U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–250PDF 2013

TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI:

THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S VIEW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JANUARY 23, 2013

Serial No. 113–11

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S. Department 

of State .................................................................................................................. 4

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Prepared statement ............................ 9

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Prepared statement .................................................... 63

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 66

The Honorable Luke Messer, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 69

The Honorable Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 71

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey: Material submitted for the record ............................ 72

Written responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton to questions 

submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs .............. 77

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ............................................................................................ 90

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio ............................................................................................................... 104

The Honorable Joe Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .............................................................................................. 107

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ............................................................................................. 114

The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ............................................................................. 123

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .............................................................................................. 132

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois ................................................................................................. 134

The Honorable George Holding, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of North Carolina .................................................................................... 139

The Honorable Trey Radel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ........................................................................................................... 143

The Honorable Doug Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia .......................................................................................................... 144

The Honorable Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of North Carolina .................................................................................... 146

The Honorable Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ........................................................................................................... 158

The Honorable Luke Messer, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana .......................................................................................................... 164

(1)

TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI:

THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S VIEW 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Madam Secretary, on behalf of the entire committee, let me say how glad we are to see you healthy, and how 

much we appreciate your desire to testify about Benghazi before 

you leave office. 

And let me also say that our appreciation extends to the work 

that you have performed on behalf of our country. 

This is our committee’s opening hearing of this Congress. It is 

my initial hearing as its chairman. Examining the first murder of 

a U.S. Ambassador in nearly 35 years and the killing of three other 

brave Americans, is not a welcome place to start, but it is necessary. 

The State Department must learn from its mistakes to better 

protect its employees, many of whom serve in hostile environments. 

Unfortunately, threats to Americans abroad are growing. Particularly, those threats are growing in North Africa. The attacks last 

week in Algeria again show the nature of the danger. 

I support having a wide diplomatic presence. We can’t retreat, as 

you recognized in your testimony, but it has to be done with the 

safety of our personnel foremost in mind. 

This committee intends to work with your department in a bipartisan way and to work to improve security. Every organization has 

its shortcomings; few welcome them being highlighted. But it is 

this committee’s job to get answers to the tough questions. Our 

goal is to identify where State Department management broke 

down, thus failing to protect our people in Benghazi. It is clear that 

the problem was not confined to a few individuals. 

The Accountability Review Board, convened by you, Madam Secretary, found ‘‘systemic failures and leadership and management 

deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

partment.’’ According to the board, these systemic failures led to 

the ‘‘grossly inadequate security in Libya.’’

The Benghazi compound was facing a storm of militancy, a flood 

of weapons, and a deteriorating security environment. Attacks were 

escalating on the compound, yet the compound was inexplicably 

forced to rely on unarmed Libyan guards and a militia that included extremist elements. No wonder the board found a pervasive 

realization among those in Benghazi that security was not a high 

priority for Washington. According to the report, the board found 

that responsibility stopped at the Assistant Secretary level, below 

the department’s most senior management. This seems to contrast 

with the recommendation of the 1999 Accountability Review Board 

on the East Africa bombings, which said that, ‘‘The Secretary of 

State should take a personal and active role in security issues.’’

This committee is concerned that the department’s most senior 

officials either should have known about the worsening security situation in Benghazi or did know something about that security situation. Either way, the point is that security requests were denied. 

I am not sure the board saw the full picture. And if not, its report 

is not a complete blueprint for fixing things. 

The State Department must get this right. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates will very likely be targeting other diplomats for years to 

come. 

Madam Secretary, the committee stands ready to help. 

I learned this morning that you and the administration have proposed legislation to fix the review board, which the committee looks 

forward to considering. 

Today’s discussion may turn to funding. But when reading the 

conclusions of the board, one must ask how more money would 

have made a difference in a bureaucracy plagued by what the 

board called systemic failures. After all, as the security situation 

in Libya worsened, the State Department turned away free security 

assets from the Department of Defense. 

State Department officials have testified that funding was not an 

issue. More resources may have been needed in some areas, but the 

tragedy of Benghazi was rooted in bad decisions. 

Finally, the Benghazi perpetrators must be apprehended, or they 

must be killed. It is troubling that Tunisia recently released a key 

suspect. Poor Libyan cooperation has hampered the FBI’s investigation. Success here is a matter of justice. And it is also a matter 

of signaling to militants that there is no place for them to hide if 

they attack U.S. personnel. 

I will now turn to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Engel, 

for his opening remarks. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this important meeting. I hope we can use this as an opportunity 

to seriously examine the steps we need to take to prevent a repeat 

of the tragedy in Benghazi, rather than engaging in gotcha politics 

that make it more difficult to achieve this bipartisan goal. 

Madam Secretary, as the new ranking member on the Foreign 

Affairs Committee, let me say on behalf of the Democratic members 

of this committee, we would like to welcome you back to our committee, and we are glad that you are feeling better. This will likely 

be your final appearance before our committee. And I want to take 

3

this opportunity to let you know how much we appreciate your outstanding and tireless efforts to represent our country in the international community. I have no doubt that you will continue to 

serve our Nation in some capacity, as you have for so many years, 

and I look forward to working with you in the future. 

And might I add, as a New Yorker, I feel especially proud of the 

wonderful and outstanding job you have done as Secretary of State. 

I think that when we look at the outstanding Secretary of States 

in our history of our country, you will be right up there at the very, 

very top. The way you have worked; the tireless effort you have 

made crisscrossing the globe so many times. You have just been indispensable to all of us as Americans. I want to thank you personally on behalf of all the Democrats, and on behalf of all Americans, 

Democrats and Republicans. We really want to thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, the committee has no greater responsibility than 

making sure that the men and women of the State Department and 

USAID, and other public servants who work abroad, are provided 

the security they deserve. We must do what we can to minimize 

the threats faced by our diplomats and aid workers, but we also 

must recognize that some risk is inherent in the practice of effective diplomacy. We cannot advance America’s interests around the 

world if we isolate behind Embassy walls or limit the deployment 

of our diplomats to low-risk environments. Let’s not learn the 

wrong lesson from today’s hearing. 

The Accountability Review Board, or ARB, convened by Secretary 

Clinton, found a number of failures that resulted from a lack of 

leadership in two State Department bureaus, as well as woefully 

inadequate local security in Benghazi. Clearly, mistakes were 

made. But let’s be absolutely clear. Barack Obama was not responsible for the Benghazi attack any more than George W. Bush was 

responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or Ronald Reagan was responsible 

for the attacks on our Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed over 

200 Marines. 

And frankly, whether it was called a terrorist attack or not in 

the immediate aftermath, as far as I am concerned, is irrelevant. 

We just have to make sure that it never happens again so that in 

the future our people are protected. That is what I want to get out 

of all of this. 

So, Madam Secretary, we commend you for accepting all of the 

ARB recommendations, and welcome your commitment to begin implementing them by the time you leave the department. Even before the ARB submitted its conclusions, the department moved to 

address certain shortcomings through its increased security proposal. The vast majority of the funding for this proposal would 

come from funds previously appropriated for lower priority programs. I hope Congress will move without delay to give the department the transfer authority it needs to start applying these 

changes. It is important to remember that security is not a one-off 

endeavor. Indeed, it is a long-term responsibility and investment. 

In that context, the members of the ARB, led by Ambassador 

Pickering and Admiral Mullen, highlighted the State Department’s 

struggle to get the resources it needs. The ongoing problem had led 

to a culture at the department in which some senior managers appear to be more interested in conserving resources than in achievVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
4

ing specific goals. The ARB report says, ‘‘The solution requires a 

more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support 

State Department needs.’’

Regrettably, it is clear that Congress is still failing to meet this 

commitment. In the most recent State Department funding bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee, the administration’s request for Embassy security, construction, and maintenance 

was cut by $112 million, and worldwide security protection reduced 

by $149 million. The Senate, by comparison, did not cut either account. 

So let me again reiterate what I just said about Congress’ responsibility. Over the past 2 years alone, the administration’s requests for diplomatic security funding has been slashed by more 

than $0.5 billion in Congress. This makes it impossible for the 

State Department to build enough new secure diplomatic facilities 

or improve those that already exist. 

The current appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2013 continues 

this negative trend. The measure reported out of the House Appropriations Committee hacked base funding for worldwide security 

protection and Embassy security, construction and maintenance by 

more than $260 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee 

fully funded both requests. 

So what I am saying here is that we have much work to do for 

ourselves. If we truly want to maintain a global reach, then we 

need to make the necessary investments in safeguarding our personnel who serve in dangerous environments. 

So, Mr. Chairman, you have indicated your intention to work on 

a State Department authorization bill. And I would like to work 

with you in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that improves 

the department’s ability to manage its resources and provide the 

funding necessary to secure our people and facilities globally. 

So I thank you, and I look forward to the Secretary’s testimony. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

To help us understand the State Department’s response to the 

Benghazi attack, we are joined today by Hillary Rodham Clinton, 

the 67th Secretary of State. She has had a long career in public 

service, and for the past 4 years, Secretary Clinton has served as 

President Obama’s Secretary of State. She will soon move on to the 

next chapter in her distinguished career. 

Madam Secretary, without objection, your full statement will be 

made part of the record. 

And all members here will have 5 days to submit statements and 

questions for the record, subject to the limitations of the committee 

rules. 

Madam Secretary, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM 

CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank you and the ranking member and members of the 

committee, both of longstanding tenure and brand new members. 

And I appreciate your patience for me to be able to come to fulfill 

my commitment to you, actually to the former chairwoman, that I 

would be here to discuss the attack in Benghazi. 

5

I appreciate this opportunity. I will submit my full testimony for 

the record. 

I want to make just a few points. First, the terrorist attacks in 

Benghazi that claimed the lives of four brave Americans, Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, are part of a 

broader strategic challenge to the United States and our partners 

in North Africa. I think it is important we understand the context 

for this challenge as we work together to protect our people and 

honor our fallen colleagues. 

Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this 

sobering fact: Since 1988, there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their 

facilities. Since 1977, 65 American diplomatic personnel have been 

killed by terrorists. In addition to those who have been killed, we 

know what happened in Tehran with hostages being taken in 1979; 

our Embassy and Marine barracks bombed in Beirut in 1983; 

Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia 1996; our Embassies in East Africa 

in 1998; consulate staff murdered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 2004; 

the Khost attack in Afghanistan in 2009; and too many others. 

But I also want to stress the list of attacks that were foiled, crises averted, and lives saved is even longer. We should never forget 

that the security professionals get it right more than 99 percent of 

the time, against difficult odds, because the terrorists only need to 

get it right once. 

That is why, like all my predecessors, I trust the Diplomatic Security professionals with my life. Let’s also remember that, as the 

chairman and the ranking member pointed out, administrations of 

both parties, in partnership with Congress, have made concerted 

and good-faith efforts to learn from the tragedies that have occurred to implement recommendations from the review boards, to 

seek the necessary resources to better protect our people in a constantly evolving threat environment. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, of the 19 Accountability Review Boards 

that have been held since 1988, only two have been made public. 

I want to stress that, because the two that have been made public, 

coming out of the East Africa Embassy bombings and this one, are 

attempts, honest attempts by the State Department, by the Secretary, Secretary Albright and myself, to be as transparent and 

open as possible. 

We wanted to be sure that whatever these independent, nonpartisan boards found would be made available to the Congress 

and to the American people, because as I have said many times 

since September 11, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure. 

Now, taking responsibility meant not only moving quickly in 

those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate 

crisis, but also to make sure we were protecting our people and 

posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world. It also 

meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly 

what happened in Benghazi, and to recommend steps for improvement. And it also meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and support emerging democracies in North Africa and beyond. 

6

Let me share briefly the lessons we have learned up until now. 

First, let’s start on the night of September 11 itself and those difficult early days. I directed our response from the State Department and stayed in close contact with officials from across our Government and the Libyan Government. So I did see firsthand what 

Ambassador Pickering and Chairman Mullen called timely and exceptional coordination. No delays in decision-making. No denials of 

support from Washington or from our military. And I want to echo 

the review board’s praise for the valor and courage of our people 

on the ground, especially our security professionals in Benghazi 

and Tripoli. The board said our response saved American lives in 

real time, and it did. 

The very next morning I told the American people, and I quote, 

‘‘Heavily armed militants assaulted our compound,’’ and vowed to 

bring them to justice. And I stood later that day with President 

Obama as he spoke of an act of terror. Now, you may recall, at the 

same time period, we were also seeing violent attacks on our Embassies in Cairo, Sana’a, Tunis, and Khartoum, as well as large 

protests outside many other posts, from India to Indonesia, where 

thousands of our diplomats serve. So I immediately ordered a review of our security posture around the world, with particular scrutiny for high-threat posts. And I asked the Department of Defense 

to join Interagency Security Assessment Teams and to dispatch 

hundreds of additional Marine security guards. I named the first 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for High Threat Posts so that 

missions in dangerous places get the attention they need. And we 

reached out to Congress to help address physical vulnerabilities, including risks from fire and to hire additional Diplomatic Security 

personnel and Marine security guards. 

Second, even as I took these steps, I quickly moved to appoint 

the Accountability Review Board because I wanted them to come 

forward with their report before I left, because I felt the responsibility, and I wanted to be sure that I was putting in motion the 

response to whatever they found. What was wrong? How do we fix 

it? I have accepted every one of their recommendations. Our Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, Deputy Tom Nides, 

who appeared before this committee last month, is leading a task 

force to ensure all 29 are implemented quickly and completely, as 

well as pursuing additional steps above and beyond the board. 

I pledged in my letter to you last month that implementation has 

now begun on all 29 recommendations. We have translated them 

into 64 specific action items. They were all assigned to specific bureaus and offices, with clear timelines for completion. Fully 85 percent are on track to be completed by the end of March, with a number completed already. But we are also taking a top to bottom look 

to rethink how we make decisions on where, when, and whether 

our people should operate in high-threat areas and how we respond. We are initiating an annual high-threat post review, chaired 

for the first time in American history, I suppose, by the Secretary 

of State, and ongoing reviews by the deputy secretaries to ensure 

that pivotal questions about security reach the highest level. And 

we will regularize protocols for sharing information with Congress. 

Now, in addition to the immediate action we took, and the review 

board process, we are moving on a third front, addressing the 

7

broader strategic challenge in North Africa and the wider region. 

Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. The Arab revolutions have 

scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the 

region. Instability in Mali has created an expanding safe haven for 

terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we just saw last week in Algeria. And let me offer 

our deepest condolences to the families of the Americans and all 

the people from many nations killed and injured in the Algerian 

hostage crisis. We remain in close touch with the Government of 

Algeria, ready to provide assistance if needed, and also seeking to 

gain a fuller understanding of what took place so we can work together to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future. 

Now, concerns about terrorism and instability in North Africa 

are not new, of course. Indeed, they have been a top priority for 

this entire national security team. But we need to work together 

to accelerate a diplomatic campaign to increase pressure on alQaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other terrorist groups in the region. I have conferred with the President of Libya, the Foreign 

Ministers and Prime Ministers of Tunisia and Morocco. Two weeks 

later, after the attack, I met with a very large group of regional 

leaders at the U.N. and was part of a special meeting focused on 

Mali and the Sahel. In October, I flew to Algeria to discuss the 

fight against AQIM. In November, I sent Deputy Secretary Bill 

Burns on an interagency group to Algiers to continue that conversation. And then, in my stead, he co-chaired the Global Counterterrorism Forum that was held in Abu Dhabi and a meeting in 

Tunis, working not only on building new democracies but reforming 

security services. 

These are just a few of the constant diplomatic engagements that 

we are having focused on targeting al-Qaeda’s syndicate of terror, 

closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering their extremist 

ideology, slowing the flow of new recruits. We continue to hunt the 

terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi, and are determined to bring them to justice. And we are using our diplomatic 

and economic tools to support the emerging democracies, including 

Libya, in order to give them the strength to provide a path away 

from extremism. 

But finally, the United States must continue to lead in the Middle East, in North Africa, and around the globe. We have come a 

long way in the past 4 years, and we cannot afford to retreat now. 

When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, 

there are consequences: Extremism takes root; our interests suffer; 

and our security at home is threatened. 

That is why Chris Stevens went to Benghazi in the first place. 

I asked him to go. During the beginning of the revolution against 

Ghadafi, we needed somebody in Benghazi who could begin to build 

bridges with the insurgents and to begin to demonstrate that 

America would stand against Ghadafi. Nobody knew the dangers or 

the opportunities better than Chris, first, during the revolution, 

then during the transition: A weak Libyan Government, marauding 

militias, even terrorist groups, a bomb exploded in the parking lot 

of his hotel. He never wavered. He never asked to come home. He 

never said, let’s shut it down, quit, and go somewhere else, because 

8

he understood it was critical for America to be represented in that 

place at that pivotal time. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we do have to work harder and better to balance the risks and the opportunities. Our men and women who 

serve overseas understand that we do accept a level of risk to represent and protect the country we love. They represent the best 

traditions of a bold and generous Nation. They cannot work in 

bunkers and do their jobs. But it is our responsibility to make sure 

they have the resources they need to do those jobs and to do everything we can to reduce the risks they face. 

