, but you know that they were there, in the ability not to cooperate with a congressional investigation. i don't know the state department people, but that wasn't the question. >> i'm the undersecretary of state and can only answer questions about the state department. >> okay, that is a good god as well. as the ambassador has been murdered and three others have been murdered, it's a terrorist attack, why aren't they the ones doing this investigation and why isn't the fbi doing internal domestic investigations? >> by statute, the fbi is charged with responsibility for the killing of any american citizen overseas. that is an fbi statute or in the fbi obviously works with the cia and the military, but that is a congressional statute -- >> it gives whom the sole responsibility? >> the fbi is a law enforcement agency, sir. >> okay, let me make it very clear that we are not talking about a crime. not law-enforcement, this is one of the distinct differences between the administration so you can talk about the approach, which is a matter of national security which the cia and all the rest of our intelligence agencies should have been involved in. instead people are treating it as a crime and they don't want to go into benghazi because they haven't been given permission. this is absolutely absurd. i don't think that that is lost on the american people are. >> if i might, the fbi is a member of the intelligence community. the fbi is both a natural security law enforcement and intelligence agencies. >> they're also basic law enforcers. terrorism and terrorism threats to united states as a security issue, the cia and these others are giving it over to law enforcement and it is a mistake in the decision from the top. >> yes, sir. >> we want to thank the ambassador for his times a day. as we have heard, the committee is deeply concerned with the lack of accountability at the state department. several members have outstanding questions and we have been trying for some time to get those documents directly. so we know that the department will be answering those outstanding questions in a timely fashion. but we reiterate and we need those answers now. we need those documents and we thank you again, ambassador kennedy, for your testimony today. we thank the members as well. >> thank you, sir. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> senators return to the capital tomorrow as we began consideration on a house bill to fund the federal government has september 30. it contains language to defend the health care law. before wrapping up work today, majority leader harry reid took action to set up a test vote on a measure for wednesday. the senate is expected to focus most of its time this week on that bill. >> in a few moments, the head of the environmental protection agency, gina mccarthy, on climate change. in any forum on changing voter demographics and how it will affect teacher elections. and how nasa is managing its the structure. and members of congress look at how to implement the health care exchanges in the health care law. >> almanacs "washington journal", a look at legislation to keep the government from shutting down at the end of the month in republican efforts to use the built to take funding away from the federal health care law. our guests are republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin and democratic congressman jim moran. and a look at how the health care battles could affect next year's house and senate races. we'll talk with the editor of the hotline. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> c-span's online archives will redefine social education in america. the video vault and video library is a great resource for you to view and share content anytime. it's easy. here is how, go to c-span.org and go to the video library to watch the newest video. click on what you want to watch and click on play. you can also search the video library for a specific topic or keyword or you can find a person, type in their name and click on search and go to people. go to their biopage and scroll down. we can also use the set button or handle tools to add a title and description and click on share and send by e-mail, facebook, or twitter or google plus. the video library is searchable and easy and free. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable and satellite provider. >> next, gina mccarthy on climate change and new standards to limit pollution for future plans. from the national press club, this is one hour. >> good morning and welcome to the national press club. my name is angela greiling keane, i am a reporter for bloomberg news in the 106th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at www.press.org. to donate to programs offered to the public for national press club journalism institute, please visit press.org backslash institute. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you in our audience today. we include our speakers and working journalists who are club members. if you hear applause in the audience, note that members of the general public are also attending so it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i'd also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow some twitter using the hash talk in turn tag now, it is time to introduce our head table. i would ask each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced. from the right, a reporter for bloomberg news. the leveler, host of fox energy week. margaret lyons, u.s. correspondent for the interfax national gas report. harold levin, president and ceo, mike phil hamm, a reporter for energy way. kenneth mccarry, president of vice speaker. skipping over, alison fitzgerald, and chairman of the national press club speakers committee and private manager for the center for public integrity. brought to go, a freelance editor and the national press club speaker committee member who organized today's breakfast. reverend haskins, debra demarco, environment correspondent and clear cambridge, artist media, which produces artists media daily. and bob crouse. thank you. [applause] barely two months ago after 136 days of delay, senate critics as well as entering more than 1000 questions, our guests today would confirm as the 13th administrator of the environmental protection agency. gina mccarthy was already familiar with the agency that she had and she served since 2009 as the epa assistant administrator for air and narration. despite a background that included environmental issues in massachusetts and connecticut, argos could only muster six votes for her confirmation in the senate. that may not be surprising given that she is the person to carry out president obama's pledge from his second inaugural address to respond to the threat of climate change knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. many senators, that was the latest articulation of a so-called war on coal in the economies of states that depend on this used to generate nearly 40% of the nation's electricity. on june 25, president obama double down, directing the epa to issue regulations to address the emission of greenhouse gases from natural gas fired power plants. the intensity of the backlash to the