I thank mr. Morell for volunteering to testify once again. A terrorist attack against u. S. Facilities is a serious event and this committee has been conducting a thorough and detailed investigation for the last 19 months to understand exactly what happened. We have held over 17 member events reviewed thousands of documents mostly classified interviewed the men on the ground that night. I want to focus on how this Committee Received inaccurate talking points and how the administration used those talking points to perpetrate a false narrative about the attacks. After the attacks this committee immediately sought the truth. We received a closed briefing with nctc folks and then petraeus on september 1 and september 13 respectively. After the director then petraeus briefing some members of this committee sought guidance about what could be said publicly in an unclassified forum. We knew that our constituents the American People certainly needed to know the truth about the attacks. Unfortunately, the talking points did not reflect the best Information Available. They did not mention that Al Qaedalinked terrorist were involved in the attacks. Through briefings and Intelligence Reports assessed they were involved. The talking points suggested that there had been a demonstration and when there had been none and the officers on the ground said so. Talking points were so devoid of facts or useful information that i in fact dismissed them didnt use them. In fact on september 12, 2012, i made a Public Statement that the attack had all the hallmarks of al qaeda. I dont believe any members of this committee actually used the talking points after the attacks. As director petraeus described, they were useless. You indicated that you did not know susan rice would appear on the sunday talk shows on september 16. Your statement replies that you would have written different talking points if you knew that she would use them that particular day. But susan rice did use them as the spokesman for the United States government she used them to tell the American People that there had been a protest spawned by an anti islamic video. She made no mention of al qaeda. She focused on the protest. You told the day before she appeared in public that the chief of station reported that there was no protest. The public needs to hear exactly what those talking points how those talking points were created. The American People should understand your role and the role of the Intelligence Committee in that process. I must conclude that the white house used your talking points to perpetrate its own misguided political agenda. I believe that the white house wanted america to believe al qaeda to be on the run. Thus, they need it had attacks to be in response to an ant islamic video so the white house used your talking points to say so. But we knew that al qaeda and other affiliates and participated in the attacks. Officers on the ground knew that there was no protest. The American People had known that those officers knew if the administration told them the truth the public would now know that these terrorists were to blame. The public would better understand the threat we are facing today. And our intelligence and defense professionals could have been mobilized with greater speed to find and take these terrorists off the battlefield. I dont believe the administration learned the lesson of its failure, ub fortunately. Ambassador rice stated on february 23 of this year that she had no regrets. She still believed the talking points represented, the best information that we had at the time. That is simply wrong. By the materials and documentation in possession of this committee. The white house wants to ignore reality and perpetrate the fallsy that al qaeda and other islamic extremists are on the verge of defeat. This is a very, very important issue. Al qaeda is growing and Planning Operations against americans in their safe havens is in libya, syria, iraq, and elsewhere. Yet the administration continues to talk and act as if al qaeda is on the run. They foolishly focus on al qaeda, quote, core but it makes no difference whether the terrorists who target americans are directed by al qaeda in pakistan or al qaeda in yemen. Lets also not forget the state department ignored amp warnings about the deteriorating threat environment in libya and rejected requests for additional security reports from officers in the ground in benghazi. The Defense Department failed to posture itself to protect facilities in harms way. Despite ample warnings. Benghazi highlights our failures and signals our future. We know the location of some of the benghazi attackers and we have the capability to and the capacity to get them the administration has done neither and we will unfortunately the longer this goes the more risk they pose and the wrong message it sends to reinforce to those who perpetrated the attack. They refuse to act on what we know is true. Al qaeda is a greater threat today than it was on september 10, 2001. And it is most highlighted by the sheer volume of threat stream targeted at aspirational and in some case operational details to attack americans and westerners, our allies. Our nation must redouble its efforts against this threat. We must continue to confront the terrorist threats with every tool that we have. And with a clear mind about what is at stake. The 19 months since our four americans were killed by terrorists and we still have not brought any to justice. This is a disgrace. In the nine months i have remaining as chairman of this committee i will continue demanding that the administration take Decisive Action against the benghazi terrorists before turning to our witness i recognize the Ranking Member for any opening comments he wish to make. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First based on your announcement that you are retiring i want to take this opportunity to thank you for your leadership on this committee, your commitment to bipartisan and your dedication to find answers at transformed this committee into a shining example of what good can come when we Work Together in a bipartisan way. We have had a wide diversity of opinions on this committee. I disagree with some of the things you said. That doesnt mean we dont get along and work. We disagree we argue but we always focus on the end game how to get there together and each of us all members of this committee respects and gets along with each other even though we disagree on many issues. You fostered has resultd in a committee with an unparalleled track record with accomplishment passing intelligence authorization act passing Cyber Security legislation and proposing bipartisan to reform meta data increases privacy and civil liberty and preserves important capability. The committee will miss you and your leadership but we still have you until the end of this congress and we know you will continue to roll up your sleeves and continue the work the people. Today as we turn our attention to the tragic events in benghazi we know that there were many heroes and many people who suffered great loss that day. We mourn the deaths of ambassador chris steven and glenn and we honor the other men and women who acted courageously that day to save the lives of others. No one left a comrade behind. We owe it to them and to the countless others who risked their lives to defend america to find out what went wrong to make sure it doesnt happen again. Which is what were doing today. The independent accountability review board headed by admiral mike mullin and ambassador Thomas Pickering completed a comprehensive review of the situation and issued 29 recommendations. The government is implementing those recommendations especially when it comes to increasing security. We in congress have also combed through every aspect of this tragedy. We have run down every allegation. On this committee alone we have reviewed thousands of classified documents and watched frame after frame of security video and interviewed the key intelligence individuals on the ground. We also found areas that must be improved. But to date we have found absolutely no inappropriate motivation. Specifically todays hearing we have also found no conspiracy in the editing of the talking points only never ending conspiracy theories. I was the one who asked for the talking points the days immediately following the tragedy. I asked for them to aid our ability for this committee to communicate without revealing classified communication in what we knew would be a very media driven. We have only found evidence that the talking points were editted to check classification and to safeguard the investigation and eventual prosecution which has to be our ultimate goal finding and Holding Accountable those who committed the terrible act which killed our americans. And this is the third time we have had mr. Moral before this committee. In my dealings with him he has been frank honest and forth coming and i expect he will do so today. After today i hope we can get back to our more pressing work passing intelligence authorization act and improving Cyber Security and reforming fisa. In the meantime let me say thank you for coming before the Committee Even after you have retired. Your service to this country for over 30 years has been exemplary and we all owe you especially those deployed in hot spots around the world a debt of gratitude. I thank you and yield back. Thank you for the kind words and the one thing is we have worked in a bipartisan way we will continue to do that the remaining months that i know you will be Ranking Member and i will be chairman thank you for that. Before turning to our witness, as this is an investigative hearing we are going to swear the witness in before he testifies. This is the prerogative of every Committee Chair it has not been the custom here at the Intelligence Committee. So while it is always against the law to provide false statements to congress, the act of swearing . A witness impressing upon him or her the gravity of the proceeding and the need to tell the full and complete truth. So with that, i would ask mr. Morell if you would please stand not too much longer. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god . So help me god. Let the record reflect the witness has answered in the affirmative. I too want to thank you for your 30 plus years in the intelligence service. Youve had a highly decorated and certainly distinguished career for those 30 years. Its important you have the opportunity to provide testimony today and i would recognize you for your Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. As the chairman knows, when he asked me a few weeks ago to testify today on benghazi, my response was a quick and a decisive yes. And as he also knows, i specifically asked that this be an open hearing. Why was i so decisive and why did i want this to be an open hearing . Because much has been said and many allegations have been made about the handling of benghazi by the c. I. A. And its leadership including me. Much of this discussion has been inaccurate. And the congress and the American People deserve to know the facts. I want to start by making my most important point of the day and it repeats something that both the chairman and the Ranking Member said. I want to take a minute to honor the patriots that america lost on that tragic night in benghazi. Chris stevens, shawn smith, tyrone woods, and glenn daugherty. They died serving their country. And it is paramount that we never lose sight of their service, their dedication, and their bravery. Mr. Chairman, i