For me, this is not just a matter of policy; it is personal, because 

I have had the great honor to lead the men and women of the State 

Department and USAID, nearly 70,000 serving here in Washington 

and at more than 275 posts around the world. They get up and go 

to work every day, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances, 

thousands of miles from home, because they believe the United 

States is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the 

Earth has ever known. 

And when we suffer tragedies overseas, the number of Americans 

applying to the Foreign Service actually increases. That tells us everything we need to know about the kind of patriots I am talking 

about. They do ask what they can do for their country. And America is stronger for it. So today, after 4 years in this job, traveling 

nearly 1 million miles and visiting 112 countries, my faith in our 

country and our future is stronger than ever. Every time that blue 

and white airplane carrying the words ‘‘United States of America’’ 

touches down in some far off capital, I feel again the honor it is 

to represent the world’s indispensable Nation, and I am confident 

that with your help, we will continue to keep the United States 

safe, strong, and exceptional. And I would be very happy to answer 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Clinton follows:]

9


78250a-1.eps

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

WASHINGTON, DC 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity. 

The terrorist attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 that claimed the lives of four brave 

Americans -- Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty -- are part of a 

broader strategiC challenge to the United States and our partners in North Africa. Today, I 

want to offer some context for this challenge and share what we've learned, how we are 

protecting our people, and where we can work together to honor our fallen colleagues and 

continue to champion America's interests and values. 

Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact: Since 1988, 

there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American 

diplomats and their facilities. Benghazi joins a long list of tragedies, for our Department 

and for other agencies: hostages taken in Tehran in 1979, our embassy and Marine 

barracks bombed in Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies 

in East Africa in 1998, consulate staff murdered in Jeddah in 2004, the Khost attack in 

2009, and too many others. 

Of course, the list of attacks foiled, crises averted, and lives saved is even longer. We 

should never forget that our security professionals get it right 99 percent of the time, 

against difficult odds allover the world. That's why, like my predecessors, I trust them with 

my life. 

Let's also remember that administrations of both parties, in partnership with Congress, have 

made concerted and good faith efforts to learn from the tragedies that have occurred, to 

implement recommendations from the Review Boards, to seek necessary resources, and to 

better protect our people from constantly evolving threats. That's what the men and 

women who serve our country deserve. And it's what we are doing again now, with your 

help. As Secretary, I have had no higher priority, and no greater responsibility. 

As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more 

committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our 

country safer, stronger, and more secure. 

Taking responsibility meant moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to 

respond to the immediate crisis and further protect our people and posts in high-threat 

areas across the region and the world. It meant launching an independent investigation to 

determine exactly what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement. 

And it meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and support emerging democracies 

in North Africa and beyond. 

Let me share some of the lessons we have learned, the steps we have taken, and the work 

we continue to do. 

First, let's start on the night of September 11 itself and those difficult early days. I directed 

our response from the State Department and stayed in close contact with officials from 

across our government and the Libyan government. So I saw first-hand what Ambassador 

Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen 

called "timely" and "exceptional" coordination. No delays in decision-making. No denials of 
10


78250a-2.eps

support from Washington or from the military. And I want to echo the Review Board's 

praise for the valor and courage of our people on the ground - especially the security 

professionals in Benghazi and Tripoli. The Board said our response saved American lives in 

real time - and it did. 

The very next morning, I told the American people that "heavily armed militants assaulted 

our compound" and vowed to bring them to justice. And I stood with President Obama as 

he spoke of "an act of terror." 

You may recall that in that same period, we also saw violent attacks on our embassies in 

Cairo, Sanaa, Tunis, and Khartoum, as well as large protests outside many other posts 

where thousands of our diplomats serve. 

So I immediately ordered a review of our security posture around the world, with particular 

scrutiny for high-threat posts. We asked the Department of Defense to join Interagency 

Security Assessment Teams and to dispatch hundreds of additional Marine Security Guards. 

I named the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for High Threat Posts, so Missions in 

dangerous places get the attention they need. And we reached out to Congress to help 

address physical vulnerabilities, including risks from fire, and to hire additional Diplomatic 

Security personnel. 

Second, even as we took these steps, I also appointed the Accountability Review Board led 

by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen so that we could more fully understand what 

went wrong and how to fix it. 

I have accepted every one of their recommendations -- and I asked the Deputy Secretary 

for Management and Resources to lead a task force to ensure that all 29 of them are 

implemented quickly and completely ... as well as to pursue additional steps above and 

beyond those in the Board's report. 

Because of the effort we began in the days after the attacks, work is already well 

underway. And, as I pledged in my letter to you last month, implementation has now 

begun on all 29 recommendations. Our task force started by translating the 

recommendations into 64 specific action items. All of these action items were assigned to 

specific bureaus and offices, with clear timelines for completion. Fully 85 percent are on 

track to be completed by the end of March, with a number completed already. 

We are taking a top-to-bottom look, and rethinking how we make decisions on where, 

when, and how our people operate in high threat areas, and how we respond to threats and 

crises. 

As part of our effort to go above and beyond the Review Board's recommendations, we are 

initiating an annual High Threat Post Review chaired by the Secretary of State, and ongoing 

reviews by the Deputy Secretaries, to ensure pivotal questions about security reach the 

highest levels. And we will regularize protocols for sharing information with Congress. 

All of these actions are designed to increase the safety of our diplomats and development 

experts and reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again. 

Now, in addition to the immediate action we took and the Review Board process, we have 

been moving forward on a third front: addressing the broader strategic challenge in North 

Africa and the wider region. 
11


78250a-3.eps

Because Benghazi didn't happen in a vacuum. The Arab revolutions have scrambled power 

dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. And instability in Mali has 

created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot 

further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in Algeria. 

And let me offer my deepest condolences to the families of the Americans and all the people 

from many nations who were killed and injured in the recent hostage crisis. We remain in 

close touch with the Government of Algeria and stand ready to provide assistance if 

needed. We are seeking to gain a fuller understanding of what took place so that we can 

work together to prevent terrorist attacks like this in the future. 

Concerns about terrorism and instability in North Africa are not new. Indeed they have 

been a top priority for our entire national security team. But after Benghazi, we accelerated 

a diplomatic campaign to increase pressure on al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other 

terrorist groups across the region. 

In the first hours and days, I conferred with the President of Libya and the Foreign Ministers 

of Tunisia and Morocco. Two weeks later, I met with regional leaders at the United Nations 

General Assembly and held a special meeting focused on Mali and the Sahel. In October, I 

flew to Algeria to discuss the fight against AQIM. In November, I sent Deputy Secretary Bill 

Burns to follow up in Algiers. And then in December, he co-chaired the Global 

Counterterrorism Forum in Abu Dhabi and a meeting in Tunis of leaders working to build 

new democracies and reform security services. 

In all these diplomatic engagements, and in near-constant contacts at every level, we have 

focused on targeting al Qaeda's syndicate of terror - closing safe havens, cutting off 

finances, countering extremist ideology, and slowing the flow of new recruits. We continue 

to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring 

them to justice. And we're also using all our diplomatic and economic tools to support the 

emerging democracies of the region, including Libya, to strengthen security forces and 

provide a path away from extremism. 

The United States must continue to lead ... in the Middle East and all around the globe. We 

have come a long way in the past four years. We cannot afford to retreat now. When 

America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. 

Extremism takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is threatened. 

That's why Chris Stevens went to Benghazi in the first place. Nobody knew the dangers 

better than Chris, first during the revolution and then during the transition. A weak Libyan 

government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups ... a bomb exploded in the parking lot 

of his hotel, but he didn't waver. Because he understood that it was critical for America to 

be represented in that pivotal place at that pivotal time. 

Our men and women who serve overseas understand that we accept a level of risk to 

protect this country we love. They represent the best traditions of a bold and generous 

nation. And they cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs. 

It is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need to do their jobs and 

to do everything we can to reduce the risks they face. 

For me, this is not just a matter of policy .. it's personal. 
12


78250a-4.eps

I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the 

plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, 

sons and daughters. 

It has been one of the greatest honors of my life to lead the men and women of the State 

Department and USAID. Nearly 70,000 serving here in Washington and at more than 275 

posts around the world. They get up and go to work every day - often in difficult and 

dangerous circumstances thousands of miles from home - because they believe the United 

States is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the earth has ever known. 

And when we suffer tragedies overseas, the number of Americans applying to the Foreign 

Service actually increases. That tells us everything we need to know about what kind of 

patriots I'm talking about. They ask what they can do for their country. And America is 

stronger for it. 

Today, after four years in this job, after traveling nearly 1 million miles and visiting 112 

countries around the world, my faith in our country and our future is stronger than ever. 

Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "United States of America" 

touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor it is to represent the world's 

indispensible nation. And I am confident that, with your help, we will continue to keep the 

United States safe, strong, and exceptional. 

So I want to thank this committee for your partnership and your support of our diplomats 

and development experts around the world. You know the importance of the work they do 

day-in and day-out, and that America's values and vital national security interests are at 

stake. It is absolutely critical that we work together to ensure they have the resources and 

support they need to face increasingly complex threats. 

I know that you share our sense of responsibility and urgency. And while we all may not 

agree on everything, let's stay focused on what really matters: protecting our people and 

the country we all love. 

Now I am now happy to answer your questions. 

### 
13

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Our State Department personnel do certainly accept a level of 

risk. And they do so in order, as you have said quite properly, to 

continue to lead. And we recognize that hindsight is 20/20. 

But with regard to the Benghazi attacks, what is probably most 

disturbing, as the question comes before the committee and as the 

media looks at the situation, is that the dots here were connected 

ahead of time. The State Department saw this risk coming. And 

the State Department didn’t act in order to prevent what could 

have been handled by answering the requests by our personnel. 

If we look at the State Department e-mail exchange on top officials in the bureau, written right after the assassination attempt 

on the British Ambassador in June 2012, here is the exchange,

‘‘This is very concerning when you start putting the events together, the anti-American demonstration, the attack on our 

compound, and now the U.K. Motorcade attack. If the tide is 

turning and they are now looking for Americans and westerners to attack, that is a game changer. We are not staffed 

or resourced adequately to protect our people in that type of 

environment. We are a soft target.’’

Here is the point. Senior officials fully appreciated the grave 

threats in Benghazi. They knew that al-Qaeda was there. They 

knew that our security was insufficient. But instead of adding security, in this case, they took it away. They withdrew mobile security 

detachment teams. They sent packing a special team that the Defense Department provided at no cost. If senior officials knew that 

our diplomats weren’t safe and weren’t adequately staffed, then 

why did they continue to withdraw security? I think that is the 

first question. 

In testimony this morning, you said you never saw those requests, and I understand that. Last month, though, Deputy Secretary Burns testified that memos regarding the deteriorating security situation did make their way to the seventh floor, to top management. So which senior official was he referring to when he talks 

about top management there? Who in the senior management was 

responsible for responding to those requests that were coming from 

the field? That would be my question. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, there are a lot of important questions 

in that, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me begin by saying that I was aware of certain incidents 

at our facility, and the attack on the British diplomat. I was briefed 

on steps taken to repair the breach in the perimeter wall after the 

June bombing, steps taken to reduce off-compound movements. Our 

team, led by security professionals, but also including intelligence 

professionals and others, did not recommend, based on those incidents, abandoning Benghazi, in part because over the last years, 

we have become accustomed to operating in dangerous places in 

Pakistan, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Yemen, and elsewhere. 

And we do, as by necessity, rely on security professionals to implement the protocols and procedures necessary to keep our people 

safe. And as I said in my opening statements, I have a lot of confidence in them because, you know, most of the time, they get it 

right. 

14

But I was also engaged, and I think this is what Deputy Secretary Burns was referring to, in the issues related to the deteriorating threat environment, particularly in Libya—there were other 

places across the region we were also watching—to try to see what 

we could do to support the Libyan Government to improve the 

overall stability of their country, to deal with the many militias. 

We have many programs and actions that we were working on. I 

had a number of conversations with leading Libyan officials. I went 

to Libya in October 2011. In fact, shortly before the attack on 

Benghazi, we approved Libya for substantial funding from a joint 

State-DoD account for border security, CT capabilities, and WMD 

efforts. 

Chairman ROYCE. I understand that, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. So I want to just clarify that there were specific instances and assessments going on primarily by the security 

professionals related to individual posts, including Benghazi. 

Chairman ROYCE. But what I saw was a communique ́, which indicated that those assets, like the security site team, were in fact 

pulled. You had free of cost here, from the Department of Defense, 

a team in place. And on about August 15, some weeks before the 

attack, the question was, can we extend that security team? And 

the answer is no, it would be embarrassing to our agency if that 

agency is providing the protection. That struck me as a little bit 

of the problem that we had before between the CIA and the FBI, 

between, you know, two agencies that were more focused perhaps 

on the rivalry than they were on providing the security. And we 

are full circle now, based on the reading, literal reading of those 

memos. Here you had the requests. 

So that is my question. They didn’t come to the conclusion that 

we should increase security, but what about the question of having 

security actually withdrawn August 15 in terms of the security site 

team provided by the Department of Defense? 

Secretary CLINTON. Again, I am glad you raised that. The ARB 

looked into this, as it looked into everything. It does not even discuss the SST or recommend that our personnel on the ground 

should have asked for its continued deployment. And I think that 

is in part because the SST was based in Tripoli. 

Chairman ROYCE. Right. 

Secretary CLINTON. It hardly ever, less than 2 percent of the entire time it was in Libya, did it even go to Benghazi. Its responsibilities, which were about the siting of and security of the Embassy, were focused on Tripoli. And it was not an open-ended arrangement, as it has been understood. It was intended as an interim measure. And the experts who were there played vital roles. 

They were communications specialists, airfield specialists, trained 

medics. They helped to stand up our Embassy in Tripoli when we 

reopened it. And I think it is important that they were very helpful 

with the Embassy. But at the end of the day, they really were not 

focused on, nor did they pay much attention to, Benghazi. And I 

think since their primary mission was at the Embassy, the Embassy did acquire a lot of assets. And that was the decision that 

they should not be extended for a third time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Madam Secretary, thank you. 

We are going to go Mr. Engel from New York. 

15

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, you and the State Department have rightfully 

taken responsibility for what happened, convening the ARB and 

implementing its recommendations. But as I said in my opening 

statement, we need to be clear-eyed that there is blame to share 

right here in Congress. Over the past 2 years alone, the administration’s requests for diplomatic security funding has been slashed 

by more than $0.5 billion in Congress. And the current appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 continues this negative trend by slashing 

funding for worldwide security protection, Embassy security, construction and maintenance by more than $260 million. 

So I would like to ask you, Madam Secretary, do you think that 

Congress has provided adequate resources for diplomatic security 

in recent years? Can you talk about security priorities you have not 

been able to complete due to an inadequate budget? And what advice would you give the committee as it considers funding to protect our diplomats? And I want to also ask what would happen to 

the security of our diplomats and our diplomatic facilities if there 

is a sequester, or worse, a government shut down? Has the State 

Department begun planning for the dangers of Congress not agreeing to a budget? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman Engel, this is a bipartisan problem. Since 2007, the Department has consistently requested greater funding for Embassy construction and diplomatic 

security. But with the exception of 2010, the Congress has consistently enacted less than requested. 

Most notably, in 2012, the department received $340 million less 

than requested, close to 10 percent less. Now, over the last 2 years 

cuts to the Embassy construction, security and maintenance budget 

was almost 10 percent of that as well. Now, the ARB, and I would 

refer to them, because, you know, they had an independent view 

of this, has recommended an increase in facilities funding to $2.2 

billion per year to restore the construction levels that were called 

for in the 1998 ARB report. 

But I think it is also fair to make the point the ARB made. Consistent shortfalls have required the government to try to prioritize. 

And the department has attempted to do that. But I do think that 

there became a culture of reaction, you know, as the ARB report 

says, husbanding resources, and trying to figure out how to do as 

much with as little as possible. And so although our prioritization 

was certainly imperfect, the funds provided by Congress were inadequate. So somehow we have to work on both ends of that equation. Now, what can you do? 

Well, first of all, we came up with a request to the legislative and 

budget staffs for transfer authority language, namely taking money 

we already had in this budget and letting us move it quickly to do 

what the ARB told us to do. More Marine security guards, more 

Diplomatic Security guards, more construction and upgrades. We 

were able to get that included in the Senate version of the Sandy 

supplemental, which passed on December 28, but we were unable 

to get the language included in the House version. This is not new 

money. So, first and foremost, I would greatly appreciate this committee weighing in, working with your counterpart in the Senate, 

16

to give us this transfer authority. Otherwise, we are going to be behind the curve again. 

Secondly, I think it is very important to change the laws about 

best value contracting versus lowest price technically qualified. By 

statute, the State Department local guard contracts in dangerous 

places like Libya, and everywhere else, except Iraq and Afghanistan, must be awarded using a lowest price technically acceptable 

selection process. We have requested a change in the legislation 

that would allow us to use some discretion to try to deal with the 

varieties and vagaries of these local guard forces. We currently 

have it, as I said, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. But it is 

going to expire. So that is something else that I would respectfully 

ask this committee to look into. 