proposal was on display on wednesday when our speaker appeared before a skeptical and at times hostile group of lawmakers on the energy commerce committee. administrator mccarthy and other members of the panel say that coal will continue to play an important role in generating electricity for years to come. it may be less about the details of the new epa proposal, but the fact that coal generation is already being displaced by natural gas, which is being discovered and produced at a record rate because of technology and hydraulic fracturing. the ministry here is a boston native and has spoken about the thrill of getting to play ball at fenway park. please help me give a warm national press club welcome to the epa administrator gina mccarthy. [applause] [applause] >> well, thank you, angela. i will tell you that was a long wait through the confirmation process, but was it worth it to get to be in this position and to work for those on the behalf of the american public and the great people at the epa. it is a wonderful agency and i am so proud to be where i am today. i also want to tell you that i thought this was pretty good. maybe that's just me. [laughter] i want to thank you for all the work needed putting this together. thank you to the head table for being assembled today. good morning, everyone. it is great to be here and i appreciate your coming. less than three months ago, president obama stood outside in sweltering heat to unveil a new national plan to confront the growing threat of climate change. he delivered, in my opinion, one of the most important speeches of his presidency. i will admit that i am a little bit biased. but in those 45 minutes, the president laid out not only a vision, but a plan for protecting our kids and their families, from pollution and fighting the threat of climate change. he called upon agencies across the federal government, including the epa to take action to cut carbon pollution and protect our country from the impact of an already changing climate, and to lead the world in this effort. he asked this one very important question that we all need to ask ourselves. do we have the courage to act before it is too late? how we answer that question will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind for our children. the president called us to take action and we have responded. why wouldn't we? our job is to protect public health and protect the environment. the epa is, in fact, the only agency solely focused on delivering clean air and clean water and a healthy environment to american families. for more than 40 years, the epa has done its job well. with honor and with great distinction. for more than 40 years, the epa has worked tirelessly, hand in hand, reaching out, understanding and developing the best science available in being transparent in our decision-making. we have done our job, as i say, working with everyone from states to businesses to ngos and anyone that we can to ensure that we progress in a way that is sensible and addresses issues reasonably insensibly across all the regions of this country. the overwhelming judgment of science tells us that climate change is real. but human activities are fueling that change. we must take actions to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change. we all know that this is not just about melting glaciers. climate change caused by carbon pollution is one of the most significant public health threats of our time. that is why the epa has been called to action. that is what today's action is so important and why we really need to talk about it. not just this morning, but when you go home to your own community. it is a subject that deserves to be brought up and to be thought of as seriously as we can in our everyday lives. let me explain why it is so important. and why it is so important to the epa in the public health. climate change is really about water. clean and reliable sources of drinking water. it is about aging water and wastewater treatment facilities that end up overstressed and flooded during all of these extreme weather events. it's about mudslides and storm surges from pounding rain and ensuring that we are back up and overflow and storm systems that let pollution attack is sensitive ecosystems like our wetlands that are estuaries that threaten our fish and wildlife. it is about all of these impacts spoiling the beauty and vitality of some of this country's most iconic water box that threaten our country and our safety and the livability of our community. climate change is also about heat wave and drought. droughts that drive up food prices. that threaten our food supply, as well as manufacturing operations that rely on water every day to run businesses. and climate change is about wildfires and wildfires like recent ones in the southwest. fires that in 2012 alone scorched more than 9 million acres across eight states. that is an area of more than 2.5 times the great state of connecticut. think of all of that property damage? the air pollution caused by these fires. it destroyed landscapes and it puts communities and lives at risks. it is also about the spread of disease. warmer temperatures contributing to the rise of creatures like mosquitoes and ticks. the bites may not seem that way, but they spread diseases like the west nile virus and lyme disease. are there and wider at the climate change. most importantly, climate change is about clean and healthy air for all of us to breathe. it is about health. carbon pollution in hotter weather can lead to longer allergy seasons and increase heat related death and direct threat to those who suffer from chronic lung and heart diseases. we all know that rising temperatures bring increased smog. so let me drill down on this one issue just a bit. the epa has been studying and regulating pollution that leads to ground-level in what we call smog for decades. we know this issue. one thing we know for sure is that when the weather gets hotter, the smog gets worse and people of all ages suffer. my guess is that many of you know someone who is affected by its job. it makes it harder to breathe and to many of us have health challenges that small can make words. take daniel loughlin, for example. a retired executive from wheaton, illinois, he suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or copd. it is a life-threatening illness that affects the lungs and the respiratory system. it is exactly the kind of condition that can be made worse by smog. buckley daniel received a lung transplant and his health has improved significantly when he was on death's door. that last year when he felt a little better, he made the trip to the epa to tell us his story. he did that because he wanted to make one specific act or agency. he asked us to take action on climate change. because daniel understood how much climate change leads to increased air pollution, like the one that he had been suffering from so much worse. unfortunately his story is all too familiar. it is not just adults or the elderly that suffer from this. in fact, it is about our children. especially children in lower incomes and urban communities. if your child doesn't need to use an inhaler, then you