have submitted a comprehensive and detailed 23page written statement. I respectfully request that it be placed in the record. Wousm. It covers the development and evolution of c. I. A. s classified analysis of what happened in benghazi and my role in that process. It also covers the preparation of the now famous unclassified talking points and my role in that process. And it covers the specific allegations that have been levied against me. Time does not permit me to go into all this detail during my oral statement so i urge anyone who is concerned about this issue to read the full written statement in order to get a complete understanding of what transpired. In fact, i would ask with respect to that the committee make my written statement available on its website. Mr. Chairman, i want both the committee and the American People to know that i take very seriously the allegations about how the c. I. A. In general and about how i in particular handled the analysis and the talking points. As this committee knows, the ethical code under which Intelligence Officers carry out their responsibilities calls for total objectivity to call it like you see it. No matter what the audience wants to hear, no matter the implications for policy, and no matter the political consequences. In short, speak truth to power. I served the Central Intelligence agency for 33 years and i always abided by that code. I served six president s, three republicans and three democrats. I served as president george w. Bushs first daily intelligence briefer and i served as president obamas Deputy Director and acting director of the c. I. A. During this entire service i never allowed politics to influence what i said or did. Never. I believe the facts in my written statement make clear that neither i nor anyone else at the c. I. A. Worked to alter the analysis or the talking points in a way that compromised our responsibility to the American People. We did not deliberatively downplay the role of terrorists in the benghazi attack in our analysis or in the talking points. And neither i nor anyone else at the agency deliberatively misled anyone in congress about any aspect of the tragedy in benghazi. Mr. Chairman, none of what i just said should be interested to mean that we at the c. I. A. Did anything right. No organization ever does. There are thing that is we should have done differently. There are areas where the c. I. A. S Performance and my own performance could have been better. But none of our actions were the result of political influence in the intelligence process. None. Let me touch on three specific issues. One. C. I. A. Analyst the most talented and highly trained analysts in our government concluded less than 24 hours after the attack that a protest had preceded the assault on the state departments facility in benghazi. They arrived at this initial judgment with good reason and without any input from the white house, the state department, or the c. I. A. Leadership. Their judgment was coordinated across the Intelligence Community which meant that it was a judgment of the entire community, not just the c. I. A. As you know, subsequent information revealed this judgment to be incorrect. But and let me emphasize this our analysts reached their initial judgment because that is where the best available information at the time led them. Not because of politics. Indeed, our analysts did what they are trained to do, make a judgment based on the best information at hand, make clear that that judgment might change as new information becomes available, and then adjust that judgment as necessary. That is what i expected of them. It is what you expect of them. And it is what the American People expect of them. And it is exactly what they did. Two. The c. I. A. s then most Senior Analyst on terrorism an outstanding officer whom this committee knows well, wrote the first draft of the unclassified talking points. Neither the white house, the state department, nor i did so as some have alleged. After our top analyst wrote the first draft, many changes were made to the talking points over a period of time. Including some by agency officers, some by other agencies, and some by me. The process inside the c. I. A. To produce the talking points could have been better in several respects. And i discussed this in detail in my written testimony. But to be very clear, the white house did not make any substantive changes to the talking points nor did they ask me to make any substantive changes to the talking points. And while the talking points could have been better, the judgment that the attacks evolved from a protest was fully consistent with the Intelligence Communitys classified analysis at the time. Three. On the morning that i editted the talking points our station chief in triply, a talented Operations Officer for whom i have a great deal of respect sent his daily update to c. I. A. Headquarters addressing the 0ongoing security situation across libya. This email has rightly received some attention and let me address it. There was a line toward the end of the email that claimed the attack in benghazi was, and i quote, not slash, not an escalation of a protest. End quote. This email was received by my staff and by a number of other officials at the agency. As the record indicates, my actions in response to the station chiefs email were appropriate and consistent with my responsibilities as Deputy Director. I wanted to get the analysis right and to make sure that the right people knew about the station chiefs view. Upon reading the station chiefs email, i immediately recognized the discrepancy between the station chiefs view and the judgment of our analysts. I asked for more information from the station chief and i gave policymakers a heads up on the issue. I asked our an