And finally, the point that the chairman made and that you 

echoed, Congressman, an authorization. You know, working on an 

authorization. I was on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. We did an authorization every year no matter what was going 

on in the world. It was a great organizing tool. It made sure that 

our defense needs were going to be met. I believe that in the world 

in which we are living, our diplomacy and development needs are 

very important. But we don’t have the same focus. And so working 

with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on an authorization 

where you can look at everything and you can have subcommittees 

really delving into all of these different issues, coming up with an 

authorization, I think would be a great step forward. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from New York—from 

Florida. 

They retire from New York to Florida. From Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We will take them either way. New Jersey, 

New York, come on down. Madam Secretary——

Secretary CLINTON. There are a lot of New Yorkers already down 

there, I think, aren’t there? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. But you can only vote once. We are very 

picky about that. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for the positive working relationship that we have had during your tenure at the State Department. I request that I get written responses for the questions that 

I am going to ask. 

First, why were you not interviewed for the review board by the 

review board investigators? How can this review be considered 

thorough when the person at the top, the Secretary of State, was 

not part of the investigation? That is what was said in our open 

hearing when it was confirmed that you were never questioned for 

this report, and I think that is outrageous. 

Also, the State Department was clearly allowing the false narrative that Department officials were being held accountable for 

what went wrong in Benghazi, for ignoring the threat, and it was 

perceived as fact. Look at these headlines: The New York Times, 

‘‘Four are out at State Department after scathing report on 

Benghazi attack,’’ not true. ‘‘Heads roll at the State Department,’’ 

not true. Yet State did nothing to correct the record. Here we are 

130 days after the terrorist attack, why did you not take steps pubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
17

licly to correct this false narrative, even up to and including today? 

Even when your deputies, Burns and Nides, testified before us, 

they both said that steps were being taken to discipline those State 

Department officials, when in fact no significant action had or has 

occurred. There has just been a shuffling of the deck chairs. 

Do you find it acceptable that the State officials responsible for 

this lack of leadership and mismanagement, and for ignoring security requests during the Benghazi attack and before, remain employed within the State Department? 

Also, the accountability report cites several systemic failures at 

the department that cannot be overlooked or ignored. Given that 

State was aware of the dangerously declining security situation in 

Benghazi—as pointed out by our chairman—the assassination attempt on the British Ambassador, and other attacks on Western interests, why did State not immediately revamp our security protocols prior to the September 11 attacks? Did State fail to act preemptively because it ignored the threat, or did it fail to act because 

it was unable to recognize this growing pattern of violence? Either 

way, State did fail to act. 

These failures highlighted by the ARB report serve as a blueprint for terrorists on where our weaknesses lie, where we are vulnerable. So what actions have been taken to ensure that when another Embassy, another consulate sounds the alarm on security 

threats, as it happened in Benghazi, that those requests are not yet 

again ignored? As we examine the willingness and capacity of host 

countries in the region, we must condition aid to countries with 

these high-threat posts based on their cooperation with the United 

States. I hope that we do that. 

Further, regarding the State’s request for more money, it is 

worth pointing out that some State Department officials have stated that budget constraints are not to blame for the loss of lives in 

Benghazi. However, the State Department is notorious for wasteful 

spending and continues to have misplaced funding priorities. Between the State Department, Treasury, and USAID, the Fiscal 

Year 2012 request for global climate change initiative is over $1.3 

billion. Now, what do we think or what do you think is a higher 

priority and a better use of taxpayers’ money, national security or 

global climate change? This money could have been used for Embassy construction, for hiring more diplomacy security agents, for 

providing our posts and personnel overseas with adequate equipment and training. 

There is more that I can’t get to, but certainly I would appreciate 

your written answers, including the 64 specific action items that 

you will be taking on the task force recommendation. Also, we look 

forward to getting a detailed report here in Congress on explaining 

their justification, their itemized funding layout, et cetera. 

So thank you, Madam Secretary, for the time. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, obviously, we will answer all 

of your questions. Let me just comment on two of them even 

though my time has run out. First, I was not asked to speak with 

the Accountability Review Board during their investigation. The 

specific issues they were looking at regarding the attack on 

Benghazi were handled by security professionals in the department. And that is where the ARB focused. Obviously, if they had 

18

thought that I was relevant or had information that would have 

helped the investigation, I would have gladly discussed that with 

them at their request. 

Secondly, on the personnel, this is another area where I need 

your help. First, all four individuals have been removed from their 

jobs. Second, they have been placed on administrative leave. Thirdly, Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen specifically highlighted the reason why this has been so complicated. Under Federal statute and regulations, unsatisfactory leadership is not 

grounds for finding a breach of duty. And the ARB did not find that 

these four individuals breached their duty. So, fourthly, I have submitted legislation to this committee and to the Senate committee 

to fix this problem so future ARBs will not face this situation, because I agree with you, there ought to be more leeway given to the 

ARBs. But under current law, they were limited. 

Chairman ROYCE. Madam Secretary, we will be working to fix 

that problem. 

Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our ranking 

member for calling this important hearing. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for your most eloquent statement. 

Your service to our Nation has been exemplary and outstanding. 

And any suggestion otherwise during today’s hearing I would consider unfair and unwarranted. 

We meet today under difficult circumstances. I am sure that 

when you, as Secretary of State, stood at Andrews Air Force Base 

for the transfer of the remains of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, 

Mr. Sean Smith, Mr. Tyrone Woods, and Mr. Glen Doherty, you 

must have had tremendous, or felt tremendous pain and suffering. 

As we express in our Samoan proverb, ‘‘Ua tagi le fatu ma le 

eleele,’’ meaning, ‘‘the stones and the Earth wept.’’

Madam Secretary, please know that we were not—you were not 

alone. We wept with you and with the families of our fallen heroes. 

It is true that the Benghazi attack is the first time since 1979 that 

an American Ambassador has been killed in the line of duty. But 

it is also true that the world has changed significantly since 1979, 

and consequently the Department of State is increasingly operating 

in high-threat locations throughout the world. This is why the Accountability Review Board rightly observed that Congress needs to 

make a serious and sustained commitment to supporting State Department needs. 

But in the Fiscal Year 2013 fiscal year budget, the House cut the 

administration’s request by about $200 million. However, having 

been provided $2.6 billion of security funding, I wonder if the Congress had done its part and fulfilled its responsibility in providing 

the State Department with the necessary resources and funding to 

meet its needs, especially to provide security for our Embassies and 

consulates throughout the world. I agree with the ARB’s recommendations that we should restore the capital security costsharing program, which pulls money from different agencies in 

order to accelerate construction of new Embassies and consulates. 

Madam Secretary, in honor of the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Mr. Sean Smith, Mr. Tyrone Woods, and Mr. Glen 

Doherty, we need answers so that we can prevent this kind of tragVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
19

edy from happening again. It is no good for any of us to use this 

tragedy for political gain. This was a terrorist attack first and foremost. 

And we must not lose sight of this brutal fact. Instead, we must 

hold together in our commitment to defeat those who would do us 

harm. So, Madam Secretary, I commend you for convening the ARB 

in accordance with the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, and for accepting all 29 of the recommendations 

of the ARB commission. For the past 20 years, you have served our 

Nation well. You have done all you could do to deliver freedom 

safely to future generations. I salute you, and I look ahead to 2016, 

wishing you much success and extending to you my highest regards. 

I do have one question, or a couple if I have the time. Madam 

Secretary, I note with interest one of your quotes, or a statement 

here that this is why Ambassador Chris Stevens went to Benghazi. 

I want to get the sense that the commitment of our Foreign Service 

Officers throughout the world is second to none, even at the risk 

of their lives. And I wish that my colleagues would understand, 

yes, we have logistical problems, yes, we have funding, but the fact 

that these people willingly did this, not only because of his love for 

the leaders and the people of Libya, but because he was so proud 

to represent this great Nation of ours. 

And I would like to ask if you could elaborate just a little further 

what you meant by this, that Ambassador Stevens went to 

Benghazi in the first place, knowing the dangers, knowing the dangers were there, he went still; could you please comment on that? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I think it is absolutely 

the case that we have a Foreign Service that is composed of men 

and women who take on these responsibilities because they love 

our country. They go in with their eyes wide open. They learn languages. They immerse themselves in cultures. They go out to the 

Foreign Service Institute and hone their skills. 

And Chris Stevens was one of our very best. He started off in the 

Peace Corps in Morocco, was a fluent Arabic speaker, had served 

with distinction throughout the Arab world. And when I asked if 

he would be interested in going to Benghazi, where we had nothing 

when he first went, where he, you know, bunked up in a hotel, we 

didn’t have any support to speak of, he was thrilled. And he understood immediately what it would mean. 

In the wake of this tragedy, this terrible terrorist attack, I think 

one of the most poignant events has been overlooked. And that is 

what happened after the Libyan people, from Benghazi to Tripoli, 

learned that Chris Stevens, someone whom they had gotten to 

know, whom they trusted and admired, had been murdered. They 

went out into the streets. They protested themselves, thousands, 

tens of thousands, far more than the dozens of highly armed, you 

know, invaders of our compound and our annex. And they made it 

clear that that was not the kind of country they were trying to 

build. So, in some ways, Chris’ faith after his death was certainly 

validated. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

20

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. You know, we all deeply mourn the 

tragic loss of four extraordinarily brave Americans, including our 

distinguished Ambassador, Christopher Stevens. But one of my top 

concerns is that we seem to be relearning the same lessons again 

and again and again. 

Madam Secretary, after the August 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Admiral Crowe sat exactly where 

you sit, that was 13 years ago, and told the subcommittee that I 

chaired at the time that, ‘‘In our investigations of the bombings, 

the Boards were shocked how similar the lessons learned were to 

those drawn by the Inman Commission some 14 years ago.’’ In 

other words, in 1985. In direct response, I authored a bipartisan 

law, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act. In it, we had a title, the Secure Embassy 

Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, to upgrade diplomatic security and residences, to improve threat assessments and 

facilities, emergency action plans, security threat lists, perimeter 

distances, setbacks, for example, crisis management training, Diplomatic Security training, rapid response procedures, storage and 

emergency equipment, like fire suppressant capabilities, and increased antiterrorism training in Africa. Before 1998, there were 

1,000 security specialists. Today, there are over 3,100. I agree we 

need more. But how present-day security personnel and assets are 

deployed are above all a leadership issue. And clearly, we have and 

had the Diplomatic Security assets that could have been deployed 

to Benghazi. 

When it comes to what you knew, Madam Secretary, and what 

requests were made of you and the department to beef up security 

in Benghazi, there are disturbing parallels to Kenya and Tanzania. 

Prior to the East Africa terrorist bombings, U.S. Ambassador to 

Kenya Prudence Bushnell repeatedly asked Secretary Madeleine 

Albright for more security upgrades. And the Ambassador’s request 

was rejected. And the loss of life, as we all know, was horrific. 

There are numerous press reports that U.S. Ambassador to Libya 

Chris Stevens and his team made repeated requests for security assistance. So my questions are these: One, you defined taking responsibility for Benghazi in your testimony a few moments ago in 

terms and only in terms of during and after the terrorist attacks. 

What about before the attack on September 11, 2012? What did 

you personally and your staff know? When did you become aware 

of Ambassador Stevens’ and his team’s requests for security upgrades? What exactly did you do in response? You obviously were 

very close to him. Did he ask you personally at any time? 

When you said a moment ago that Ambassador Pickering’s ARB 

perhaps didn’t think you relevant to be interviewed, you are the 

most relevant person of all. You are the leader. You are on top of 

it all. So I would join with my colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; you 

should have been interviewed, and very important questions asked. 

And were you personally in any way at fault? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, first, Congressman, I am well aware of 

the work that you did after the 1998 bombings. And I think that 

work and the legislation that you championed has been very important in protecting our people around the world. We have been not 

21

only reviewing but continuing to implement the recommendations 

of all the former ARBs. And the 18 previous ARBs resulted in 164 

recommendations. And we have been very clear that the overwhelming majority have been implemented. A handful of such recommendations were by their very nature requiring continuous implementation, like what kind of security upgrades or radio communication was necessary. And there were a few that were only partially implemented because of some separate security concerns that 

that would have raised. 

But there was a need for ongoing funding. You remember that Admiral Crowe said, we wanted $2.2 billion for building Embassies. 

We had a number of Embassies that were built in those early 

years, thanks to your legislation. Then it petered off. You know, we 

put so much time and attention into Iraq and Afghanistan, trying 

to make sure that we secured our people there. We sent a lot of 

our Diplomatic Security personnel there. And so we had a slowdown over a number of years in our ability to build new Inman facilities. And now the latest ARB is saying, let’s get back and do 

this again because there is no substitute for it. 

Mr. SMITH. I am almost out of time, Madam Secretary. When did 

you become aware of Ambassador Stevens’ request, and how did 

you respond to it? And did he ever personally ask you to be involved? 

Secretary CLINTON. No, no and——

Mr. SMITH. You didn’t get——

Secretary CLINTON. No. That any of the requests, any of the cables having to do with security did not come to my attention. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Sherman from California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Secretary, it is a shame that this is your 

last appearance before our committee. And I would have thought 

that your last appearance would have been a chance for us to review your outstanding record as one of our great Secretaries of 

State, whether it be leading efforts to enforce sanctions on Iran, 

your work supporting women’s rights around the world, engaging 

with civil society and restoring and maintaining American influence in a very difficult era. I would have thought that your last 

hearing would be your chance to give us some advice for what to 

do over the next 4 years and beyond. 

I take seriously your very strong advice, because I happen to 

agree with it, that it is about time we pass an authorization bill 

through both Houses of Congress. But instead, we are here on, I 

guess, our third hearing to deal with the tragic events in Benghazi 

because it is a chance for each political party to beat up on the 

other. We can talk about how Republicans did not provide you with 

resources. We can talk about the administration inside the State 

Department. 

So I would hope that maybe we get you to come back again—I 

realize that would be gratis; you wouldn’t even be on the government payroll at that time—and do the hearing that I would like to 

have, which is getting your input on the bigger issues of foreign 

policy. 

Ultimately, the security of our diplomats depends on the host 

country. This is all the discussion is about, well, there might have 

been five security people on the ground and if only there had been 

22

more funding, more deployment, this cable, that cable, maybe there 

would have been eight or nine security people on the ground, which 

might have led to more protection, might have led to more casualties. 

And here in Washington, the decision was made to provide well 

more than 16 security people to Libya, and nobody that I know of 

in Washington was involved in the issue of how many of those were 

in Benghazi, either going with the Ambassador or there in advance. 

So the decision that all 16 weren’t with him was a decision that 

you can’t blame either political party or anyone in Washington for. 

Ultimately, all we can have at our Embassies is enough to stave 

off a militant attack for a few hours. And after that, if the host 

country doesn’t come to the rescue, it doesn’t matter whether we 

have 3, 6, 12, 16 or 36 armed guards and Marines at the location. 

One aspect of protecting our diplomats in the future is bringing 

to justice the criminals who did this this time. We did a lot for the 

people of Libya. We did a lot for those who are now ruling Libya. 

How would you appraise their efforts to cooperate with us in the 

investigation? And does this Libyan Government have the will and 

the capacity to arrest the suspects involved? And of course, will 

and capacity tend to go with each other. I think they would have 

to, at minimum, strain their capacity to try to arrest powerful 

armed elements in the eastern part of the country, and I don’t 

know if they have the will to use that capacity. So can you tell us 

after the attack and now that we are trying to bring these culprits 

to justice, what do you think of the Libyan Government? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think, Congressman, you drew exactly 

the right description; is it will or is it capacity, when obviously 

what you need is both? I have found the Libyan officials to be willing but without capacity. And part of our challenge is to help them 

build greater capacity, because now it is about them. It is not only 

about what happened to us in Benghazi, which every official in the 

Libyan Government was deeply upset about, but they have their 

own problems now. They are having leaders attacked and assassinated on a regular basis. 

So we have to do more to help them build up their security capacity. And again, I would ask this committee to work with us; 

there are holds on a lot of security funding that would go to Libya 

to assist them in building capacity. 

There are those I know in the Congress who say, look, Libya is 

a wealthy nation, we don’t need to give them any money. Well, 

until they get up and going, it is in our great interest to give them 

the resources, like we have with other countries over the past 40 

years. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being with us today and putting yourself 

through this. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note that fixing responsibility, 

which we are trying to do today, and identifying bad policy and 

mistakes is the way that democracies fix problems. It is not all politics. It is how we do things here to make it better. So none of us 

have—should at all apologize for trying to get to the nitty gritty. 

23

Let me just note that Assistant Secretary of State Lamb testified 

here in Congress that budget considerations played absolutely no 

role in her decision—it was her decision, not yours, but you approved them—but her decision as to what the level of security 

would be there at Benghazi. So any suggestion that this is a budget 

issue is off base or political. 

