Host is 10 00 a. M. On the east coast. We booked a to a hearing and a second. This is on the benghazi attacks. It is the Senate Armed Service committee that will be conducting this hearing. Secretary panetta and joint chiefs chairman general dempsey will both be testifying at this hearing about the benghazi. Last thursday, we went to the same Committee Room that we will take you to now. We went there to hear defense nominee chuck hagels testimony. They will come in soon. A little bit later, at 2 30 p. M. In the Senate Intelligence committee, John Brennans confirmation will be life. You see senator mccain. You have the ranking for the Senate Armed Service committee. This should begin in a second. Let us watch. We will cavill and to hear from defense secretary leon panetta and general Martin Dempsey about the attack on the u. S. Consulate in benghazi that resulted in the death of four americans. One week ago today, this Committee Heard from senator Chuck Hegel Hagel to be the next defense secretary. The center of South Carolina said he would put a hold on former senator hagels nomination unless leon panetta agreed to testify. This is the first of two harris we will show you today. This and later this afternoon, the confirmation hearing for cia director nominee, john brennan, currently the counterterrorism chief. Good morning, everybody. We welcome secretary of defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general Martin Dempsey to testify about the department of defenses response to the deadly terrorist attack on the u. S. Temporary Mission Facility in benghazi, libya on september 11 and all of last year. The findings of its review following that attack, including lessons learned. I want to remind colleagues that we will receive testimony next Tuesday Morning the doved d. O. D. Released a time the department of defense released a timeline of september 11 and 12 in ben ghazi including the deployment. A copy of this timeline is in front of us. I think we will each have it and it will be included in the record. According to the timeline, the temporary mission filt, the department of defenses first action was to re facility, the department of defenses first reaction was to react on a mission of libya to provide better awareness of the events of the events in benghazi. There were a series of meetings in the pentagon for expanding the department of defenses response as well as to prepare for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region. During these meetings, secretary panetta authorized a number of deployments. I hope that secretary panetta and the chairman will provide the committee with detail on the circumstances that led them to these decisions. Since september, theres been a great deal of focus on the supporting role that the marine corps guards played play in many u. S. Diplomatic missions abroad. The marine corps did not have an lament in again in benghazi. The committee will be closely monitoring the use of these marines. Our fiscal year 2013 National Defense authorization act that requires the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the Marine SecurityGuard Program, whether it should be expanded and to report to congress on the results of this review. More immediately, the provision requires the secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of marines in the Marine SecurityGuard Program by up to 1,000 marines to improve security at our embassies, consulates and other diplomatic facilities. Based on secretary clintons recent testimony before congress, it is clear that the state department and the department of defense are already consulting on this review, highthreat posts as well as posts where the host nation, despite having the will to protect diplomatic facilities does not have the capacity to protect them. In some cases, these posts are located in countries where the department of defense and the state department have assistance programs with similar objectives. These are perhaps areas where the two departments can explore whether additional collaboration is appropriate. During secretary clintons testimony before congress, she talked about the importance of properly resourcing africa command. They reached full Operational Capability less than five years ago and has been an whats called an economy of force effort to date. The events of last september raised questions about the adequacy of the department of defenses resourcing with respect to africom in terms of funding, assigned personnel, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support. As an example, until the beginning of the current fiscal year, africom did not have a dedicated commanders and extremist force which is an emergency standby force, but rather it shared its force with u. S. European command. In recent years, the committee has sought to provide the department of defense with flexible africomspecific authorities to support the burgeoning requirements of the command. Such as the african cooperation authority, targeted train and equip authorities to support deployments of the African Mission in somalia and flexible military construction authorities. The committee looks forward to learning whether any additional actions might be taken to further support africoms programs and operations. Unfortunately to date, much of the discourse about the events surrounding the deadly attack against our facilities and people in benghazi have focused on the preparation and dissemination of unclassified talking points that were prepared at the request of congress by our nations intelligence professionals and approved by their most senior leadership. These talking points are relevant, but even more relevant and