are one lucky parent. because one in 10 children today in the united states live with asthma every day. i said that correctly. it is one in 10 children. when it comes to health concerns, don't your children always come to mind first? and at the end of the day, that is what this issue of climate change is all about. that is why the epa cares about climate change and why we know that we must take action now. that is why people from low income environmental justice communities all across the nation are concerned about climate change. because those communities are so often most at risk when disaster strikes. that is like groups like moms rising are speaking out against the threat of climate change and pollution to protect our children from those dangers. that is why faith groups of denominations of all kinds are encouraging action. we must meet our moral obligations for the next generation and our precious natural resources. it is those that provide the foundation for our health and well-being and yes, for our economy as well. the president's climate action plan calls on federal agencies to take steady and sensible and pragmatic steps cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels our changing climate and to prepare for unavoidable impact based upon the climate change that is already happening and is inevitable. he also called upon us to provide continued international leadership and engage those issues more effectively so that the united states could leverage our actions internationally so that we can address a global challenge in this way. but he also told us that we need to continue to provide affordable and reliable energy for all. that is why we are here today, we are here to announce that the epi is taking one of those important steps. the proposal to limit carbon pollution from new power plants. power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution. new power plants, both natural gas and coal fire can minimize the carbon emissions by taking advantage of available technology. this offers them a clear pathway forward today and in the long-term. let me get to the details of the proposal. these proposed standards are the first uniform national limit on carbon pollution. they do not apply to existing power plants. it might be well if i repeat it one more time so that everybody gets it. these proposed standards are the first national limit on carbon pollution. on new plants. they do not apply to existing power plants. today's proposal set separate national limit in the new national power plants and coal fired power plants. it would lead to a limit of 1000 pounds of co2 for per hour. including new plans would fit a limit of 1100 pounds per hour. a new coal plant would need to meet a limit of 1100 pounds of co2 per megawatt hour and coal plants can also choose to have additional flexibility if they want to average their admissions over multiple years by beating a somewhat tighter limit. now, some of you may remember that we proposed standards for new power plants last year and we may be saying to ourselves, why are they starting all over again. well, let me explain. we have received extensive comments on these facts. and on the early approach as well, we have generated considerable new data they came in through that comment. back. we understood more about what technologies are available and how effective those technologies can be. we have taken a look at the recent trends in the power sector and we did what democracy demands. we paid attention. we've read the comments and we thought about them. we decided that we needed to update the proposal. that is what today's proposal reflects. we are very confident that the carbon pollution standards that we are proposing today for new power plants are flexible and achievable. they pave a path forward for the next generation of power plants in this country. the standards are flexible. they set different standards for different types of power plants and that is what the data has helped us to understand. the standards are achievable because they secured major environmental protections, but they reflect the demonstrated performance of a variety of clean and homegrown technologies. technologies that are already entering the market and being constructed in plants today. the standard sets the stage for continued public and private investments in technology that is so important. technologies like carbon, capture, sequestration. but these investments, technologies will mature and become as common new power plants as scrubbers have become poor well-controlled existing plants today. if there's one thing i have learned over the course of my work in implementing the clean air act, it is that power plants have really long lifespans. longer than mine, even. sometimes 50 years or more, sometimes 70. the people are making decisions about how to build new plants today, which is one reason that we need to ask about this today. that is what makes this so very important and why this proposal takes full advantage of all of the cutting edge technology that increases efficiency and reduces waste. that translates into lower carbon emissions and more efficient and effective clean energy. as always, the epa is expected that we will get lots of comments from this proposal and we will do what we did before and we will give each and every comment our fellow consideration. but all this talk of cutting carbon pollution, you're probably asking yourself what are they doing about the pollution from existing power plants. well, let me explain a few things. first of all, addressing existing power plants is an important piece of the presidents climate action plan and we are committed to act on having reductions in emissions from these plants as well. however, those standards are on a longer timeframe. we plan to release a proposal for public comment in june of next year and that is june of 2014. we started the process already in order to meet that timeline. the process was started was when it involved an engagement with states and local governments and industry leaders and ngos and we will organizations and businesses and others who want to believe in. and we plan to be in very close consultation with the states and we have to venture that any guidance that the epa puts out in june of 2014 can translate into flexibility is sufficient to account for the differences among our states and regions. i can promise you that the epa will follow the course that president obama started in a speech in june. we want to get and we will get to appoint when we are building partnerships with states and local communities in with local leaders so that we understand the options available and the options that must be available to make an existing standard and effective carbon reduction strategy. we can learn a lot from ongoing efforts to reduce carbon pollution. those have moved us toward a cleaner more great generation already. we hold to build on the progress that is currently going on and frankly has been going on for years at the state and local level. ten states are already participating in their own marketplace for graham to cut this from carbon. i should make sure that everyone knows that carbon is