Madam Secretary, you told the Senate this morning that you 

learned of the attack around 4 o’clock p.m. on that day and you 

were involved widely in the coordinated response, which included 

the Department of Defense and the White House, but did not speak 

to the President until later that evening. When did you talk to the 

President? 

Secretary CLINTON. Two things, on the first point you made, Congressman, the ARB disagreed and did find that budget issues were 

at stake. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, she testified under oath and——

Secretary CLINTON. Well, you know, that is why you have an 

independent group like an ARB. That is why it was created, to look 

at everything. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Everybody has their own——

Secretary CLINTON. Right. I think it is important, though, and I 

would urge——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What about when you saw the President, 

when did you see the President? 

Secretary CLINTON. I talked to the President at the end of the 

day, but I had been in constant communication with the National 

Security Advisor. I had been on secure video conferences with high 

level officials in the White House and the Defense Department. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Secretary Lamb, the lady we are talking 

about, did—testified that she had actually witnessed this in real 

time, the attack, in real time on a monitor. At any time, did you 

see the initial attack on a monitor or the President? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, there was no monitor. There 

was no real time. We got the surveillance videos some weeks later. 

That was the first time we saw any video of the attack. I think 

there was a misunderstanding. I think that, perhaps, I am just trying to clarify this—I may be going beyond my brief here, but I 

think perhaps what she meant was——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Was there audio? 

Secretary CLINTON. She was on an open—she was talking to DS 

people, who were trying to understand what was going on. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Well, I would have to say that Admiral 

Mullen in briefing us suggested that they had seen some kind of 

video and that, within a few moments, it was very clear that this 

was a very coordinated terrorist attack and not some demonstration that had gone awry. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think surveillance video, which some 

of you may have seen in a classified setting, does demonstrate what 

happened that night. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. As you were dealing with the crisis as it went 

on, did you think or act on the basis that this was a film protest 

gone out of control, and when you briefed the President, did you 

tell him that? Or did you tell him, which Admiral Mullen suggests 

24

you knew by then, that this was a well planned and executed terrorist attack? Which was the President told? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, first of all, I said the very next morning 

that it was an attack by heavily armed militants. The President 

said that morning it was an act of terror. At the same time, however, I was dealing with protests against our facilities that were 

clearly connected to that video. So we were managing a number of 

such events. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let’s say that you noted, and it can be—people do that so you can say that you said it, but the emphasis we 

all remember what the emphasis was, over and over and over 

again, it was repeated that we had enraged the Islamic terrorists, 

which by the way, what—when you say we enraged the Islamic terrorists, that means we are at fault. They are not at fault. And then 

to look and see that the only people I know are in jail right now 

is the filmmaker. Isn’t this a little disconcerting? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, first, Congressman, I want to be clear 

that, of course, it was the terrorist attack. The very next day I 

called it an attack by heavily armed militants on our compound. I 

think there are still, however, questions about exactly what caused 

it, who the attackers were. The ARB, after months of research, said 

the picture is still very complicated. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well——

Secretary CLINTON. I think it is worth members looking a both 

the both unclassified and classified ARB with that in mind. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. I thank the chair. 

Madam Secretary, let me first thank you. First of all, I want to 

thank you for an extraordinary daughter who came to the 

Rockaways after Sandy, just helping people, unannounced, without 

fanfare, just getting down and helping people because they needed 

help after that terrible storm. And so just extraordinary public 

service. 

And then I want to also say, Madam Secretary, that you have 

been Secretary of State at an extraordinary time in the history of 

the United States of America and the world, and you have managed the challenge in an equally extraordinary manner. 

When you took the job, America had a tarnished image abroad. 

You have revised our brand, traveled over 1 million miles to the 

furthest reaches of the world, to the most challenging areas, and 

touched the lives of the most vulnerable. With your leadership of 

initiatives like the QDDR, you have deepened our confidence that 

foreign aid can be responsibly spent. On behalf of a grateful Nation 

and definitely the people of the Fifth Congressional District, I want 

to thank you for a job well done. 

The attacks on our mission in Benghazi were a painful reminder 

to all of us that our diplomats of course are in harm’s way. And 

they are in some of the same unstable and even hostile environments as our military. Yet they don’t have the same means of protecting themselves. And sadly, we go back, and we have talked, and 

I know at this committee I heard Admiral Mullen and Ambassador 

Pickering saying that money was and the budget is very important 

and makes a difference. Yet, sadly, this House has failed to do its 

25

part in addressing the challenges they face, even after the tragedy 

of the Benghazi attacks. 

You, however have been responsible and accepted the recommendations of the ARB and put measures in place immediately 

after the September attacks that demonstrate that you are serious 

about changing the status quo. But, of course, again, it is a twoway street. Congress failed to act in a meaningful way. And I believe it is a shame on the leadership for its failure to give the State 

Department the authority to transfer already appropriated funds, 

not new money, already money that you have toward bolstering security for our diplomats to give you that discretion. And shame on 

the House for its failing to adequately fund the administration’s request for diplomatic security funding. 

Now, I hope that this Congress will act swiftly to fix these critical funding matters. 

It is also my hope, as you have said, that we finally have a State 

authorization bill that the President can sign into law. 

But let me ask you this question, at the time of the Benghazi attacks, you indicated, there were risings going on in Egypt and in 

Yemen and in Tunisia. It seems as though a lot, because no one 

could have imagined and I am sure you did not when you initially 

took office, that we would have the Arab Spring and the nature of 

what was going on in these various countries would have happened. 

I want to ask you a question, somewhat what Mr. Sherman was 

asking, just to get your thoughts, on what we might do as Members 

of Congress and how we might move forward with the nations of 

the Arab Spring so that maybe that is a way we can prevent these 

kinds of things from happening in the future. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, it is an excellent question, Congressman, and deserves a very thoughtful answer, longer than the time 

I have. 

But let me just make three quick points: First, we cannot retreat 

from, give up on, turn our backs on these new Arab Spring revolutionary countries and new regimes. They are very new. Most of 

them have leaders that have never run anything. They have come 

from backgrounds where they are suspicious of security, because 

security was a dirty word; it through them in jail. It harassed 

themselves and their families. So we have to do some work, and 

that work requires that we stay engaged. 

Secondly, we have to do a much better job in helping rebuild security apparatus that can be used. Quick example, we had a terrible assault on our Embassy in Tunis, and I called the President 

of Tunisia; I said, you have got to send reinforcements right now. 

Our Embassy is going to be overrun. He sent it. It stopped. The 

government really has been responsive, understanding that, you 

know, these terrorists, these extremists, don’t just threaten us in 

Western countries. They threaten the stability and the future of 

these governments. So we have to help them the way we helped 

Colombia years ago. 

And finally, we need do a better job conveying a counter narrative to the extremist jihadist narrative. You know, I have said 

this to this committee before, a lot of new members on it, we have 

abdicated the broadcasting arena. Yes, we have private stations, 

26

CNN, FOX, NBC, all of that. They are out there. They convey information. But we are not doing what we did during the Cold War, 

our Broadcasting Board of Governors is practically defunct in terms 

of its capacity to be able to tell a message around the world. So we 

are abdicating the ideological arena, and we need to get back into 

it. 

We have the best values. We have the best narrative. Most people in the world just want to have a good decent life that is supported by a good decent job and raise their families. And we are 

letting the jihadist narrative fill a void. We need to get in there 

and compete, and we can do it successfully. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, first, let me thank you for your service, and 

I wish you the best in your future endeavors, mostly. 

I have a couple of questions, but I do want to take a moment or 

two to say a couple of words about our late Ambassador Chris Stevens. Many members and staff on our committee have had the opportunity to know and to work with him, even before he was 

named our U.S. Ambassador to Libya. I think all would agree that 

he was one of our most able diplomats. I had the opportunity to 

meet with him in Tripoli a little less than a month before he and 

three other outstanding Americans were murdered in Benghazi. 

His enthusiasm for the job was really something to behold. He was 

excited about the opportunity to help a nation newly freed from 

decades of brutal dictatorship. 

My first night in country, I had the opportunity to join the Ambassador for an IFTAR dinner with a number of newly elected Libyan parliamentarians. They were optimistic about building a democracy, creating a vibrant economy, and restoring fundamental 

human rights for the Libyan people. He was as enthusiastic as they 

were about the prospects. There is no question that he will be 

missed by all who knew him and worked with him. 

One of the things that really troubles me, Madam Secretary, is 

the hoops that we on this committee have had to jump through to 

get to the facts surrounding the deaths of these public servants. 

The State Department has delayed and delayed coming forth with 

information. When this committee was finally presented with relevant data, it amounted often times to what might be called a document dump—hundreds of pages of paper in wide disarray, in no 

particular order, either in terms of relevance or in chronology, often 

duplicates in different binders, making it very difficult to locate 

documents that were of any help. 

Our public servants in Libya were murdered on September 11. 

It is now January 23, more than 4 months later. It is unacceptable 

that the State Department has made it so difficult for Congress to 

exercise its oversight responsibility. 

Now a couple of questions. Within a couple of months of the attack, during the July-August period, Ambassador Stevens expressed concern about militia activity, particularly in Benghazi, 

and the need for additional security assistance. We have seen the 

cables where security officers on the ground expressed considerable 

frustration at the difficulty in getting the personnel they believed 

were needed to protect American diplomats and property. And we 

27

now know that management of security personal, especially the assignment of State Department agents on very short-term duty, virtually guaranteeing very limited institutional knowledge was grossly inadequate. Why was the department hierarchy so obstinate, 

and why would the department deny a personal plea from Ambassador Stevens? Given his expertise on Libyan affairs, why did the 

department and senior leadership not take into consideration the 

approaching September 11 anniversary, particularly in light of direct requests from our mission in Libya? 

And finally, Madam Secretary, we heard numerous times over 

the last several months that more funding is needed for diplomatic 

security, including in your testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to some extent this afternoon. I don’t believe there is anybody in this room who doesn’t want to protect our 

diplomats stationed abroad, often in very dangerous regions. 

Since 2000, Congress has provided funding in the neighborhood 

of $10 billion for Embassy security construction and maintenance. 

We will no doubt continue to provide significant funding in the future. Given that our Nation now faces a mountain of debt, sadly 

I might add, given short shrift, I have to say, by the President in 

his Inaugural address, of course means that we cannot fund every 

single program that every Federal agency requests. So when we increase funding in one area, we have to consider cuts in others, at 

least that is the way it should work. Is the State Department currently conducting any internal reviews, for example, to determine 

what offsets in current program funding might be considered? 

Finally, I know that some have been pedaling this story that it’s 

Congress’ fault for not providing sufficient funding for security. I 

would just note that Robert Baldre, your chief financial officer for 

diplomatic security stated, and I quote, ‘‘I do not feel that we have 

ever been at a point where we have sacrificed security due to lack 

of funding.’’

I know that I have used my 5 minutes, so I would appreciate 

your remarks. 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman from Ohio has used his 5 minutes, and if we want to get through the members, we are going to 

have to hold to those 5 minutes. 

So I will just ask for a response in writing, and we will go down 

to Mr. Deutch from Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We won’t have to wait long, because those are some good questions that I will take up in a moment. 

Secretary Clinton, first, I would like to thank you for the truly 

remarkable job that you have done as Secretary of State. You have 

represented the interests of this Nation magnificently. And I, for 

one, hope that after a bit of rest, you will consider a return to public service, and should that return bring to you Florida, I would 

look forward to welcoming you there. 

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to once again 

thank you for your efforts on behalf of my constituent Robert 

Levinson, who went missing in Iran in 2007, now 2,147 days ago. 

And I ask that the department continue to do everything that it 

can to return Robert to his family. 

28

I also want to thank you for the ways that you have handled the 

tragic events in Benghazi. Your personal commitment to ensuring 

that those Americans who serve American interests overseas, often 

at great risk to themselves, is a testament to the commitment that 

you have shown throughout your tenure at State to strengthen our 

diplomatic efforts around the world. 

And I would like to return to Mr. Chabot’s question. There is an 

awful a lot of debate here on the Hill about how we spend our dollars. We all recognize that we have budgetary concerns; we also 

recognize that we have an obligation to provide security and to protect American personnel abroad. As we have ended our military operations in Iraq, as we wind down in Afghanistan, what kind of—

I would like to ask, what kind of strain will the presence of less 

military personnel in the region put on diplomatic security? Let’s 

start with that. 

Secretary CLINTON. That is a very important question that we 

are really going to have to grapple with together I would hope. We 

saw, for example, that when our troops withdrew from Iraq, it dramatically altered what our civilians were capable of being able to 

do, because there had been, over the course of the war in Iraq, a 

very good working relationship between DoD, State and USAID. 

We are going to face the same kind of questions in Afghanistan as 

our troops draw down from Afghanistan, and in a lot of these 

places, we don’t have military resources. The Department of Defense was a very good partner to us in responding to Benghazi, but 

their assets were too far away to make much difference in any 

timely fashion. 

AFRICOM was stood up 10 years ago. I think that is going to 

look quite prescient because we are going to need to figure out how 

to work more effectively together between our civilian and military 

assets in Africa, and I think that would be a worthy subject of this 

committee, perhaps working with the Armed Services Committee, 

because it is often difficult. 

In my 4 years, we tried to work out more cooperative relationship, more funding streams between State and DoD, in order to be 

able to maximize the cooperation between us. 

Mr. DEUTCH. When you talk about the need to prioritize, because 

of shortfalls, more Marine security guards, talk about construction 

budgets and upgrades, what does that mean? What are the decisions that have to be made, and how do they actually impact our 

diplomatic personnel? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, first and foremost, we have to do the 

right job prioritizing, based on the resources we do have. And I 

would be the first to say, it is not all about money, but it is also 

not without budgetary consequences. And so we have to figure out 

what is the right balance. 

Secondly, immediately after this happened, I spoke with Secretary Panetta, Chairman Dempsey and asked the Defense Department to work with us in putting together Interagency Security Assessment Teams to go out and look at our high-threat posts because our military brings a different perspective, and that was a 

very important process, which we are going to continue. 

We are also looking to see how we can better cooperate on the 

security aid that we give to other countries. It has got to be a comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
29

bination of both military assets and expertise, but also development, rule of law, democracy building. It can’t be one or the other. 

They have to be married together. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And if you could, in the few seconds we have left, 

Madam Secretary, could you speak more broadly about the important role that that would play? In this budget debate that is going 

to take place, why is it so important for us to continue to fund this? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, let me just give you an example, Colombia. Colombia, 15, 20 years ago, was in a very difficult state. 

It had an insurgency. It had a drug cartel that was basically controlling territory. The United States stepped in, worked with the 

Colombians, and the progress, I think, is evident for all to see. 

There was a front page article in the travel section about go to 

Medellin. That is what America can do. We don’t do it ourselves. 

We partner with willing governments to help them acquire the capacity to protect their own citizens. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today, and I 

particularly appreciate your recognition of AFRICOM, and Plan Colombia. Indeed, these have been extraordinary success stories promoting peace throughout the world. 

The American people will always appreciate as American heroes, 

Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. 

As we begin, I do want to point out, though, for the record, I believe that Congressman Rohrabacher is correct; there was an email from the Chief Financial Officer for Diplomatic Security following the Benghazi attack, specifically, ‘‘Although diplomatic security has been fiscally prudent, I do not feel that we have ever been 

at a point where we sacrificed security due to a lack of funding.’’ 

That actually is an attribute to you, and I have faith in the chief 

financial officer that it is a correct statement. 

As we begin, it has been reported that since you managed the response to Benghazi attack, why weren’t you the person to appear 

on the Sunday shows immediately following the attack? Ambassador Susan Rice said that you declined. Was that correct? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I have to confess here in public, going 

on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are 

other things that I would prefer to do on Sunday mornings. And, 

you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over year. So 

it just isn’t something that I normally jump to do. And I did feel 

strongly that we had a lot that we had to manage, that I had to 

respond to, and I thought that is what should be my priority. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And I believe that part of the 

priority is telling correct information. And you could have done 

that, and I think it was very unfortunate—the multiple appearances by Ambassador Rice with information that has been discovered not to be correct. 

In the November 21, 2012, edition of the Charleston Post and 

Courier a letter was published by William J. Boudreau, a retired 

Foreign Service Officer of Seabrook Island. He wrote,

‘‘Within the U.S. State Department, there is an office known 

as Op Center. It is located in the Office of the Secretary of 

30

State. It is staffed around the clock, 24/7, by seasoned Foreign 

Service Officers. Its function is to be sensitive to any threat to 

American interests wherever they might arise. The Op Center 

has direct secure communication lines to the White House Situation Room, the National Military Command Center at the 

Pentagon and, the CIA’s Op Center. Having worked as a watch 

officer at the Op Center, I know that any information that indicates a threat to the safety of American citizens overseas is 

passed to other agencies mentioned above. If it is of significant 

message concerning American interest is received, it is the 

watch officer’s job to ensure that these other agencies are informed.’’