finding out, as secretary clinton said, why these militants decided why they did is to find those militants and to bring them to justice and to do everything wreck to prevent it from ever happening again. Since the events in benghazi, individuals and groups with the same motivations as those that attacked the u. S. Facility in benghazi have attempted to expand their territory in the nation of mali as well as take hostage dozens of innocent civilians and attempt to destroy a natural gas facility in algeria. Today, the United States is provided its unique enabling capabilities to the French Military operations and the deployment of African Forces from nations around the region. As secretary panetta has stated repeatedly, it is critical that the United States continue to pursue those groups and individuals seeking to attack the United States and our interests. I expect the secretary and the chairman this morning will provide their assessment of the threat thats posed by these groups to regional and International Security as well as our effort to counter their operations. The four americans that our nation lost last september were among the very best expression of what it means to be an american. Hardworking, energetic, optimistic, dedicated, not just to furthering the interests of their own nation but to ensuring that others could enjoy the same freedom and opportunity that we hold so dear. We honor the sacrifice of those americans and in their name we will do everything that we can to prevent a repetition of benghazi. Since thises is likely secretary panettas last hearing before this committee, and a broad smile has now appeared upon his face, i want to take a moment to offer my personal thanks to secretary leon panetta for your service to our country, for your leadership at the Defense Department, secretary panetta, you have exhibited qualities of honesty, cannedor, humility, fair mindedness and a great sense of humor. All of those were essential during the tenure that youve had as secretary. So we thank you, leon, for your service to our nation and for your great cooperation as well as with this committee. [applause] senator inhofe. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I agree with the last part of your statement there. I hold both of our witnesses in highest regard. In the case of secretary panetta, i just whispered to my friend, senator mccain, that two of my favorite democrats in the house were ma neta and panetta. Thats always been the case. I rejoiced at the time that you received the positions in the appointments that you have had. Its long overdue that this committee is holding a hearing to examine the facts surrounding the terrorist attacks in benghazi on slept 11, 2012. That left two americans dead. Four americans dead, deaths that i believe could have been prevented. But its become clear over the last five months that the United States is willfully unprepared for what occurred in benghazi. Whats also been clear is following the attack, the administration provided the American People inAccurate Information about the true nature of the catastrophe and those events in benghazi. In my discussions with the most Senior Administrative officials. Ive been told on the night of the tragedy although there was confusion about the nature of the first attack on the compound where the ambassador was located the second wave of attacks, which was on the annex, were unequivocally a terrorist attack. I have no doubt about that that they were. This was apparent because an angry mob doesnt use coordinated mortars and r. P. G. s, so i have no question about that in my mind. Despite the clear evidence, it took this administration over a week to publicly admit, as many of us knew already, that the it was a terrorist attack, not simply a protest, that turned violent as ambassador susan rice adamantly and incorrectly insisted. While some may downplay the indifference, i cant. Al qaeda, affiliated terrorists were involved in the murder of four americans, including our United States ambassador to libya. This fact should call into question the effectiveness of our counterterrorist counterterrorism strategy in north african and beyond. I hope our hearing today will provide the committee a thorough accounting of whats been done in months following to ensure that this tragedy doesnt happen again. In the months leading up to the september 11, there were no fewer than four significant attacks against the western interests in the city. Id like to have you go ahead and put that chart up. And leave it up during the course of this hearing because each member up heres a a copy of this. There are certain things that happened we all know. We know on may 22 the red cross was hit with an r. P. G. They left town. We know on june 11, the british ambassadors motorcade was attacked by an r. P. G. They left town. We know on april 10 the United States convoy was hit by an i. E. D. And on june 6, the u. S. Consulate was attacked with a bomb and many, many other things. But we stayed. We didnt leave. While i understand the state department has primary responsibility for the protection of american diplomats around the world, i also understand that the Defense Department plays an Important Role supporting role to this effect. I expect our witnesses to explain today why, given the clear indication indicators tanned warnings, threats to the United States interests in benghazi and throughout the north africa were growing was the was the Defense Department not placed on a heightened alert status or adequately postured to respond in a timely manner to a contingency of this nature, especially on the anniversary of 9 11. Our witnesses have repeatedly