spelled like carbon. i will talk about cars later as well. which is spelled car. [laughter] more than 35 states have clean energy policies and more than 25 have already talked about energy efficiency goals that have cut their energy waste. over 1000 mayors across the country have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. clearly states and local communities are doing their jobs as incubators of innovation and they are leading the way to cleaner and more sustainable energy. they have proven that fighting climate change just makes good business sense. that is worth repeating and climate change just makes good business sense. as the president has pointed out, more than 500 businesses, including gm and nike, called acting on climate change one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century. we know that climate change and protecting our kids from harmful pollution is something that just cannot be solved overnight. it is going to take a broad and concerted effort from all levels of government, as well as the private sector and as well as individuals and the international community. but make no mistake about it. the epa's action today to address carbon pollution from new power plants is an important step forward in this long journey. it is a necessary step to a dress in public health challenge that we all simply cannot afford to avoid any longer. but the good news is we can successfully face the climate change and only if we work together. we have proven time after time that they fair act standards to protect public health does not cause the sky to fall. the economy does not tumble. in fact, we are already talking about our investments in clean energy payoff just this week and they released a report that showed that the cost of the nobles are dropping just this last year the u.s. deployed almost twice as much wind as it did just the year before. working together with inputs from states and communities and tribes and environmental advocates. we have grown our economy and driven our innovation which creates more livable communities to hand down to our children and our grandchildren. don't forget, because i will always remind you that under this president's leadership, just a few years ago, we have established fuel economy standards and those standards save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump. they did not cripple the auto industry. we made it stronger and they made it more competitive and by working on and on with industries, the united auto workers consumer group and environmental advocates and others got the job done and it right. with the support of the auto industry and we achieved this that will cut pollution from our cars by half by 2025. the average driver will save more than $8000 at the pump over the life of the cars. often the collapsing, it's actually driving. 300,000 jobs have been added in that industry alone since the president of the united states rescued it from collapse. forty years of cleaner history proves that we can reduce history and create jobs and strengthen the economy. the old rules might have said that we cannot protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time. you have heard it and you have heard. but in america, we have always sought out and used new technologies. we have used science and research and development and we have used discovery to make those old rules obsolete. here in the united states we have the know-how and the skill and we know we have the ingenuity to take on the challenge of these kind of changes. we can and we must turn this public health and environmental challenge into an economic opportunity. as the president has reminded us, all we need is the courage to act. for me, i muster the courage every time i look into the wonderful faces of my three children, daniel and maggie and julie. in the end, that is what this is about for all of us and the obligation to leave our children a world that is healthy and safe as the one we inherited. we thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. is your proposal and effectively and with coal-fired power plants given that technologies are, at this point, not proven that expensive and not yet ready for this remap. >> who wrote that question enact. [applause] >> i don't know. >> well, clearly not. i really appreciate that question. i am actually glad that it came out first. because ccs is the technology that is feasible and available today. we know that. how do we know that? because it has been demonstrated to be effective. we know that it has been demonstrated and it is being actually constructed on rail facilities today. not just unconventional facilities that coal facilities, those unconventional and conventional coal facilities are actually being invested in and constructive and and the designs are now available for others that are coming up. i think the coal industry is in those investors have known that there needs to be a certain pathway forward for cool to be successful now and into the future. i believe that this proposal, rather than killing future cool, actually sets up a certain pathway forward to continue to be part of the perverseness in this country. we know that coal is going to be part of the energy generation that we rely upon substantially over the next two decades. why would we now not acknowledge and invest in the kind of technologies that would allow coal a future long beyond that? the president has made a commitment to support a diverse energy supply because it helps us economically and domestically, as well as protecting us from international concerns. we might as well invest today said that pathway forward. we believe that this does that. we believe that over time you'll be able to see that there is a reasonable and cost-effective strategy as we move forward to keep coal in the energy mix. >> to what extent, if any, did the epa's aid the coal industry, or was that a legitimate concern during the discussion? >> i will tell you that the epa, and i am very proud of the people who do this work. they spend a great deal of time working with the industry themselves. the cocoa we will be necessary and at an act to have adequate level because it will be only partial ccs, but it will get them prepared as time goes on to be competitive in a carbon-constrained world, and we always come as epa, do wonderful cost-benefit analysis so that we can now understand for the american people and lay it out in a public and transparent fashion so that they can understand the impact of our rule from the public health protection to the cost associated with it. in this case we think we have done exactly the right job and looking at what the science and dated tells us and to make a sensible, reasonable step forward to address what is essentially one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. >> you said just this week that coal will continue to be a significant source of energy for decades. what assurances do you have to offer to those are skeptical of the motive of the epa? >> well, i think i have made the motive pretty clear. a job is to look at public health and environmental protection. we have implemented the clean air act. in this action and the way