This House Committee on the benghazi attack hearing about to get under way. While we have a second were going to take a chance and give you some background on todays hearing from a capitol hill reporter. Welcome for purposes of taking testimony pursuant to house rules. Chair will recognize himself and Ranking Member for purposes of making Opening Statement. Without objection the Opening Statement of any other member of the committee who wishes to provide one will be included in the record. A little over two years ago, four americans serving our country in benghazi, libya, were killed. Two of them were killed when a facility emblematic of our country was set on fire. And two of them were killed when they dared to fight back and defend themselves. And others. Sean smith, Chris Stevens, ty woods and glen doherty represented us. They represented our country, and our values. We ask them to go. We sent them, and they were killed because some people hold a deepseated animus toward us simply because we are us. So to the family and the friends, and the loved ones of those killed, we can never adequately express our condolences and our gratitude. As you have to the families you have helped each of us understand these four were not just pictures on a television screen. They were sons and husbands, and fathers and brothers and friends. And fellow americans. I remain hopeful that there are some things left in our country that can rise above politics. And i remain convinced there are fellow citizens entitled to all of the facts about what happened before, during and after the attacks in benghazi. And they deserve an investigative process that is worthy of the memory of the four who were killed, and worthy of the respect of our fellow americans. Some question the need for this committee, and i respect their right to dissent. But the mark of a professional, indeed the mark of character, is to do a good job with a task, even if you dont think the task should have been assigned in the first place. And given the gravity of the issues at hand, i would rather run the risk of answering a question stwies than run the risk of not answering it once. I am willing to reconsider previously held beliefs in light of new facts and evidence, and i would encourage my colleagues and others to do the same, because we know that all the documents have not yet been produced, and we know that there are still witnesses left to be examined. And we also know that there are witnesses who have been examined in the past, but for whom additional questions may be wanting. So i would ask each of my colleagues, given their vast and varied and exceptional backgrounds, to put those talents to good use on behalf of our fellow citizens. The house of representatives constituted this committee. And they did so for us to find all of the facts. And i intend to do that and i intend to do it in a manner worthy of the respect of our fellow citizens. Our fellow citizens have certain legitimate expectations. They expect us to protect and defend those that we send to represent us. They expect us to move heaven and earth when those who are representing us come under attack. They expect government to tell us the truth in the aftermath of a tragedy always, and they expect that we will not continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over again. Which brings us to this hearing. Benghazi was not the first time one of our facilities or our people have been attacked. Beirut, kenya, tanzania, are three that come to mind among others. And after these attacks, groups come together, and make recommendations on how to prevent future attacks. That seems to be the process that is followed. A tragedy or an attack comes, we commission a panel, a board, a Blue Ribbon Commission to study the attack and make sure that we make recommendations to ensure that it never happens again. But yet it does happen again. And so to hose who believe it is time to move on, to those who believe that there is nothing left to discover, that all the questions have been asked and answered and that weve learned all the lessons that there are to be learned, we have heard all of that before. And it was wrong then. It is stunning to see the similarities between the recommendations made decades ago, and the recommendations made by the benghazi arb. If you doubt that, i want you to compare the recommendations of those made 25, a quarter of a century ago, 25 years ago, with the recommendations made by the benghazi arb. We do not suffer from a lack of recommendations. We do suffer from a lack of implementing and enacting those recommendations. That has to end. And so it is appropriate to review the recommendations in the most recent arb and i commend our colleague in california, mr. Schiff, for suggesting that we do so. And it is also fair to ask why we have not done a better job of implementing recommendations made in some instances decades ago. In other words why does it take an attack on our people or our facilities for us to make a recommendation . Why not evaluate the threat before the attack . Why not anticipate, rather than react . In conclusion the people that we work for yearn to see the right thing done for the right reasons, and in the right way. And they want to know that something can rise above the din of partisan politics. They want to trust the institutions of government. So to fulfill the duties owed to those we serve and in honor of those who were killed, maybe, just maybe, we can be what those four brave men were, neither republican nor democrat. Just americans. And pursue the facts. And justice. No matter where that journey takes us. With that i would recognize the Ranking Member from maryland. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. And i thank you for holding this hearing today. I know every member of this panel is dedicated to ensuring that our work honors the memories of the four americans who were killed in benghazi. Their names must be etched in our memory banks. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Sean smith. Tyrone woods. And glen doherty. I want to thank our colleague representative schiff for proposing the topic for todays hearing, and mr. Chairman, i want to thank you for accepting that topic, and so that we can see what has become of the arb recommendations. Too often over the past two years, the congressional investigation into what happened in benghazi has evolved into unseemly partisanship. Were better than that. Today we have an opportunity to focus on reform. How can we learn from the past to make things better in the future . Mr. Chairman, i agree with you, that over the years, recommendation after recommendations have been made. The question is, as you said, what became of them . I do believe that in life there are transformational moments. That is, something happens, it causes you to stop and pause, and try to figure out how to remedy the situation and make it better. And the problem is is when those moments come, and they come to all of us. The question is, is whether we pause make things better, because usually if we dont, we repeat the the errors and usually things get worse. And this is one such transformational moment. The kind of oversight that can be product iive, it can be critical. It can sometimes even be tedious. But it can also save lives. Thats what were talking about. And thats why i want to thank every member of this panel for agreeing to do this. For we are about the business of trying to save lives. Thats a very serious mission. I sincerely hope the select committee will stay on course of constructive reform and keep this goal as our north star. It would be a disservice to everyone involved to be lured off this path by partisan politics. Today we will review the recommendations of the accountability review board. Which was chaired by ambassador Thomas Pickering and admiral michael mullen, the former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff. During our previous investigation House Oversight committee and chairman gaudy and i heard directly from both men about how seriously they took their roles. Ambassador pickering called it, and i quote, a debt of honor. Their report was independent, it was adopted unanimously by all board members, and it was a blistering examination of what went wrong at the state department. They made 29 recommendations and secretary clinton accepted all of them. After they issued their report, the state Department Inspector general issued his own report finding that, and i quote, the department wasted no time addressing the recommendations, end of quote. The department has been working on implementing those recommendations for the past year and a half. And congress should ensure that it finishes the job. Today, i would like our witnesses to provide an update on the status of several of the boards recommendations. First, the board found that the departments response to the deteriorating security situation in benghazi was, i quote, inadequate, and it was inadequate at the point in benghazi, at the embassy in tripoli, and here in washington. Ambassador pickering explained that the post did not take action despite crossing several trip wires that should have caused officials to review security more closely and develop a stronger response. The board recommended that the department change its procedures to make sure that Security Breaches are reviewed immediately. Today the Department Reports that it has created a new process that requires posts to report trip wires as soon as they are crossed, so Security Officials can review them immediately and take action if necessary. I want to know if this process is now fully operational. And if so, how it has been working so far. The board also found that we should not have relied so heavily on local militia groups like february 17th militia. To protect our post. Or call this reliance, and i quote, misplaced, end of quote. And they found that the Security Forces were, quote, poorly skilled, end of quote. The board recommended the department strengthen security and i quote, beyond the traditional reliance on host government security, supporting high risk, high threat posts, end of quote. Today the Department Reports that it has 17 new Marine Security guard detachments, and another new marine unit to enhance security in changing threat environments. In addition, the Skate Department is now using new funding from congress to hire 151 new personnel in the bureau of Diplomatic Security or d. S. I want to hear from our witnesses about whether these actions are sufficient or whether we need to do more. The board also found fault with a Deputy Assistant secretary with d. S. Who denied repeated requests for additional security in benghazi. At the time this official oversaw the security of all 275 diplomatic posts around the world. To address this problem the department created a new position to focus exclusively on the security needs of roughly 30 posts experiencing highest threats. The board praised this action, stating that it could be, and i quote, a positive first step integrated into a sound strategy for d. S. Reorganization. Today i want to hear from the state department specifically about how this new position is working, and whether they believe we should make additional changes. Everyone understands that diplomacy by its nature sometimes requires to be a very dangerous places. How diplomats work in high threat environments, and although we cannot eliminate every risk, we must do everything that we can to keep americans as safe as possible when they are serving overseas. With that i want to conclude by recognizing the tremendous sacrifices that are made every single day. Around the world our diplomatic core, the Intelligence Community and our military Service Members on behalf of the American People. And i remind my colleagues that this is our watch. I said to the chairman before we started, this is bigger than us. The things that we do today, and over the next few months, will have lasting effects, even when were gone on to heaven. And thats how we have to look at this. So we prepare not only for the present, but we prepare for the future and generations unborn. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you gentleman from maryland. The committee will now recognize and receive testimony from todays witness panel. The first witness will be the honorable greg starr the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security at the department of state. Second witness will be todd kyle a member of the independent panel of best practices and third witness will be Mark Sullivan the chair of the independent panel on best practices. Welcome to each of you. We will recognize each of you for your five minute Opening Statements. There are a series of lights which mean what they traditional mean in life, and i am sure that you are familiar with the lighting system, because this is an investigative hearing, i will need to administer the oath to the witnesses before taking their testimony. So if the witnesses would please rise, and lift their right hands. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. May the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Secretary starr you are recognized for five minutes for your Opening Statement. Chairman gowdy, Ranking Member cummings, and distinguished committee members, good morning. And i thank you for your invitation to appear today to discuss the department of states implementation of the 29 recommendations made by the independent benghazi accountability review board, also known as the arb. Mr. Secretary, i dont want to interrupt you. Would you pull the mic just a little. Some of us have had a couple birthdays recently and were heard of hearing. I, too, sir. I along with my colleagues at the state Department Look forward to working with you as you examine the issues relating to the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi. The attacks in benghazi were tragic. Today we honor those we lost by internalizing the lessons from that night to protect our people in the field as they carry out our countrys Foreign Policy work every single day. Over the past two years, with secretary kerrys leadership, that commitment is being honored. Like you, we want to keep our people safe. The heart of the accountability review boards recommendations was to enhance the departments approach to Risk Management. Ensuring that when our National Interests require us to operate in dangerous places, that we identify the risks and take the proper steps to mitigate them. The department has made important strides in that regard. Id like to highlight just a few examples of how were implementing the arbs recommendations, including how we are giving high threat post the attention and resources that they need. However, even with this progress it is essential for us to acknowledge that while we can do everything we can to reduce the risk, we can never eliminate it fully. High threat, high risk posts require special attention to confirm our National Interests require us to operate there, and to provide the right resources to do that. We have instituted a new process called the vital presence validation process, shortland vp2 as we call it, to do just hat. One example of it in action is our recent return to bangi Central African republic. The department suspended operations there in december of 2012. Process and a support cell process, that plans for how we go in to these operations, the analysis that determined that we should and could go back. We worked with our colleagues at the department of defense to assess the security situation on the ground, and develop a comprehensive plan for our return. Im proud to report that we deployed dod and state Department Personnel just last we week. The embassy is now open. While we must closely monitor conditions on the ground our return to bengi demonstrates our procedures are working. Another example of our enhanced posture since benghazi is how weve improved at training. Chief of personnel drgs chief admission personnel including both Security Professionals and all Foreign Service personnel are now better prepared for operating if high threat environments. Weve increased the expanded training for our ds special agents, who receive high threat training specifically and then weve also expanded what we call our Foreign Affairs counterthreat course for Foreign Service colleagues that are going to all of our high threat posts. And were working towards making this Foreign Affairs counter threat training universal for Foreign Service personnel and employees for all of our posts overseas. Further, to combat fire as a weapon we partnered with the city of new York Fire Department and the armys Asymmetric Warfare Group to enhance our training curriculum and implement countermeasures in response to fire and smoke as a terrorist weapon. Finally, with your help, we have added to our Security Resources. The arb recommended that we expand the number of Diplomatic Security personnel, and we have done just that. We are well on our way to just finishing that off and hitting all of our targets. It also recommended that we augment the Marine SecurityMarine Security