He goes on, there are many questions that need to be answered, 

and I would like to present these questions on his behalf. First and 

foremost, what was going on at the Op Center at the State Department in Washington while our consulate was under attack for 7 

hours? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, we can certainly give you greater detail, but the Op Center is, as you have described, the place where 

communications go in and out. They were placing calls. They were 

receiving calls. They were deeply engaged in trying to help us. 

They don’t reach out on their own, but to help us acquire information so that we could respond in real time. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And 7 hours, I mean, goodness 

gracious, there should have been a response. Why the delay in labeling the attack as terrorism when it was immediately known that 

it was. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, you know, again, I would say, Congressman, that we described the attack, I described the attack the 

next morning; the President called it an act of terror. There with 

a, as you will find in reading both the unclassified and classified 

version of the ARB, there was a lot of questions about who was behind it, what motivated it, and the ARB says those questions are 

still not fully answered today. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And he continues, why weren’t 

Marine guards posted in Benghazi in the first place? 

Secretary CLINTON. Because historically Marine guards are at 

posts where there is classified information. Marine guards have not 

historically had the responsibility for protecting personnel. Their 

job is to protect and, if necessary, destroy classified material. At 

our compound, there was no classified material. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. He continues in line with everybody else pointing out that there were requests to enhance security that were denied. We weren’t able to reach all the questions, 

but I appreciate your responding to Mr. Boudreau’s questions. I 

will submit them for the record to your office for a written response. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Congressman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Karen Bass of California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel, for 

convening this hearing. 

Secretary Clinton, I want to take the time to thank you for your 

willingness to come before this committee for the final time. And 

31

I want to offer my sincere and deep gratitude for your remarkable 

service to our Nation. I am also very glad to know that you are 

feeling much better. 

For the past 4 years and well before, you have put country first, 

and for that, our Nation is indebted to you. With confidence and 

careful consideration, you have shown extraordinary leadership on 

countless issues, ensuring that diplomacy is an essential part of 

our country’s foreign policy. And your tireless effort to elevate 

women and girls’ rights is without comparison. You have strengthened our State Department, made it better today than when you 

arrived. 

As the ranking member on the Africa Subcommittee, I am especially appreciative of the attention you have given to the 54 nations 

of Africa. While Africa may lose one of its most steadfast and dedicated champions at the State Department, I trust Africa will not 

be far from your thoughts and will remain a top priority in your 

future work. 

I also want to associate my comments with Congressman Sherman, who said that it is unfortunate that it is the last time we will 

hear from you, so I want to focus my time on moving us forward 

and asking your advice. You made reference in your testimony 

about best-value contracts and you mentioned, I believe, several 

nations where best-value contracts are not used. And in thinking 

about Africa and the instability in a number of nations in Northern 

Africa, Central Africa, Mali, what we are dealing with now, I want 

to know whether or not those nations are subject to those types of 

contracts and whether or not exemptions or waivers should be 

made, what should we do? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congresswoman, thank you very much for 

your emphasis on Africa, which I think is going to be increasingly 

important. There are only three nations where the State Department has an exemption by Congress for using different contracting 

rules in order to get the best value for our country. Those are Iraq, 

Afghanistan, and Pakistan, so every other country in the world we 

are under the kind of contracting rules that I think do interfere 

with our capacity to get the best deal, particularly when it comes 

to security, that we should in these countries where the threats, 

unfortunately, are going to always be with us. 

Ms. BASS. Should we look to extend that to Mali, to the DRC, to 

Somalia? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I would certainly recommend—there 

was an article in I think one of the newspapers today that went 

into some detail—basically, here is how it started, for more than 

two decades, Federal laws required the State Department to select 

the cheapest rather than the best contractor to provide local guard 

services at its Embassies abroad. And you know, there is that old 

saying, you get what you pay for. And this lowest-price provision 

started off in 1990, but it has just stayed with us, and I would respectfully request that this committee take a hard look at it. 

You can’t do a total lifting of it for everybody, at least look at 

the high-threat posts, where, obviously, we did it for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the countries you are naming are countries 

that I think would fall into that category. 

Ms. BASS. Well, thank you very much. 

32

Among the various Islamic extremist groups operating in Africa 

today AQIM, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, to name a few, in your 

view, which pose the greatest threats, direct threat to the United 

States? And then, given the limited capacity and, in some cases, 

the limited political will of the countries in which these groups operate, are U.S. military, intelligence and security assistance resources devoted to these threats adequately or appropriately balanced? And what recommendations would you have for us? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think if you are focusing just on 

North Africa, al-Qaeda is a brand name, as much as an organization, people wake up, they form these jihadist groups, they then 

claim to be associated with, somehow affiliated with al-Qaeda in 

order to gain some credibility with local people, as well as beyond. 

I think that we have to take seriously all of these terrorist 

groups, whatever they call themselves. Now, at the moment, they 

don’t necessarily have either the interest or the ability to attack 

our homeland, but we have a lot of facilities. We have lot of assets 

in North Africa. We just saw Americans killed and held hostage at 

a gas facility because we do business all over that continent. So I 

think we have to take a hard look at all of them and constantly 

be upping our military and intelligence and diplomatic assets to 

deal with them. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. I would like to just take a moment and explain 

to the gentlelady, we passed last year the best-value contract language that you are speaking of in the House appropriations measure. We are going to try to get our colleagues in the Senate to take 

that measure up. 

We go down to Mr. McCaul from Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. Thank you for your service. 

Similar to September 11, 2001, there were warning signs prior 

to Benghazi September 11. There was an April 6, 2012, crude IED 

thrown over the wall of the U.S. Facility in Benghazi. On May 22, 

2012, Red Cross building in Benghazi hit by two RPGs. The brigades of the imprisoned Blind Sheikh took responsibility for that 

attack. On June 6, 2012, U.S. consulate in Benghazi was targeted 

by an IED, an attack that blew a hole in the perimeter wall. Again, 

the Blind Sheikh brigade took credit. And then, on August 16, we 

had this cable that has been widely reported, a classified State Department cable warning that the Benghazi consulate could not 

withstand a coordinated attack. And the regional security officer 

believed our consulate could not be protected at an emergency 

meeting less than 1 month before the attack on 9/11. A contingency 

plan was supposedly drafted to move the operations to the CIA 

annex about a mile away from the compound. This cable was presumed to have been shared by senior staff. It was sent to your office. It was sent to the NSC. And even on September 11, the day 

that Ambassador Stevens was killed, he personally warned about 

‘‘growing problems with security in Benghazi and growing frustration with security forces and the Libyan police.’’ Were you aware 

of this cable, this August 16 cable? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, that cable did not come to my 

attention. I have made it very clear that the security cables did not 

33

come to my attention or above the assistant Secretary level where 

the ARB placed responsibility; whereas I think Ambassador Pickering said, the rubber hit the road. Now I think——

Mr. MCCAUL. Can I ask, when were you aware of this cable? 

Secretary CLINTON. After the ARB began to gather information 

and material. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Who within your office did see this cable? 

Secretary CLINTON. I am not aware of anyone within my office, 

within the Secretary’s Office having seen the cable. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Within the National Security Council. 

Secretary CLINTON. I have no information or awareness of anyone in the National Security Council having seen that cable. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Was this cable a surprise to you? 

Secretary CLINTON. You know, Congressman, it was very disappointing to me that the ARB concluded there were inadequacies 

and problems in the responsiveness of our team here in Washington to the security requests that were made by our team in 

Libya. And I was not aware of that going on. It was not brought 

to my attention, but obviously, it is something we are fixing and 

intend to put into place protocols and systems to make sure it 

doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I certainly hope so. I think when you have a 

United States Ambassador personally warning about the situation 

over there, sending this cable to your office——

Secretary CLINTON. If I could, 1.43 million cables a year come to 

the State Department. They are all addressed to me. They do not 

all come to me. They are sorted through the bureaucracy. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Certainly somebody within your office should have 

seen this cable, in my judgment. Could I ask one last question? 

Secretary CLINTON. Also, I just want to clarify, you know, with 

regard to the security requests subsequent to the August 16 cable, 

our personnel in Libya had not submitted any additional security 

requests to Washington at the time of the September 11 attack. 

Now there was an ongoing dialogue, as you know, between Libya 

and Washington. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Reclaiming my time, it is very limited. An emergency meeting was held and a cable sent out on August 16 by the 

Ambassador himself, warning what could happen. And this cable 

went unnoticed by your office. That is the bottom line. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, the facts as we have them, Congressman, and I will be happy to have people give you this in detail, the 

August 16 cable stated that security requests for Benghazi would 

be forthcoming. The RSO in Benghazi submitted to Tripoli a preliminary list of proposed security recommendations on August 23, 

but no requests were submitted to Washington before the attacks. 

Now this sounds very complicated, and to some extent, it is. We are 

trying to simplify it and avoid the kind of problems that are identified. 

Mr. MCCAUL. One last question, why was he in Benghazi on September 11? 

Chairman ROYCE. Go down to——

Mr. MCCAUL. I will submit that in writing. 

Chairman ROYCE. That will be fine. 

34

We are going to go now to Mr. William Keating of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I must say that after the tragedy last September, one 

of the things that just moved me so much were the comments of 

the family members of one of the heroes who lost their lives, Glen 

Doherty in Massachusetts. Paraphrasing them, but they told people 

they shouldn’t lose sight over who was ultimately responsible for 

these deaths and made a statement putting things into perspective 

here. And the other thing they mentioned was, do not lose sight of 

the causes that these men gave their lives for. 

And as a person who has advanced those causes, I want to thank 

you for your incredible service as Secretary of State. 

Now, one of the parts of the ARB report that is of great concern 

to me dealt with what they described as a culture of austerity in 

the State Department. 

Madam Secretary, can you take a few moments an expand on the 

ARB’s finding on that subject and how it affects the State Department’s ability to carry out crucial tasks, not just security but all 

crucial tasks? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, that is what the ARB 

found. They found that there was a culture of husbanding resources, of being quite concerned about responding, even on security, as important as security is, because one never knows what the 

budget is going to be going forward. 

And we have had some ups and downs budgetary wise going 

back, as I said, into prior administrations, but it is fair to say that 

many of the professionals in the State Department have really gotten used to worrying greatly that they will give something to somebody, and that will become an expectation that will then have to 

be taken away. And it did affect the security professional’s decisions according to the ARB. 

Mr. KEATING. These prioritizations, in my opinion, in this culture 

has to change, not just for security reasons but our overall mission. 

Just quickly, with the crisis in Mali and the insurgency there and 

spreading jihadist threat in Northern Africa, Maghreb, and the 

Arabian Peninsula. In that area, they are relatively technologically 

advanced, and there are threats that go along those lines that I am 

concerned about in terms of cultural austerity there as well. 

Cyber threats and other security upgrades that are going to be 

vitally necessary, and I hope those things are not lost as we review 

this situation. Can you just comment on what we need in that regard going forward and how much of a threat that may pose to us? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, you mention a word that is rarely mentioned in these hearings but I predict will be a major threat to us 

and that is ‘‘cyber’’ because it is not only going to be nation states, 

where we already are seeing cyber intrusions, both against our 

Government and against our private sector. But increasingly, 

nonstate actors will have more capacity to disrupt, to hack into, to 

put out false information, to accuse the United States of things 

that can light fires before we can put them out. 

So I think it is important we have a really thoughtful comprehensive review about the threats of today and the threats of tomorrow, and that will help guide the committee. It will help guide 

35

the Senate and certainly the administration in working together to 

answer them. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you and—thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I am going to do something that hasn’t been done yet; 

I am going to yield back the rest of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Poe of Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you, once again, for your service to our 

country. 

Gordon Rowan from Oregon; Frederick Buttaccio from Katy, 

Texas; and Victor Lovelady from my district of Atascocita, Texas. 

Three Americans, overseas killed, not in Benghazi, but killed at a 

remote gas facility in Algeria. Killed, in my opinion, because they 

were Americans. Over the last weekend, myself and others have 

tried to get information. I will just say that there is too much, in 

my opinion, red tape while trying to get just basic information to 

the families as to what happened in a situation like that. I would 

hope that the State Department would look at that protocol and try 

to streamline it, because people died. 

The Algerian Government now reports, after they have captured 

some of the terrorists alive, some claiming to be from Egypt. One 

says that, after interrogation by the Algerian Government, whatever that interrogation may entail, that there were Egyptians involved in the Benghazi attack that were at the attack on the gas 

plant in Algeria. At the time of the Benghazi attack, Ansar al 

Sharia the next day—a terrorist group, as you know—they claimed 

responsibility for the attack. We probably don’t know if the statements made by the Algeria or, excuse me, Egyptian terrorist that 

was captured are true, if Egyptians were followed or were involved 

in that attack or not. It does seem to show that the whole region 

is very fluid with different groups getting together, causing mischief throughout the entire region. 

As of today, several months later after the attack in Benghazi, 

has, to your knowledge, any person been put currently in custody 

anywhere, by any government, for the responsibility or as a suspect 

involved in the Benghazi attack? 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, there is one potential suspect, 

who has been placed under monitoring by the Tunisian Government. There are other suspects that the FBI are both closely following and consulting with partner governments. 

I think, based on my last conversation with Director Muller, 

which was just a few days ago, he went to Libya. He went to Tunisia. He believes that the investigation is proceeding. I know that 

the FBI has been up on the Hill doing classified briefings with certain committees; I don’t know about this committee. But I certainly 

hope that the FBI is able to investigate, identify and hold responsible those who waged this attack against us. And I think that, 

based on their work, they feel that they are pursuing some very 

positive leads. 

Mr. POE. Okay. My understanding is the Tunisian—the person 

that was held in Tunisia was held by a judge there, and that person has been released. So, basically, we don’t really know at this 

point who did it. 

36

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I confirmed with Director Muller, who was just in Tunisia meeting with their high officials, that this person is basically under law enforcement surveillance and forbidden to leave Tunis. Director Muller told me that 

that had been confirmed to him by the Tunisians. 

Mr. POE. Just very briefly, we don’t know who—no one has been 

held accountable, charged with this event. Before Ghadafi was 

taken out, my understanding is the nation of Qatar shipped in 18 

shipments, 20,000 tons of weapons, machine guns, RPGs into the 

region to help different groups overthrow Omar Ghadafi. Did the 

United States give a wink and a nod to this? 

And I would like a written answer to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go now to Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your extraordinary service to 

our country, that has earned you the deep respect and admiration 

of people all over the world and has enhanced America’s standing 

all over the globe. 

Your leadership on women’s issues, LGBT equality, supporting 

emerging democracies and enhancing American national security 

are too numerous to list. But I want to begin by thanking you for 

all of your hard work in everything you have done in service of our 

country. 

Thank you also for your testimony today. The terrorist attacks 

on September 11 in Benghazi, Libya resulted in the tragic deaths 

of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen 

Doherty. And these are constant reminders of the dangerous work 

that our diplomats engage in every single day all throughout the 

world. And while we cannot eliminate all risks, it is our duty to 

enact protocols and policies that will reduce these risks and to provide all the resources and support necessary to help mitigate and 

manage those risks. 

With that in mind, I hope my colleagues will consider the Accountability Review Board, which you, Madam Secretary, convened, 

and it calls for, and I quote, ‘‘A more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs.’’ This is 

particularly important, given the implications that the looming sequester as well as potential government shutdown would have on 

our diplomatic security, especially in high-risk posts. 

I also want to take a moment to commend and thank Admiral 

Mullen and Ambassador Pickering for the comprehensive and 

prompt review that they conducted and, of course, applaud you, 

Madam Secretary, for the adoption of all 29 ARB recommendations 

and for promptly undertaking that implementation and providing 

guidance on the status of that implementation here today. 

And just to say, there has been some discuss about the importance of getting to the nitty gritty and fixing problems, and I hope 

that we will rely on the security professionals and the expert advice and recommendations of the ARB. I think they are much more 

likely to produce the best response to what needs to be undertaken. 

And so I want to ask you, Madam Secretary, one of the things 

that you did, in anticipation of some of the recommendations, you 

created for the first time ever a Diplomatic Security Deputy AssistVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
37

ant Secretary, and I think, with respect to the ARB report, the importance of examining the State Department’s organization and 

management as it relates to security planning, my expectation is 

that that would be one of the responsibilities of this new position. 

I am wondering if you would just tell us a little bit about the role 

of this new Secretary within the bureau, what responsibilities the 

position will have, and will this individual in particular have the 

authority to reallocate resources in order to fill potential resource 

gaps if that is one of the challenges they will face? 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, Congressman, this is a Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for High-Threat Posts. I want one person held 

accountable, looking at high-threat posts talking to our military 

and intelligence partners, being a voice at the table, not just for all 

275 posts but really zeroing in on a real-time constant evaluation 

about what our high-threat posts need. 

But in addition to that, we are going to continue our work with 

the Defense Department and Interagency Security Assessment to 

threats. I am also for the first time elevating a lot of these security 

issues for high-threat posts to the Secretary level because it hasn’t 

been there before, and I think, given what we have experienced, it 

needs to be. We are also looking for the transfer authority to add 

to our Marine security guards, our construction, and our diplomatic 

security. We are enhancing the training for everyone. 

And we are taking a hard look at another problem that it the 

ARB pointed out and that was other temporary duty assignments. 