we have looked at every other pollutants as they move forward. the epa does not have aspirations that are outside of the authority in their charge that congress has given us. if we are simply applying the law as it was intended to the pollution that is regulated and the clean air act, but we have done what we have always done, taking a look at how to be reasonable and rational, understand the data, look at the technology available, and make sure that we kraft our decisions in a way that is fully science-based, felipe gated driven, and is reasonable and rational. i am not making a statement, nor would we ever about some independent choice. we are looking at, as we always do, the ways in which we can reasonably reduce pollution with the authority that congress is given us. >> what steps will you take to ensure a that electricity consumers will not be harmed? please explain since some areas will feel more impact than others. >> that is a good question. let me make a note so i do not forget. in this rulemaking we have to keep in mind that this is about future power plants, new power plants. so really we needed to understand what technologies were available and make sure that we robo greuel -- cost-effective technologies given the fact that any investment is going to be hanging around for awhile. we will be living with that plant and those technology choices for decades to come. we do not think that is a regional issue. we think that is just about how you build a new power plant and use the most effective technologies. however, when you again flexibility is, the changes that you saw, one of them was on the natural gas side. if you look at the comments that came in under our proposal there were questions and concerns about the level we had originally proposed and whether or not some of the smaller natural gas units really could have operationally and effectively achieve that standard in a consistent way. we have two data for discussion and established slightly different standards that would give flexibility recognizing operational issues. these are all technical discussions we look at in great detail. the second thing we did was call retook a look at averaging time frames applicable to these standards, the ones i have indicated, 1100 pounds of carbon dioxide per amenable -- megawatt power. but we also did was put in a flexibility that would allow them to average over a 7-year timeframe. we did that not because we would get lower environmental protection, because we will not. it requires partial ccs to be put on to that facility as it is designed and constructed, but what we recognized was ccs meet present a challenge out of the gate in terms of whether or not you understand how to operate effectively, with their not you have all of the equipment you need as to end up as it needs to be. and so we gave flexibility to get to a slightly lower standard for the and opportunity to have seven years to make the system right. that should be plenty of time given that ccs is already technically feasible, available, and is being constructed in facilities today. >> why did the epa decided to shorten the flexibility option? >> that is a good follow-on question. i do not know. no, i'm only kidding. [laughter] again, i think we learned from the data that came in during the comment. we began to understand with the challenges were with this technology, and as i said before, we started looking at the shift in the actual energy world. if you remember, during the original proposal be had 15 really traditional coal proposals that were out there and since the proposal, most of them, not getting funded and are not moving forward. it will be realized was the ones that are attracting investment and that will provide fuel diversity and certain to moving forward were ones that installed ccs. we understood that that was a pathway for word. what we were able to do is get a much better handle on the kinds of adjustments that would need to be made, a better handle on how long it would take to address those issues and found a way to provide flexibility without losing the environmental protections that the original proposal and sought. in getting the environment or actions at the same time as providing just the right flexibility that we needed to make this work for the industry. >> did the revised proposal factor and the updated social cost of curbing values? >> yes. let me explain. let me get this issue, if you don't mind, and little bit more robustly because it has become an issue of concern. the epa job when we do rulemaking is to look at cost and benefits. that means that we are supposed to look at all of the benefits of the rules that we do and all of the cost to the extent that we can identify those through peer-review process these. back in the prior administration , 2008, they did start looking at the cost of mundane and factoring that in to their rulemaking. this did not begin with this administration because everybody recognized that carbon actually have a cost. i think we now know that that cost as a lot larger than we had originally proposed because when you reduce carbon you are actually factoring in to your ability to address carbon pollution. when this administration came in they began and the process to look at what science has happened since then, what the modeling shows us about the year earlier costa met and projections, and we have stated it and put it in no rule in 2010. there is a good technical documents that is with that rule i do not think it was an epa rule. we put it out, and it was a document that was produced by the white house. there was a process. and we put it out. we had a good discussion, cap public comment. and removed at forward. we had a new cost. what it said was that we've reusing three of the models that are always used, most effectively to estimate climate impact. he said that as those models are updated or in two years we should look at this again because the information is changing as science comes in. that is how we do our business. that is what we did recently. we did an update because those models were updated. he did not change inputs. listen to to what appear reviewed scientists and economists told us about the real social cost of carbon. that has caused anxiety. that's why i wanted to explain this a little bit more fully. it is an issue where people are concerned that we went transparent. it went through our rulemaking process twice. it is in one now. the federal government makes its decisions on the basis of peer reviewed science, whether that is about public health consequences or economic consequences, and we are always open, providing technical information, take comment, consider that, and make decisions. that is all this is. >> when does the epa expects to finalize the regulations being proposed today? >> well, the clean air act gives us a 1-year timeframe. because when this particular rule goes out it really does send a signal to the industry. it sends a signal to the market that if you expect to construct and stirred up a facility you need to pay attention to these particular standards because that is going to be your obligation if they stay the same so it really has an impact. they