stated that there were no military assets in the region available that could have acted in time, potentially to avert this disaster, and i have to ask why not. The january, 2012, defense strategic guidance directs that we will rebalance toward the asian pacific. It goes on to say in africa and latin america we will develop innovative, low cost and small footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives. I dont agree. Thats no way to achieve our security objectives. Benghazi highlights the strategic risks of this new strategies in places like africa, risks certain to be amplified by cuts. This committee must get a thorough accounting exactly what was known and when and what the Defense Department did to respond to the escalating situation in benghazi and why it was not better prepared. Additionally, our witnesses should address whether or not the current relationship between the state and the Defense Department is sufficient to meet the security demands of our overseas presence. You know, ive made over 100 african country visits. I know africa, and what happened in benghazi vividly illustrates what ive been talking about for a long period of time. That is the growing threat to the United States interest on the african continent from the terrorist groups such as al qaeda, islamic magrab and bogoharam. One said back in 2011 that terrorist organizations in east africa in the deserts of Northern Africa and nigeria, quote, have little explicitty and publicity voiced intent to target westerners and the u. S. Specifically. Secretary panetta, the same year you said, quote, the longer you delay the longer you avoid trying to assign some assistance there, the more dangerous these groups become and the greater the instability that develops there. There are elements there in Central Africa that either have ties to al qaeda or that present the forces of terrorism in their own. And thats whats dangerous. As bad as everything that ive stated is, what i think is worse is the coverup. It was obvious from the information we had on september 11 that the second wave, not the first wave, the second wave we have two different waves there. We have the compound, which well talk about in more detail during the questions, and then we have the annex. That the second wave of attacks on the annex were unequivocally a terrorist attack and we knew it right at the time. Despite this information, ambassador rice said something that was totally false to the American People on all five major sunday news shows implying that the attacks were response to an antiislam video that spurred protests across the region. In this sense, you are probably wrong. The wrong witness to have here because youd be unfamiliar actually who instructed her to say that and gave her that faultly information. Thats something that we hope well be able to get and thats something we cant be ignored. We sit along all day long and talk about the resources we should have and dont have, not just here and this part of the world but all over the world and thats fine. I think we all understand that. But thats not the big problem here. The big problem here is the coverup that nobody talks about and thats the tragedy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary panetta. Mr. Chairman, senator inhofe, i appreciate being here to discuss the facility attacks in benghazi on september 11, threlf. Before i go into 2012. Before i go into my testimony, let me say my deepest thanks for all of you for your support and friendship that ive had with all of you on both sliles. I have both sides of the aisle. I have had in many ways to live the American Dream as a son of italian immigrants in the various capacities that ive had to serve this country. The greatest privilege i think ive had is to serve as an elected member in the house and had the opportunity to work with many of you in that capacity, and then as member of the executive branch, had the opportunity to work with you as well. I thank you for your dedication to the country and i thank you for your willingness to serve the United States. On that tragic day, as always, the department of defense was prepared for a wide range of contingencies. Just remind you that the nctc in the six months prior to that attack, identified some 281 threats to u. S. Diplomats, diplomatic facilities, embassies, ambassadors and consulates worldwide, and obviously benghazi was one of those almost 300 areas of concern. But unfortunately there was no specific intelligence or indications of an imminent attack on that u. S. Facility in benghazi. And frankly without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond. Thats not just my view or general dempseys view. It was the view of the accountability review board that studied what happened on that day. In the months since the tragedy at the temporary Mission Facility in the nearby annex in benghazi, weve learned that there were actually two short duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart. And again, there was no specific intelligence that indicated that a Second Attack would occur at the annex which was located some two miles away. The bottom line is this that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by u. S. Military response. Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region. Time, distance, the lack of inadequate warning of an adequate warning prevented a more immediate response. Despite the uncertainty at the time, the department of defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save american lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the department of defense received we did, we accomplished. But, again, four americans lives were lost, and