You know, very often, given especially the experiences we have had 

in Iraq and Afghanistan and to a lesser extent in some other large 

posts, we have a lot of our most experienced diplomatic security 

people going there. I mean, you know, in the—two times we have 

had serious assaults on our Embassy in Kabul. Kabul is fortified. 

Kabul has ISAF troops across the street. As they draw down, we 

have to recognize that the danger is not going to leave with our 

ISAF military. So we have to take a hard look at all of this and 

we have to embed that responsibility in this new experienced Deputy Assistant Secretary to do that. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Matt Salmon of Arizona. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, I appreciate your desire to come before our 

committee today to testify and answer questions to help us make 

the changes necessary to ensure the safety of all of our Foreign 

Service Officers, but particularly those who are making heavy sacrifices serving in high-threat regions. 

But I have to say that I am troubled by what seems to be this 

administration’s pattern of misleading the American people and 

failing to hold decision-makers accountable. From Operation Fast 

and Furious, where Attorney General Eric Holder has repeatedly 

misled the American people and Congress about an intentional 

international gun-walking scheme, to U.N. Secretary Susan Rice, 

who on five separate occasions went before the American people 

days after the attacks on Benghazi talking about a demonstration 

at a facility that never happened. It was not even suggested in any 

of the reports and information coming from Benghazi. 

38

And I know the purpose of this hearing is to find out how to ensure another Benghazi never happens again. I would hope that we 

would all include the aftermath of the tragedy, as well. How can 

we make sure that such gross misrepresentations of attacks on 

Americans never happen again? 

A couple of other questions. I know you have put the four individuals identified as culpable by the Accountability Review Board 

on administrative leave. What do you anticipate the final resolution of their status with the Department will be? 

And the Accountability Review Board did not identify any individuals above the Assistant Secretary level as accountable for the 

security failures at the Benghazi mission. Now, you have said that 

the numerous cables requesting and begging for additional security 

resources sent by Ambassador Chris Stevens were never seen by 

State officials above Assistant Secretary Eric Boswell or Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb. 

I know you care very deeply about the people that work with you 

in the Department. So, given the fact that your testimony is that 

you never saw any of these multiple requests and nobody above Assistant Secretary level saw these requests, does not that give you 

some concerns about the flow of information within the Department, and maybe some of your underlings’ ability to prioritize and 

bring serious issues to your attention? 

You said that you get hundreds of thousands of cables all the 

time. And these cables sent directly to you, I understand that you 

do not read them all, nor do you have the time to do that. But I 

would think that within the Department you would have people 

who work for you who are able to prioritize and get to you the ones 

that are more serious in nature, and especially when somebody’s 

security is on the line. 

Finally, President Truman had a placard on his desk that said, 

‘‘The buck stops here.’’ I know that you have taken responsibility, 

and I applaud you for that. But I really hope that this isn’t just 

an exercise, another exercise in finding lower-level bureaucrats 

who we can kind of throw under the bus, and actually get somewhere with this. This is not about a game of ‘‘gotcha,’’ but how we 

can fix this for the future. 

And I yield back the balance, and I would love your answers. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, that is exactly what I 

am intent on doing. And I think the ARB, not I, has made its findings. The reason ARBs were created is to try to take a dispassionate, independent view of what happened and then come up 

with recommendations that are the responsibility of the Department to implement. 

You know, the ARB makes very clear that Chris Stevens, who 

probably knew more about Libya than anybody else in our Government, did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and 

scale, despite the overall trend of security problems that we faced. 

And I have to add, neither did the intelligence community. The 

ARB makes that very clear, that the intelligence community also 

did not really zero in on the connection between the deteriorating 

threat environment in eastern Libya and in Benghazi and a direct 

threat on our compound. 

39

So we have work to do. We have work to do inside the Department, we have work to do with our partners in the DoD and the 

intelligence community to constantly be taking in information, 

making sure it does get to the right people, that it isn’t somehow 

stove piped or stalled but that it does rise to decision-makers. And 

I am committed to improving every way that I can on what the 

ARB told us to do, on assessing our intelligence. 

And I think that it is fair to say, Congressman, that we have to 

do this now because I predict we are going to be, as we saw in Algeria, seeing all kinds of asymmetric threats, not just to our Government facilities but to private-sector facilities. In Tunisia, although we protected our Embassy, our school was badly damaged. 

So we have to take a broader view. And I think that the ARB gives 

us a start, but it is not the whole story. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Grayson from Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you very much, Secretary Clinton, for your contributions to securing America’s place in the world for the past 4 years 

and for your contributions toward world peace. 

The first question I would like to ask you has to do with the Accountability Review Board’s report. The report does identify specifically people who were found to have engaged in the Department in 

systematic failures and deficiencies. I want to be clear about this: 

You were not one of those people; is that correct? 

Secretary CLINTON. That is correct. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. 

Now, it was identified earlier that a report dating from the 1990s 

had said that the Secretary should take a personal and active role 

in security. Have you done that during your 4 years at the State 

Department? 

Secretary CLINTON. I have been very attuned to the environment 

in which threats are occurring, the intelligence that is available; 

certainly not the specific requests and decision-making, which rests 

with the security professionals. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. 

Regarding the security professionals, is there anybody now in existence in the Department who is responsible for reviewing the 

itineraries of Ambassadors in advance in order to determine whether there is an undue threat to their safety? 

Secretary CLINTON. The general answer to that is no. Ambassadors are given what is called ‘‘chief of mission authority.’’ Ambassadors, especially those who we ask to go to dangerous posts, are 

pretty independent folks. Some them might say, well, what do you 

think about this or that? But most of them make their own decisions. 

Chris Stevens did not ask anyone for permission to go to 

Benghazi; I don’t think it would have crossed his mind. Robert 

Ford, who served as our Ambassador to Syria, went out on numerous occasions to talk to the opposition before we pulled him out of 

Damascus. We had, you know, very brave Ambassadors like Ryan 

Crocker, one of our very best, who it would be very difficult to say, 

Ryan, you can’t go do this even though you have decided that you 

should do it. 

40

But what we are trying to do is to create a more ongoing discussion between our Ambassadors, our bureaus back in the State Department who are regional experts, and our security people so that, 

at the very least, no Ambassador is taking an unnecessary risk, 

however that is defined. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, with regard to Ambassador Stevens, certainly it was brave of him to go to Benghazi on the date that he 

did. I have to ask you honestly, though, was there anything in his 

itinerary on the 10th or the 11th that actually specifically required 

his personal presence? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, he certainly thought so, Congressman. 

And he did, of course, discuss this with his own security people. Remember, we do have regional security officers in these posts. They 

are the ones that an Ambassador will turn to. 

He believed that it was important for him to go to Benghazi. 

There were a number of meetings that he was holding and some 

public events that he had on his schedule. And, you know, he was 

someone who really believed strongly he had to get out there. And 

I think, as the ARB has pointed out, he was given great deference 

by the rest of the government. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you have any concept of the number of American troops it might have taken to actually create a totally secure 

environment for him in Benghazi on September 10 and 11? 

Secretary CLINTON. No. The number of Diplomatic Security personnel requested in the cables was five. There were five there that 

night with him. Plus, there was a mutual understanding with the 

annex that had a much more heavily armed presence because of 

the work that they were doing in the region. 

It is very difficult to, in retrospect, really anticipate what might 

have been. One of the RSOs who had served in Libya said the kind 

of attack that the compound suffered had not been anticipated. We 

had gotten used to, you know, preparing for car bombs and suicide 

bombers and things like that, but this was of a different nature. 

And we even saw that, at the annex, which was much more 

heavily fortified, had much more heavy military equipment, we lost 

two of our best and had one of our Diplomatic Security officers 

badly injured. He is still at Walter Reed. So even the annex, which 

had more assets in the face of the attack, was suffering losses that 

night. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Marino of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. MARINO. Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. 

In August 2012, prior to the Benghazi attack, the Library of Congress published a report on behalf of a division of DoD called ‘‘AlQaeda in Libya: A Profile.’’ This report outlined al-Qaeda’s growing 

presence in Libya, particularly in east Libya, where Benghazi is located. Something that was especially alarming to me in this DoD 

report was the mention that Ansar al-Sharia and other al-Qaeda 

groups in Libya have adopted the black flag, which symbolizes commitment to violent jihad, promoted by al-Qaeda’s senior leaders. 

In my hand, I hold a picture of the flag that the Department of 

State identified to be a prominent issuance of this flag and on the 

rise in Libya. I also hold a picture of the same flag, same type of 

flag, in Tunisia, where the protesters were outside the Embassy 

41

there. In addition, I have a flag—a picture that was taken in Cairo 

at the U.S. Embassy, where demonstrations took place. Another 

picture in Jordan at the U.S. Embassy, where protests took place. 

In Bahrain, over 2,000 protesters who burned numerous U.S. and 

Israeli flags, again at the Embassy. In Kuwait, U.S. Embassy, 500 

demonstrators chanting, ‘‘Obama, we are all Osama,’’ the flag 

again. And finally in Libya, the U.S. compound, the flag was flown 

there and carried through the streets, as well. 

My question, Madam Secretary, is, were you aware of this DoD 

report prior to the terrorist attack in Benghazi? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I was certainly aware of a number of 

reports from throughout our Government. I don’t know of the specific one that you are referring to. There were DoD reports, intelligence community reports, State Department reports talking about 

the decreasing—or the increasing threat environment in eastern 

Libya. That was what we were trying to address with the Libyans. 

And remember, the election in July in Libya brought to victory 

what we would consider moderates, people who had a very different 

view of the kind of future than, certainly, al-Qaeda or any of these 

militants have. 

But there is going to be a struggle, there is going to be a struggle 

in this region. And the United States has to be as effective in 

partnering with the non-jihadists, whether they fly a black flag or 

any other color flag——

Mr. MARINO. I clearly understand that——

Secretary CLINTON [continuing]. To be successful. 

Mr. MARINO [continuing]. Madam Secretary. 

Secretary CLINTON. What? 

Mr. MARINO. I clearly understand that. However, this flag was 

pointed out to be affiliated with al-Qaeda terrorists who attack and 

kill United States citizens and other individuals around the world. 

Did anyone in your department below you, were they aware of 

this report and these photos prior to? And don’t you think they 

should have brought this to your attention? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, what I am trying to say, Congressman, 

is I am well aware that there were people claiming to be associated 

with al-Qaeda that were attempting to influence militias, attempting to exercise more authority, along with a number of other 

groups that didn’t necessarily work under that flag but had the 

same militant jihadist mentality. 

So, yes, I was certainly aware of that. And so was Chris Stevens. 

Mr. MARINO. But my point——

Secretary CLINTON. And so was our team in Libya. 

Mr. MARINO. But my point is this flag kept coming up, and you 

did not think that that was important enough to increase security, 

when, after how many Embassies where this flag was shown in 

demonstrations? I personally think that it would demand an increase in security. And those below you that might have known 

this should have brought that to your attention. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well——

Mr. MARINO. I come from industry. I come from government. And 

there are individuals that just have to be cut loose when they are 

not performing their tasks. Are these three people that are on 

leave, are they still being paid? 

42

Secretary CLINTON. They are on administrative leave, and under 

Federal law and regulations, they are still being paid. 

Mr. MARINO. What is the holdup? 

Secretary CLINTON. Because there are regulations and law that 

have to be followed. 

Mr. MARINO. No, no. Well, what is the holdup from a management perspective of saying, you three let me down, this should 

have been brought to my attention, I no longer need your services? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I would be happy to give 

you an answer, because personnel discussions are not appropriate 

for public settings. But we have taken every step that was available, and we will continue to do so, and we are looking for additional authority. 

But to just finish up on the point you made, we had good security 

at all of those Embassies, other than in Tunisia because of the 

newness of the government. And then when they were asked to respond, they did. 

Because I go back to the point that was made on the other side 

of the aisle: We are dependent on host-government support. And 

where it doesn’t exist, unless we invade and unless we have a big 

military presence in a country, we are doing the best we can with 

our Diplomatic Security and private security guards and any other 

help we can get. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Vargas of California. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. 

And thank you very much, Madam Secretary, for being here. I 

also want to thank you for the excellent work that you have done 

not only here in the United States but across the world. I have to 

say that because it is true, one, and, secondly, I don’t think that 

my wife, my 16-year-old daughter or my 9-year-old daughter, she 

would probably even turn on me and wouldn’t let me in the house 

if I didn’t say that. You are a hero to many, especially women. And 

you seem to bring out these deep aspirations that they have in 

ways that I have never seen anyone do before. So, again, thank you 

for your service. 

When I was reading the information here, it brought back to 

mind another assassination, murder. I was a Jesuit for 5 years, 

and I spent some time in El Salvador. And in 1989, there was an 

assassination of Father Ignacio Ellacuria, Father Segundo Montes, 

Father Ignacio Martin-Baro, Father Juan Ramon Moreno, Father 

Armando Lopez, Father Joaquin Lopez y Lopez, and also the 

housekeeper, Mrs. Elba Ramos, and her young daughter—she was 

15-years-old—Celina Ramos. I knew them because I worked with 

them. Segundo Montes was my superior. And I know the pain that 

I felt when I heard that they died. I had left the Jesuits by then. 

And so I know that, as you being the superior of the people who 

died, I am sure felt the same way. 

And that is why I am glad that we brought up the names here 

today. I think it is important to mention the names: Ambassador 

Christopher Stevens, Mr. Sean Smith, Mr. Tyrone Woods, Mr. Glen 

Doherty. Because many of us who have faith believe that they 

didn’t die in vain. And that is why I am very proud that you are 

here bravely standing before us, trying to figure out what to do. 

43

And one of the things that did trouble me as I read this was the 

reliance that we have on local security. That is the part that didn’t 

make sense to me. I come from San Diego. We have the Marine 

Corps there. We have the Navy. We have incredibly good security 

and service people. Why don’t we rely more on them? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, that is an excellent question. And you 

brought back some very sad memories in talking about the losses 

that occurred in El Salvador. 

You know, we do rely primarily on host-nation support, but we 

have to take a harder look at the commitment and the capacity of 

these host nations. And, therefore, in places all over the world, we 

also have private security guards, some armed, some unarmed. We 

have Marine guards at many places, about 150, who at least are 

demonstrating a line of defense. But we have to do more. 

And when you ask, why do we rely on these? Well, in part because we don’t have military assets everywhere. If you look at the 

statements particularly by Admiral Mullen, who was our Chairman 

of our Joint Chiefs, he basically said, look, we have to work together more closely between State and DoD, but it is unrealistic, 

in his words, to tether our military to every high-risk post. 

So part of what we are trying to struggle through with is, how 

do we make our facilities as secure as possible without turning 

them into fortresses? Because our diplomats are not soldiers. How 

do we have reliable private security? The February 17th Brigade 

was a Libyan Government-supported militia that started defending 

Chris Stevens when he showed up before Ghadafi fell. They had 

been reliable, they had been responsive. But they were not particularly available during those first minutes and hours of the attack 

on our compound. 

So we also had contracted with a private security company that 

had a permit to operate in Libya. Because, you know, the United 

States, unless we go into a country with massive military force, we, 

you know, go in and we follow the rules of the country. And we had 

to get a security force that had a permit from the Libyan Government. 

So these are all issues that are being looked at so that we try 

to fill the gaps that have been identified. 

Mr. VARGAS. Well, thank you. 

And the last thing I would just correct that you said earlier, that 

we haven’t done enough about promoting ourselves around the 

world, I think you have. I think you have done a fantastic job. And 

other than President Kennedy, I don’t know of anyone that has had 

a better image in Latin America. So we thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Madam Secretary, let me just tell you, Americans are frustrated. They are frustrated over the handling of Benghazi, what 

happened when four Americans died there. They are frustrated and 

sometimes they are downright angry about being, what they think, 

being misled about what really happened there, being told that this 

was a protest over a video not just for a couple of days but for 

weeks on in. 

44

And then they are frustrated when they see comments from you 

this morning when you said, what difference at this point does it 

make? I will tell you what difference it makes. It makes a difference when Americans think they were misled about something 

for political reasons. 

In the hearing this morning, you mentioned that we were cleareyed about the threats and dangers as they were developing in 

eastern Libya. Madam Secretary, if you were really, in your words, 

clear-eyed about the levels of threat to our consulate in Benghazi, 

or our special mission in Benghazi, then you should have known 

about Chris Stevens’ memo, I believe of 16 August, that said our 

consulate could not be defended from a coordinated attack. 

The question Americans have is, did he expect an attack? If you 

were clear-eyed, then why did your department reject the request, 

I believe on 7 June, for 16 additional security agents, the site security team that would have been funded by DoD, not a State expenditure? 

If you were clear-eyed, shouldn’t you have known that there was 

no real Libyan Government to turn to for security assistance? You 

answered that question from Mr. Meeks earlier, when you said you 

were unsure about the Libyan Government and their ability to provide that assistance. 

If you were clear-eyed, were you clear-eyed about al-Qaeda’s displeasure with whom we seemed to be supporting during the summer elections, the moderate that was elected? 