recognize that and ask us to complete it. i will say that that does not mean of the course of the time we might not pay attention, but it sends a signal to the market right away, and we are hoping that that signal is that there is a way to build a coal facility that is clean and can operate for a long amount of time. >> if this works, will that put an end to efforts in california and the northeast states? >> yes, it will. i'm just kidding. [laughter] remember, the proposal we are putting out today is about new sources. it is not about existing. it is really just about sending a signal to the industry about what the latest technologies are and how we expect them to reduce pollutants under the clean air act. i think what that really refers to is the next step in the process. as i indicated, informational be available today and we are gearing up to start working with states and local communities and business communities to take a look at how we begin to address the existing standard. that is done very differently. the standards should not indicate that we think we can retrofit existing facilities by pointing carbon capture and sequestration on the end. it is designed in to these facilities which is why it is a very appropriate thing to look at this technology in new facilities which is why i do not want you to look at this proposal and say i know what they will do. that is not correct. it is also a different legal process for existing facilities. new processes is, of we finalize a standard and everyone complies. we hope. but in the case of existing facilities will we're really supposed to do is establish a and nine. then they challenges with the states to look at that catiline, like up there on facilities and send a plan back that ensures they can reach that plan and effectively reduce carbon in a way ahead is sensitive to local consumers and understands how electricity is being generated so that we can all work together which is why we are announcing today is a series of meetings and engagements with states and local communities all across the region and with the business community and utilities. if you wonder why the epa is that every energy conference imaginable, this is it. we are going people have information, we can develop my guidance that we put out engine. i will say that the clean air act in regard to this statute and many others requires that epa work with states and is co-regulators. i am looking forward to that. i have been one of those for many years when i worked at the state level. and in this instance state and local communities have been far ahead in understanding what actions make sense for them and how they can reduce the carbon from their electricity sector. we will go out with a great process that will explain the flexibility in the statute, explore those issues, provide certainty. we are going to pay attention to those process cheese, some of which i played a pretty heavy hand in crafting. i think they are still good. and we will make sure that we look at these regional differences and are respectful of the processes in place. frankly, these discussions would give us a wonderful opportunity to explain to the american public that they need not be afraid of the actions that we should take to address carbon and climate change. in fact, you will be hearing from members people have taken huge leaps forward in looking at how they can become more efficient which has been have brilliant opportunity for them to shift money and pay in and t-bills there are ways in which we can make this work for all of us, and i think this process will highlight that, and i know that the guidance we put out will respect that progress moving forward. >> technology is not currently being used at a commercial scale power plants. >> let me explain -- i probably should let all of the technical people explain. let me pretend. there are three components. the capture, the transportation, and the storage. it is no question that the capture can be done effectively. and has been going on since the 1930's. the kind of know that one. we know how to transport. we figured that out. it is happening today. there is a full-scale plan. it is in operation today that has been using ccs at a full scale that has been pulling out ccs at percentage is much higher than our proposal is contemplating, and they have been doing it effectively for years. there is no surprise about how to do this. that does not mean that over time these technologies cannot keep better. sequestration is one area where we expect to advance. another department of energy has resources that the president has already announced. $6 billion in resources that are going to continue to fund the development of these types of technologies. this is what is going to ensure that we have the diverse energy supply in the future, and i feel confident that the information we have in this document will show that we know how to not only do those components, but it has been demonstrated in facilities. it is being planned and invest it in today. the real challenges to make sure we pay attention given that we want to send a signal to the market today about what kind of facilities the u.s. government thinks is going to be effective. >> following up we have a couple of questions about the kemper project. given the experience, what are your conclusions at this point? >> that is a good question. in case you do not know it, a cap-and-trade company facility i will tell you, i cannot speak to whether it is over budget. i have read that, but the one uniqueness you need to understand a model if you are wondering if it will be cost-effective and available. we have four facilities currently in the construction phase. at least one of them is 75% complete. that is integrating into the design of the facility. the campus facility is very unique, not just in the fact that it has ccs, but other unique technologies to being tested by sun company because they have some proprietary oversight of its technologies. it is not just ccs. it is the actual gas turbine that is different. there are a lot of things different which tells me that there may be a lot more going on . >> i would be remiss. we will take this one. what will your approach be to regulation and enforcement? how does that fit with the policy you are announcing today? >> it is a good question, not the subject matter, but i will take it any way. it is clearly related. this country has had an enormous increasing amount of natural gas that is generated. i think that is one of the reasons why you are seeing quite a significant shift away from coal and investing in natural gas. i am quite sure that is how everyone is looking at it. the epa has been all of this. if you or i know where we have an ongoing study is really 18 research projects to look at all of the water issues associated to make sure that we have the science to understand what the threat might be and whether or not there needs to be action and how it should be taken. the president actually address this issue in a couple of different ways. he told us it needed to be in a thing strategy. now, nothing that i think many of you may not know is that epa has already regulated fracking. the reason