If you were clear-eyed, shouldn’t you have known that al-Qaeda 

roamed freely in and around Benghazi? As my friend from Pennsylvania pointed out, there were al-Qaeda flags not just at the protest, 

there were al-Qaeda flags flying all over Benghazi. 

If you were clear-eyed, were you clear-eyed when the Brits left 

Benghazi because they had the attack? Why did four Americans 

die? What was so important that Ambassador Stevens, if he knew 

there was a security threat in Benghazi—and he went there on 

September 10 and 11 and gave his life for our country—what was 

so important for him to go to eastern Libya, knowing all these 

threats, knowing the memos are clear? 

And I think you misspoke earlier when you said that you didn’t 

know of any requests that were denied for more security. June 7 

e-mail exchange between Ambassador Stevens and John Moretti, 

when he requested for one MSD team, or, actually, an additional 

MSD team. And the reply from John Moretti said, unfortunately, 

MSD cannot support the request. There was a request made for 

more security, and it was denied on June 7. 

And so, Madam Secretary, you let the consulate become a death 

trap, and that is national security malpractice. You said you take 

responsibility. What does responsibility mean, Madam Secretary? 

You are still in your job, and there are four people at the Department of State that have culpability in this that are still in their 

jobs. 

I heard the answer about firing or removing personnel. I get 

that. But this was gross negligence. At what point in time can our 

administration and can our Government fire someone whose gross 

negligence left four Americans dead in Benghazi? 

45

What does the word ‘‘responsibility’’ mean to you, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary CLINTON. I think I have made that very clear, Congressman. 

And let me say that we have come here and made a very open, 

transparent presentation. I did not have to declassify the ARB. I 

could have joined 18 of the other ARBs, under both Democratic and 

Republican administrations, kept it classified, and then, you know, 

just said ‘‘goodbye.’’ That is not who I am; that is not what I do. 

And I have great confidence that the Accountability Review 

Board did the job they were asked to do, made the recommendations that they thought were based on evidence, not on emotion, 

not on——

Mr. DUNCAN. There was a lot of evidence——

Secretary CLINTON. Well——

Mr. DUNCAN. Reclaiming my time, there was a lot of evidence 

that led up to the security situation. 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I am sorry, Congressman——

Mr. DUNCAN. You mentioned transparency? You haven’t provided 

the call logs of the messages, instant messages, during the attack 

between the post and the operations center. In an air of transparency, will you release these communications between Benghazi, 

Tripoli, and Washington? 

Secretary CLINTON. I will get an answer to you on that. But I 

will tell you once more, the reason we have Accountability Review 

Boards is so that we take out of politics, we take out of emotion 

what happened, and we try to get to the truth. I think this very 

distinguished panel did just that. And we are working diligently 

overtime to implement their recommendations. That is my responsibility. I am going to do everything I can before I finish my tenure. 

And I would also, going back to your first point about the concerns that people you represented have expressed about statements 

that were made, I would refer you both to the unclassified version 

of the ARB, where, after months of research and talking to more 

than 100 witnesses, the picture is still very complicated about what 

happened that night. ‘‘There are key questions’’—I am quoting—

‘‘surrounding the identity, actions, and motivations of the perpetrators that remain to be determined.’’ And I recommend that every 

member read the classified version, which goes into greater detail 

that I cannot speak to here today. 

Mr. DUNCAN. It was a terrorist attack. It is pretty clear what the 

motivation was. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Schneider. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Secretary, let me again thank you for 

joining us. 

Thank you for opening up the ARB report. We are grateful. 

And let me also echo the words of my colleagues and extend my 

own personal gratitude for your service. You did our Nation well 

and made our people proud. You have done an extraordinary job 

as our Nation’s top diplomat, and you will be sorely missed. 

The Benghazi attack claimed the lives of four brave Americans, 

including Ambassador Chris Stevens, who had done so much to liberate the Libyan people. Despite the risk involved, he returned to 

46

that country as our Ambassador because he knew the important 

work of building a new Libya remained unfinished. 

America’s diplomatic corps dedicate their lives to promoting 

Americans’ interests abroad and knowingly put themselves in danger to serve their country. While we know that these jobs are not 

without risk, we must do more to support our diplomats. 

I am pleased that the State Department conducted a serious investigation, and I appreciate that you have already stated that you 

will accept every one of the 29 review board’s recommendations. 

The State Department is increasingly operating in high-threat locations throughout the world, requiring our diplomats to be stationed further afield and closer to dangers on the ground. This not 

only raises the security risks faced by our diplomats and development experts but also places a strain on existing resources. 

As we move forward, how will the State Department evaluate the 

benefits to U.S. interests from having an official presence in a 

given location versus the security risks faced by that diplomatic 

mission? How do you expect the Department will weigh the physical and technical personnel and political costs as opposed to the 

gains of operating in frontline states? And, last, what changes do 

you think these demands will require vis-a`-vis people and other resources at the State Department? 

Secretary CLINTON. Those are very important questions, and I 

can’t do justice to them in the time left, but we will certainly get 

you additional written information. 

But let me briefly say, Congressman, that, you know, I ordered 

the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review because, as I said, I served on the Armed Services Committee, where 

we get every 4 years a Quadrennial Defense Review, which really 

does help the Armed Services Committees in both houses plan for 

their authorization, and I wanted to lay the groundwork for us to 

do the same with the State Department. 

In that document, we began what is a very difficult analysis 

about how to balance and mitigate risk versus presence. It was one 

of the most challenging aspects of the QDDR process, and we have 

an ongoing effort under way. Because if you talk to many of our 

Ambassadors, especially the experienced ones, they really don’t 

want to be told by Washington or anybody where they can go, when 

they can go, what they can do. They have been in the Foreign Service 10, 20, 30 years or more, and they believe in their missions, and 

they believe they have a better sense of how to evaluate risk. 

At the same time, we do have to be conscious of and make difficult decisions about how to protect not just Ambassadors but all 

of our personnel and their families in these high-risk posts. It is 

a constant debate, Congressman. 

You know, we have authorized departure, we have ordered departure, and it is something that we take very seriously when we 

do it. You know, when we left Benghazi on the night of 11th–12th, 

there were others still there. The Italians were there; the Turks 

were there. The Italians had just left. 

I mean, people evaluate risk over time, and I think it is important to do what we can to minimize it. Some of that will be done 

by technology, some of that will be done by hard security, and some 

47

of that will be done by what we call soft power. But trying to get 

the balance right is very difficult. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. As we look forward to the steps taken, we will 

be in new places, we are going to face new challenges. How do we 

make sure that we are able to provide the resources to these highthreat, high-risk posts? 

Secretary CLINTON. It is very, very difficult. You know, that is 

going to be a question of new streamlined processes and protocols; 

sufficient security, both hard and soft; and resources. And we just 

have to—we have to ask you, based on our best assessment, about 

what we need to do our jobs. 

And sometimes, you know, you have a budget process, and nobody has predicted that you are going to have a revolution against 

Ghadafi, and then you have to scramble. How do you get somebody 

into Benghazi? How do you figure out what to do in Tripoli? And 

I could go down the line and tell you 10 or 20 of those examples 

that we live with every day. 

So it is more of an art than a science, to be honest, because, as 

of now, we don’t have, you know, hard parameters, but we are trying to develop the best we can. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Madam Secretary, I understand that you have 

a meeting at the White House but have agreed to stay so that 

members can have a few more questions. We will end by 5 o’clock. 

And we really appreciate that. 

We go to Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for staying. I really appreciate it. 

I appreciate your service to your country. And, you know, as was 

mentioned earlier, we look forward to your next steps. We will see 

what happens. 

Let me just say, I am actually an Air Force pilot. And I have a 

few concerns I want to lay out here. One of the first things I was 

told as a pilot in the military is that your country will never leave 

you behind. If you find yourself down in enemy lines, rest assured 

your country will move heaven and earth to come get you. If you 

find yourself in armed conflict, rest assured your country will do 

everything in its power to come save you from that armed conflict. 

Now, as a representative of the administration here, I have to 

ask you this: From the initial attack to the second attack, there 

was a lull of 7 hours. 

Now, I am going to say this; I was one of a handful of Republicans to vote to support the President’s position in Libya. I think 

we did the right thing there. But I did it with the knowledge that 

we would have the military forces in place to be able to rescue any 

personnel in a tough situation. 

In that intervening 7 hours, military assets, to what we know, 

what we can talk about, were not put in place. Aviano Air Base is 

1,044 miles from Benghazi. Aviano Air Base is an F–16 base. Airplanes could have been put in the air, after being fueled, even if 

they didn’t have missiles on them. And there can be nonviolent 

things that F–16s can do to disperse crowds that I know of well. 

So that is a concern. 

48

Originally, also, when you briefed us, I remember—and this has 

been, I know, hammered a little bit—but when you briefed us, you 

said unequivocally this was a result of the video. And I remember, 

in fact, you got pretty upset about it when somebody suggested 

that this was a terrorist attack. This was our briefing that we had. 

But we find out now it wasn’t. We find out now that it wasn’t the 

video, it was this terrorist attack. 

When we come to talk about the issue of the drone and the surveillance overhead, if there was, in fact, a drone overhead, I would 

assume that there would be a link in which you could watch what 

is going on live, or else maybe somebody under you was able to see 

what was going on live, or else that link was down. 

And another question I have, when it comes to—I watched your 

testimony in the Senate, and you said, you know, part of the reason 

we had a little bit of delay in understanding what was going on, 

we did not have immediate access to the security cameras, the security footage. But yet, at the same time, you had mortars being 

reported as being fired on security personnel. If I would hear that 

mortars are being fired, I would immediately assume, regardless of 

whether I could see what is going on overhead, regardless of if I 

could see the security footage, that this is more than a spontaneous 

demonstration. 

The other question I have, too—I am laying a few out for you—

the FEST team, the foreign response team, was that your decision 

not to deploy that right away? Was that an issue of logistics? 

Where does that come from? 

And the final thing I want to say is this. As, again, a believer, 

which I think you believe, that we are in a time where it is very 

important for American leadership to be out in front to prevent a 

resurgence of jihadist activity, of al-Qaeda activity, I am worried 

about the strategy of leading from behind. 

If the United States Ambassador in Libya—and I say this respectfully—can’t get a message forward to the Secretary of State 

about his concern about security in one of the most hot zones in 

the world, I worry about a lead-from-behind strategy. 

And if we have no assets on alert that can respond in a 7-hour 

lull in two different attacks in the most hot spot, one of the most 

hot spots in the world, on 9/11, on the anniversary, is the leadfrom-behind strategy failing? 

Because I really want American leadership to be strong. I believe 

in freedom, and I believe we are the people that are going to be 

able to take freedom around the globe. 

With that, I will give you the remaining minute, and I thank you 

for your generosity. 

Secretary CLINTON. And I thank you for your service, Congressman, both in the Air Force and here. 

There was a lot packed into that. Let me see what I can cover 

quickly, and then we will get the rest to you in writing. DoD took 

every action it could take, starting from the time that the President 

directed Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to do so. 

Again, I turn to the ARB because that is, to me, a much more 

factually based finding. The board found no evidence of any undue 

delays in decision-making or denial of support from Washington or 

from military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary, the safe 

49

evacuation of all U.S. Government personnel from Benghazi 12 

hours after the initial attack, and subsequently to Ramstein, was 

the result of exceptional U.S. Government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded 

Americans. 

Now, having said that, I think it is very important we do more 

to coordinate with DoD along the lines of what you are talking 

about, because who knows what is going to be facing us in the next 

months and years? 

With respect to the video, I did not say that it was about the 

video for Libya. It certainly was for many of the other places where 

we were watching these disturbances. 

Now, with respect to Predator feed or video of the attack, we 

could not see that at the State Department. There was no access 

to that. At no time did I have a live feed of the attack, not from 

any system in our compound and not from the annex, nor from any 

UAV. There has been confusion, understandably, because we did 

talk a lot about the surveillance camera video that eventually got 

to us. 

I will give you more information about that because I think it is 

important to understand how this happened. And, as you know, 

Congressman, the annex was not under my authority. So information was flowing into another agency, more than one other agency. 

And those people were incredibly brave, but overwhelmed as well. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. 

And, Madam Secretary, thank you for what I can only describe 

as a truly exemplary career in public service and a dedication to 

public service. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And I look forward to what the future holds for 

you, as well. 

I have two broad-based questions for you, if I can, Madam Secretary. 

You now have obviously held this office for 4 years at an extraordinarily challenging time in our history. We recently passed the 2-

year anniversary of the Arab Awakening. We are seeing in the recent headlines, emerging threats from Algeria and Mali across 

Northern Africa, spreading out through the Middle East—Iran, 

Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 

As you close on your tenure, I was wondering if you might be 

willing to share some important lessons learned from the time that 

you have spent in this post and enlighten us as to what Congress 

can do to help respond and even get in front of these threats as 

you move forward. 

And related to that, if I may, assuming that you are going to say 

what you have said a couple of times about increased engagement 

at the ground level, how do we do that in areas that are unstable, 

where we need to depend on local governments or local security 

forces that, quite frankly, we have seen don’t have the ability to 

provide the type of security that our diplomats are going to demand? 

50

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, it is wonderful to see 

you here. And I thank you for your interest in looking, sort of, into 

the future. 

Let me just make a couple of points. 

First, we have a lot of tools that we don’t use as well as we 

should. I think we have abdicated the broadcasting arena, where 

both in TV and radio, which are considered kind of old-fashioned 

media, are still very important in a lot of these ungoverned areas, 

a lot of these difficult places where we are trying to do business. 

And I think we have to get our act together. I would hope that this 

committee would pay attention to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is in desperate need of assistance, intervention, and 

change. 

I think, too, social media is a great tool. We have begun trying 

to use it much more in the State Department, and not to communicate with just, you know, leaders and officials, but really, as you 

say, get down into the grass roots. 

We have also—I started two organizations to deal with countering violent extremism: One, a new operation inside the State 

Department that is staffed with interagency experts so that—you 

know, I am not saying anything that is classified, but it is beginning to try to respond to al-Qaeda and other jihadist propaganda. 

So if they put up a video which talks about how terrible Americans 

are, we put up a video which talks about, you know, how terrible 

they are. We are trying to meet them in the media channels that 

they are communicating with people. 

We are also at the beginning of an organization I helped to stand 

up, the Global Counterterrorism Forum. Because if we don’t work 

with partners and understand more effectively how to counter violent extremism, how to stop recruiters, how to turn families and 

communities against these jihadists, there will be a constant flow 

of them. So we have to be smarter about that. 

And there are other things that I would, you know, like to share 

with you and others on the committee who are interested. 

You know, it is not a perfect analogy, but I would say that our 

fight against international communism, against the Soviet Union, 

during the cold war, we did a lot of things really well. I mean, we 

kept people’s hopes alive, we communicated with freedom lovers 

and advocates behind the Iron Curtain. We did it through media, 

we did through our values. Well, I think we have a similar challenge, even though it is a very different world. And let’s get smart 

about it, and let’s figure out how we are going to put some points 

on the board, so to speak, in dealing with both governments and 

populations. 

And if I could, just very—I know that Representative Duncan 

has left, but his question took me a little by surprise because our 

ops center does not do instant messaging. So the reason you 

haven’t gotten instant messaging is we don’t do instant messaging. 

So I wanted to put that into the record and hope that his staff or 

someone will convey that to him. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We will go to Mr. Brooks of Alabama. 

51

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Clinton. 

It is an honor to be here today. And I want to thank you for the 

time that you have spent with us and with the Senate, for that 

matter. I am sure it has been a long day. 

It has been my experience that truth without credibility is meaningless, and credibility, once lost, is difficult to reacquire. My concern is the degree to which false statements about Benghazi have 

damaged America’s credibility not only here but also abroad. 

I don’t focus on any of your statements in that regard; rather, I 

focus on some others. On September 16, 2012, on Meet the Press, 

Ambassador Susan Rice stated, and I quote,

‘‘What happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in 

Cairo. Almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.’’

Now, let me break this statement down to three parts, if I might. 

And I would ask you to confirm, based on the data we now have, 

whether her comments were true or false. 

Secretary Clinton, is Ambassador Rice’s statement that Benghazi 

was a spontaneous reaction to the Cairo protests factually accurate? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, I think if you look at the ARB finding, 

Congressman, there is still question about what caused it. So I 

don’t want to mislead you in any way. That is not the weight of 

the evidence right now. But I think until the FBI completes its investigation, we are not going to know all the reasons why these 

people showed up with weapons and stormed our compound. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, Secretary Clinton, is Ambassador Rice’s statement that Benghazi was a copycat of the Cairo demonstrations factually accurate? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, it turned out not to be because the 

Cairo demonstrations were not heavily armed, and we did eventually get host-nation security support. So there were differences. 

But, again, I would say that Secretary Rice conveyed information 

that had been provided by the intelligence community and the 

interagency process. 

Mr. BROOKS. I am not trying to go into the process right now. 

I am just trying to determine what the truth is as best we know 

at this time. 