you do not know it is because we did it so well that nobody complained. well, very issue. what we said was an understood was that methane through the fracking process is admitted. in order to address those rare requiring action to around the sector to take a look at natural gas wells. to make sure they use the green completions which recaptures the mapping that is the product they're producing, a major constituent of natural gas and allows them to capture so it does not contribute for what we all know i significant in the quality challenges of announcing in the last in part of the state that we never saw before. again. all lanes open. and so we have regulated industries effectively. it is not just cost effective. it will make money, and we have done that working with the state's to ensure it that as their regulating we do not duplicate efforts to take advantage of it. they are advising states have they have challenges, helping them understand if issues are rising and provide technical expertise, but we are effectively looking at fracking in general from both the inequalities nine and known as our obligation. we take it as seriously on the natural gas side as we do regulating the colony missions. >> almost of time. before asking the last question we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind you about our upcoming speakers. we will have less mayor michel landreau and philadelphia mayor. september 30th, education secretary arnie duncan. november 11th, walt but major, president and ceo of the charles schwab corporation. i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press corps coffee mind >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. thank you. >> i accept it. it. [laughter] >> we buy them in bulk for a very good price. [laughter] and one last question. you are here at the national press club today. now that you are administered, to allow more access including a nine and to interview epa scientists and policy advisers? >> i would say that i think the epa always allows access to our scientists. if there are any issues, we will talk. how is that? >> thank you very much. i appreciate your attention. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all for coming today. no would also like to thank the national press club's staff. finally, here is reminder. you can find more information about the national press club on our website. if you would like a copy of this program you can find it there as well thank you. we adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> in a few moments a forum on have changing voter demographics will affect future elections. a hearing on how nasa is managing its infrastructure and facilities. members of congress but it plans to implement the new health care xchanges. live on that c-span networks in number of events on health care. here on c-span2, a conference hosted by american health insurance plans hearing from the head of medicare and medicaid in a 45 eastern. timmy hamm, the senate health committee elected hal health care-related infections affect the economy. he will be live at 1130 east in for a kaiser family foundation forum on how maryland, oregon, and now, and giving with the in room apartments. >> c-span book tv has shown over 40,000 hours of programming with top nonfiction authors including bob woodward. >> who were going to do the book after he died, but he preempted that. and was horrified. i was delighted. >> i always felt that people are more alike than they are different. and so the artist in the rose is the occasion that if i can create something that is still moving and permits the kind of distance that you sometimes need from what is painful people will understand. understanding is basically what is fundamental. >> the point is no argument is given to that effect. none of the relevant facts are considered, and this is regarded as one of the half-dozen cases where the theory entails the use of military force was legitimate . >> the on national television network devoted exclusively and nonfiction books every weekend. we are marking 15 years of book tv on c-span2. >> next, a forum on how changing voter demographics in the suburbs could affect political campaigns including the vote for governor in virginia in a few weeks. this is an hour and half. >> i am the assistant director of the washington institute for public affairs research. we're one of the sponsoring groups here today. really the cave with between their research faculty and the outside world. the help fund projects, research projects, help the faculty work on ideas and like to share the fruits of those ideas with the public at large. this would be an example. we are delighted. the director of that program is here today. i wanted to recognize him. i have the pleasure of having the co-sponsor ship. and one of my panelists is affiliated with them as well. we're delighted to co-sponsor this event for you. now overall i think the best way to describe all we're trying to do today, big public briefing. it is really emma the school of public affairs. both units are here. this will be a first in a series of what we think will be entertaining and enlightening discussions. it involved the research we do and there is no one more important that could tell you about the story and the person who has increased this from the get go. she's been here about a year-and-a-half and continues to talk about how proud she is. and so there is no one better. [applause] >> thank you. and i want to start out by complimenting. the work of the group as well as the sponsorship of the congressional and presidential studies. bringing a great deal of knowledge and expertise. busy trying to create these briefings for us. these briefings are important to the school of public affairs because they are and how much indifference to bring experts from d.c. to campus and is a chance for a steamship is our faculty and the research being done on campus about important pressing issues of the day. we will be talking about the segmentation of political discourse. all of this is important for us to understand current politics. the need to look at the morning newspapers and an increasingly fragmented. and we are facing important issues that will have serious economic impact. we're facing important challenges over whether the government will continue to be operating. facing an issue of increases a bow and it will have approval for extended the debt ceiling. both of those can affect significantly the perception of how effective the united states is the amount federal merriment, what kind of health we have. the underlying dynamics of those kind of contentious debates will be explained today. it is rooted in politics. we will find out what that is, find out what we can do about it . i ask you to join me please and modem in the panel. on coming our distinguished guests and also the c-span viewers out there. >> thank you again. this is the fruit of the work they you and the faculty have done in identifying key directions for the school to move into. and briefly introduced the panelists. you have before you to of the best pollster's around from the best organizations in round. i would say he left meaning political organization. >> a democrat. >> a democrat. and was being kind. delighted that you could be here, and we have on the other side of this the president of public opinion strategy who worked with republican candidates who will look at this data that we have today. in between his elizabeth williamson who happens to be a co rider with our project director who will also share with she has been doing. joining them will be anton -- antoine yoshinaka, a colleague of mine the department of government in the school of public affairs. doing a lot of fundamental work and congressional redistricting and is also going to share his insight into looking at the debate as it unfolds. the gym and to miami in left. he's not a social scientist. some economists. a few lawyers and then. but he is a journalist, an active journalist. and an inventor. the think it makes him unique is that he has the head or the brain of a social scientist. >> he's good at math he invented something you may be familiar with. he began to a cat counties something we now call a new american community's project based right here at the school of public affairs at american university. in talking to dante about this early on many of my stuff, there is interesting stuff in here. we should get into it commensurate. the development of this panel and what dante -- dante chinni will now tell us about the american community's president. [applause] >> thank you for coming today. might have been hard to give up. life goes on and we are all here. what i want to do quickly is offer a brief overview of what the acp is and how it works, all we can do with it and then swing and talk about the suburbs. it really born out of my frustration with a red and blue america. for understanding scorekeeping. a regimen of litton -- there you go. sure and definitions. you have that on the left. that map on least in this is a lot of new ones. it misses the blue parts of texas but it also misses the difference between different kinds of blueberries. the difference between an inner-city democratic community in the college town. rural nebraska and expert in minneapolis. this places a different. a huge to service. dr. of demographics, talking about men, women, african-americans, hispanics. twentysomething and lives in new york, looks the same as this woman who lives really in rural kansas and has four kids. so in response to these kind of two different ways of looking at america, hastily demographic system and one based really on eight units of geography and weather they are democrat or republican. we came up with the american community's project. we basically took scores of demographic data sets and looked at them across every county in the country and use a clustering technique to identify different kinds of community. if you look at this map in see some regional. ec his southeast, southwest, big chunk around utah, some are really not so much about regions as they are urban suburban culture and metropolitan culture you see those places pop-up. been canned orange iran detroit, chicago, minneapolis, a bit in denver, and in really along the east coast. these places, this is a different kind of place that is not about a region so much a mind-set which is low and will talk about today. when you take this map and look at it in terms of this year day, this is what the numbers look like. fifteen different types of communities in america, and weser the number of counties breach in the population for each. i've never done this before. we are going to talk about these excerpts, the big cities, the soldiers around him, and the arrogance of ribs the big cities of by and large the 50 largest cities in america. then mostly sit next to those cities. based primarily in the rough spells in the midwest. fundamentally different. the excerpts which are kind of, most of us know. it is the next rainout. what this means is it gives you a different way of looking at data you read anything that is she attacked, or union with a person can charm, anything about a culture. polling data how will people watch and reid. you can use this to filter the numbers and look in a different way. we will look at what it means. it is particularly instructive. of gray. this is what happened. a massive exit poll taken. they break them down, and this is what it looks like. barack obama wins and urban areas, romney in rural. each of the win in the suburbs. the thing that the problem with this breakdown is that the united states is much more complicated cities, suburbs, and rural areas. when you use the american community project to break down data it looks like this. obama wins huge obviously. romney wins huge. this is metropolitan. middle suburbs, but the thing that is really telling, and i will show you why, the urban suburbs, places that -- this is release suburban america. the way we define it, and 16 points is a pretty big win, but it is more telling when you look at what happened. i have the you can see these. abcaeight. you're looking a big cities. the blue line is obviously democratic. no servers. in 2000 george w. bush narrowly lost the popular vote. he won these areas by 19 percentage points. in 2012 be lost by a substantial margin. he still won by 18 percentage points. he only did one worse than george w. bush in 2000. the big change has come in what has happened in big cities and particularly the severs are interesting because what happened is out gore won the urban suburbs by 11 percentage points in 2000 barack obama one and by 16 percentage points in 2012. people that were unhappy with the economic direction of the country, the direction of the country as a whole. i will say the urban suburbs, obama beat romney by about 5 million votes in most places which is what he won the election by. all sorts of other things going on. but that gap is very significant. what is going on? why are the suburbs different or how? i think they're different than we imagined them .. .. happen to

Related Keywords

Nile , Washington , United States , California , Syria , Russia , District Of Columbia , Dover , Virginia , Connecticut , Sudan , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Iowa , Libya , Cambridge , Cambridgeshire , United Kingdom , Virginia Point , Texas , Miami , Florida , New York , Malta , American University , Damascus , Dimashq , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Shab , Ha Afon , Israel , Boston , Rhode Island , Illinois , Wisconsin , Tripoli , Tarabulus , Oregon , Djibouti , Denver , Colorado , Pakistan , Cairo , Al Qahirah , Egypt , Iraq , Nebraska , Texas Point , Maryland , Kansas , Ohio , Orlando , Dallas , Utah , Americans , America , Syrians , Soviet , Libyan , American , Barnie Duncan , Buckley Daniel , Joe Wilson , Chris Stevens , Haskins Debra Demarco , Anton Antoine , Ron Johnson , Mike Mullen , Mary Stevens , Scott Perry , Mike Phil Hamm , Alison Fitzgerald , Margaret Lyons , Randy Weber , William Maxwell , Jim Moran , Michael Mullen , Timmy Hamm , Dante , Gregory Hicks , Bob Woodward , Harry Reid , Brad Sherman , Gina Mccarthy , Harold Levin , Barack Obama , Elizabeth Williamson , George W Bush , Joseph Kennedy , Adam Kissinger , Bob Crouse , Daniel Loughlin , Eyre Scott , Beth Jones ,