Secretary Clinton, is Ambassador Rice’s statement that Benghazi 

was ‘‘prompted, of course, by an anti-Muslim video’’ put on the 

Internet in the United States factually accurate? 

Secretary CLINTON. I would have to go back to my first answer, 

Congressman, and just say that we don’t know all the motivations, 

so I don’t want to give a sweeping answer as to what prompted 

those men to come out that night and attack our compound. 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. Well, on September 16, the very same day 

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made her statements to the American people and the world, Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf 

said on NPR that the idea that this criminal and cowardly act was 

a spontaneous protest, that it just spun out of control, is completely 

unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a 

52

precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically 

to attack the United States consulate. 

As we now know, from everything I have read at least, the Libyan President told the truth. Contrast that with the statements by 

Ambassador Rice, to the United Nations. It forces one to wonder 

whether Libya’s intelligence was that much better than America’s 

on September the 16th or whether Libyan leaders were that much 

more willing to be candid or to avoid misstatements. 

Secretary Clinton, what evidence was there that was so compelling that it caused the White House, through Ambassador Susan 

Rice, to make these representations about spontaneous protests, 

anti-Muslim videos, and the like, despite evidence and statements 

of Libya’s own President to the contrary? You know, if she is going 

to make these statements, an affirmative act on her part, where 

was the compelling evidence, and what was it? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, I was not involved in the 

so-called talking points process. My understanding is it was a typical process trying to get to the best information available. It was 

an intelligence product. They are, as I again understand it, working with their committees of jurisdiction to try to unpack that. 

But I will say that all of the senior administration officials, including Ambassador Rice, who spoke publicly to this terrible incident, had the same information from the intelligence community. 

Mr. BROOKS. If I might interject. I appreciate your response so 

far. But if you are not familiar with any compelling evidence that 

would support the statements made by Ambassador Rice, who 

would know? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, there was evidence, and the evidence 

was being sifted and analyzed by the intelligence community, 

which is why the intelligence community was the principal decider 

about what went into talking points. 

And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say 

things that would undermine the investigation. So it was much 

more complex than I think we are giving it credit for, sir. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you for your candor, and thank you for your 

time. 

Chairman ROYCE. The ranking member and I have discussed 

going to 3 minutes for questions from here on out. And, without objection, that is what we will do. 

Let’s go to Mr. Bera from California. 

Mr. BERA. Secretary Clinton, thank you for appearing before the 

committee today. 

You know, as a new Member of Congress, I think I speak for all 

the freshmen that we are not going to get much time to serve with 

you, but we hope in a few years we will get that chance to serve 

again. 

You know, from my perspective, the tragedy in Benghazi was the 

loss of four American patriots. That loss was felt pretty deeply in 

northern California, particularly around Ambassador Chris Stevens. You know, his family had deep roots in our community. 

The best way for us to honor their memory and their service is 

to do our utmost to make sure the lessons of Benghazi—and do everything that we can to honor and protect our men and women 

around the world, you know, in an increasingly dangerous situaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
53

tion. You have been very forthright today and forthcoming with information, and we truly appreciate that. 

You know, much has been made today about the flow of information, but I want to quote former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who said after the ARB was issued, 

‘‘As someone who has run large organizations—and the Secretary 

of State has been very clear about taking responsibility here—it 

was, from my perspective, not reasonable, in terms of having a specific level of knowledge that was very specifically resident in her 

staff, and over time certainly didn’t bring that to her attention.’’ 

That was Admiral Mike Mullen. 

Secretary, how many cables did you say arrive every year to the 

State Department? One-point-four million? Can you tell me how 

long it takes you to read 1.4 million cables? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, if I had ever tried to read 1.4 million 

cables, I don’t think I would be sitting here today. I would probably 

be, you know, collapsed somewhere. 

You know, I appreciated what Admiral Mullen said because 

when you do sit on top of large organizations—in his case the 

United States military, which is huge, and in my case the State 

Department and USAID—you put into place processes. And you 

have to trust the judgment, the good sense of the people in your 

organization. 

So those 1.43 million cables, they come into the State Department. You know, the tradition is they are all addressed to me, but, 

you know, the vast, vast majority are funneled through these processes to get to the right people, who are expected to take the right 

actions. And 99.9 percent of the time people do. 

I want to reiterate that. It is an incredible organization, with 

dedicated people, particularly our security professionals, who have 

stopped so many attacks, protected so many people. But occasionally we see a serious problem like we have seen here, and that is 

what we are trying to fix. 

Mr. BERA. Well, thank you for your candor. 

Secretary CLINTON. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. 

Mr. COTTON. Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. Thank you for 

coming. We are all here very happy to have you here, very happy 

for your recovery. I know I bring greetings from many of our mutual friends in Arkansas. 

Some of our peers on the other side have expressed their ambitions for your future. I would like to say that I just wish you had 

won the Democratic primary in 2008. 

Secretary CLINTON. I did pretty well in Arkansas. 

Mr. COTTON. You did. 

You said on September 21 that we will not rest until we have 

tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered 

the four Americans at Benghazi. 

Secretary CLINTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COTTON. Earlier today, you said, I certainly hope the FBI is 

able to investigate, identify, and hold those responsible. 

Does the difference in those two statements reflect any concern 

on your part of the progress of that investigation? 

54

Secretary CLINTON. Well, Congressman, first, congratulations. It 

is good to see you here. 

Mr. COTTON. Thank you. 

Secretary CLINTON. No, it does not. But I am conscious of the 

fact that talking about FBI investigations is something you have to 

be extremely careful about, for obvious reasons. 

I think it is clear, or I hope it is clear, that President Obama, 

when he says we are going to bring people to justice even if it takes 

some time, he means what he says. Obviously, the FBI is conducting an investigation. What actions are taken will be determined in the future. 

Mr. COTTON. What is the United States Government’s position on 

the role of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the attacks at 

Benghazi? 

Secretary CLINTON. Again, I am not going to prejudge what the 

FBI determines. We know that there are al-Qaeda related organizations, as we saw from the pictures that were held up, throughout 

the region, including in eastern Libya. We know that people, like 

we saw with the recent attacks in Algeria, like to associate themselves with al-Qaeda. 

But we have to be careful about what that means. Core al-Qaeda 

has been severely depleted coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What we are dealing with now are the jihadists who have 

been associated with al-Qaeda, who have gained, unfortunately, 

very serious combat experience, coming back to the countries that 

they left in order to go wage jihad in Central Asia. 

So whether they call themselves al-Qaeda or Boko Haram or 

Ansar al-Sharia, they are all part of the same global jihadist movement. And there may be differences between them, but their goals 

are unfortunately similar and pose threats to us and our partners. 

Mr. COTTON. Both the chairman and Mr. Poe have referenced a 

Tunisian suspect who has been released. I believe that is Mr. Ali 

Harzi. 

Secretary CLINTON. Right. 

Mr. COTTON. On January 8, it was reported in The New York 

Times. 

Do you find it distressing that the Tunisian Government has released that gentleman in light of the hundreds of millions of dollars 

of aid we have given them over the last 2 years? 

Secretary CLINTON. At this point, Congressman, I do not, for two 

reasons. 

First, I had a long conversation with high-ranking Tunisian officials about this, as did Director Mueller of the FBI when he was 

there in person. We have been assured that there was an effort to 

have rule of law, judicial process, sufficient evidence not yet available to be presented, but a very clear commitment made to us that 

they will be monitoring the whereabouts of Harzi. And we are 

going to hold them to that and watch carefully. 

Mr. COTTON. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Lowenthal of California. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. First, I also 

want to compliment you on your exemplary service. But more than 

that, I really want to say how much I have appreciated your openness, your thoughtfulness today, your transparency. 

55

And what I am struck with in this hearing is a greater appreciation of the courage of State Department personnel. I think we are 

left with that understanding of just how courageous the personnel 

have been in taking on assignments that in the past never had 

been taken on before. And you have ably, I think, presented to us 

why that is important, why it is important for emerging democracies that we be there. 

My question is very similar to the one of Congressman Schneider’s, and that was: How do you make that analysis between risk 

and presence? What are some of the obstacles in making that? How 

do we move forward with that? And how does the Congress understand some of that kind of balance? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, this is my ongoing hope: That we can 

get it more right than wrong. Let me just make a few points because it is an issue that I hope this committee takes very seriously. 

First of all, you have to remember that when we talk about the 

State Department and diplomatic facilities, that covers—we are the 

umbrella for so many other agencies in our Government. If we were 

not there, many of those agencies’ representatives would have a 

difficult time being there. I mean, we are the diplomatic presence 

that permits us to pursue law enforcement objectives, intelligence 

objectives, military objectives, and so much more. 

So it is not just about us sitting around and saying, you know, 

do we really want our diplomats at risk? It is, okay, what are the 

equities of the rest of the government that would be affected if we 

decided we had to close shop because the risk was too great? I want 

to stress that because I don’t think you can understand, at least 

from my perspective, how difficult the calculation is without knowing that it is not just about the State Department and USAID. 

Secondly, I don’t think we can retreat from these hard places. We 

have to harden our security presence, but we can’t retreat. We 

have to be there. We have to be picking up intelligence, information, building relationships. And if we had a whole table of some 

of our most experienced Ambassadors sitting here today, they 

would be speaking with a loud chorus, like, you know, ‘‘Yes, help 

us be secure, but don’t shut us down. Don’t keep us behind high 

walls in bunkers so we can’t get out and figure out what is going 

on.’’

So that is the balance I have been trying to make for 4 years. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will only have time for two more questions. 

We will end at 5 o’clock. 

We will go now to Mr. Cook from California. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

First of all, I want to compliment you. It has been a long, long 

day. And to survive all these questions and everything, it has been 

tough. 

I want to talk to you about the Marine security guards. 

Secretary CLINTON. Yes. 

Mr. COOK. And this is from somebody who spent a long time in 

the Marine Corps but not under the cognizance part of DoD, not 

under the State Department. 

And you had some things in here about additional Marine security guard detachments. 

56

Secretary CLINTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COOK. And the question is about whether it is prudent to 

task-organize those assets that are organic to you and perhaps put 

them in those areas that have the high-threat level. And if you 

could answer that, I would appreciate that. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congressman, that is a very astute observation. I mean, we believe that we need to increase both our Marine 

security guard detachments as well as our Diplomatic Security and 

create more synergy and cooperation in these high-threat posts. 

The Marine security guards, as you know, are very much a presence on more than 150 of our posts. And in order to give them the 

facilities and support they need, they need a Marine house, they 

need to be very close to the Embassy. Because if you saw the recent 

movie ‘‘Argo,’’ you saw the Marines in there, you know, destroying 

the classified material when the mob was outside in Tehran. They 

are experts at that; they are people that are totally relied on by the 

entire mission. 

But as I said earlier, historically their job has not been personal 

security. So we have to figure out, working with DoD and particularly with the Marines, you know—and most of them are very 

young. You know, I take pictures with them everywhere I go, and 

usually the sergeants, you know, are older, more experienced, but 

most of the Marines on duty are quite young. 

We have to figure out how we really take advantage of their 

presence. And that is a conversation we are in the midst of with 

our DoD colleagues. And with your experience, I would welcome 

any insight or ideas you have about how we really do use our Marine security detachments better. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much. 

I yield my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We will go to Grace Meng from New York. 

Secretary CLINTON. Congratulations, too, Grace. 

Ms. MENG. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Madam Secretary, it is wonderful to see you here again. And if 

you have any advice for a fellow New Yorker finding her way 

around this town, please let me know. 

As a woman and as a mom, thank you so much for being a role 

model for women not only in the United States but all throughout 

the world. Thank you for your compassion and leadership always. 

I am curious, in the past weeks we have seen the French respond 

decisively to the situation in Mali. The African Union has fought 

well in Somalia. Do you see this as an advancement of 

multilateralism in combating Islamic extremism in the Middle 

East, in Africa? And what more can we ask from allies in that 

area? 

Secretary CLINTON. Well, congratulations, Grace. 

And that is an excellent question because I think that is exactly 

what we are coping with right now. I am very proud of the work 

we did with African nations to stand up, financially support, and 

train the AMISOM force that has driven al-Shabaab out of the 

dominant position that it had. That meant putting American trainers, working with troops from Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti, eventuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:09 May 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\012313\78250 HFA PsN: SHIRL
57

ally Kenya, advising some other countries that were willing to put 

in assets. It took money, it took time. But we just recognized the 

new Somali Government, which could never have been possible 

without American support and multilateralism because the U.N. 

was strongly behind it, we got other nations to invest. 

What we are looking at now in West Africa is to try to help support an African, AU-blessed, ECOWAS-supported troop combination from a number of countries to really take the lead against the 

terrorists in northern Mali. 

Again, this is hard. If the United States comes in and does something on our own—and I appreciated what Congressman Kinzinger 

said—you know, nobody can match us in military assets and prowess. But a lot of the challenges we face are not immediately or 

sustainably solved by military action alone. Therefore, we have to 

get countries in the region to increase their border security, to increase their antiterrorist, counterterrorist efforts inside their own 

borders. We have a lot to do now in West Africa. 

So I think you are right to point out the United States has to 

play a role, but it needs to be part of a multilateral effort in order 

to have a chance at success. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

We have discussed many important issues. I remain concerned 

about whether the Accountability Review Board captured the full 

picture of what happened. But I think we can agree to work together moving ahead to improve security in a number of different 

areas. 

This hearing now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60

f


78250n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515-6128 

Edward R. Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

January 23, 2013 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live via the Committee 

website at http://www.FllrdgliAlTuirs.huuse.gov): 

DATE 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESS: 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 

2:00 p.m 

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi: The Secretary of State's View 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton 

Secretary of State 

U. S. Department of State 

By Direction of the Chairman 

II'heneverlHl.lctlcuhie 
61


78250m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MTNllTES OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARI'IG 

Day Wed/lesdar Date_--,J,-,a",1,-"u",a""rv"-",2",3.,-,2,,,O~1,,,3,-_Ruum, ___ .. 2,,1,-,72 ____ _ 

Starting Time 2:02 p.lIl. Ending Time 5:03 V.IIl. 

Recesses i_()_( __ lo __ ) ~lo __ ) ~lo __ ) ~lo .~-l ~to __ )( __ to __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Chairman Edward R. Royer! 

Check all "fthe following lhat apply: 

Open Session GJ Executive (closed) SessionD 

Televised 0 

TITLE OF HEARING; 

Electrunically Recorded (taped) [Z] 

Stenographic Record [l] 

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi: The Secretary o.f"State's View 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See Attached Sheet 

NON~CO_\lMl1TIlIl MEMBERS l'lU<:SENT: 

)lfs. Sheila Jackson-Lee 

HEARING WIT"iESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Ycs[J NoD 

(if '-'no ", please list helmv and include title, agency, depanmenf, or organf.=atfon,) 

STATEMK\TS FOR THE RECORD: (Lis; any statements submittedIor the record.) 

Statements for the Record: Connolfy. Higgins. ,lfurimJ, Messer, Wolf 

Questions jor the Record: Chabot, Collins, Duncan, Holding. Kinzinger, Marino. McCaul, M~eadows, 

Jlfe""er, Rade'. Rohrubacher. Royce, WilsOIl, alld Yolto. 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ____ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOt::R-'iED 5:031!:!,!: __ 
62

f


78250m-2.eps

"TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI: THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S VIEW" 

JANUARY 23, 2013 

Present Member Present Member 

X Edward R. Royce, CA X Eliot L. Engel, NY 

X Christopher H. Smidl, NJ X Eni FH. Faleomavaega, AS 

X Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Brad Shennan, CA 

X Dana Rohrabaeher, CA X Gregory W. Meeks. NY 

X Steve Chabot, 0 H Albia Sires. NJ 

X Joe Wilson. SC X Gerald E. Connolly, V A 

X Michael T. McCauL TX X Theodore E. Deutch, FL 

X Ted Poe, TX Brian Higgins, NY 

X Matt Salmon, AZ X Karen Bass. CA 

X Tom Marino. PA X William Keating, MA 

X Jeff Duncan. SC X David Cicilline, Rl 

X Adanl KinzingeL IL X Alan Grayson, FL 

X Mo Brooks. AL X Juan Vargas. CA 

X Tom Cotton. AR X Bradley S Schneider. IL 

X Paul Cook. CA X Joseph P. Kennedy TIT, MA 

X George Holding, NC X Ami Bera, CA 

X Randy K. Weber, Sr., TX X Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

X Scott Perry, PA X Grace Meng. NY 

Steve Stockman. TX X Lois FrankeL FL 

X Ron DeSantis, FL X Tulsi Gabbard. HI 

X Trey RadeL FL X Joaquin Castro, TX 

X Doug Collins. GA 

X Mark Meadows. NC 

X Ted S. Yoho, FL 

X Luke Messer, IN 
63


78250c-1.eps

STATt:,\ U:NT 'OR Tm: R ECOR[) m " Ttt!: IIO"'ORAIJL!: TO,\l l\1ARI "'O 

C OMM ITI[[ 0 ." FOREIGN AFFAiRS. U.S. IIOUSE OF REPRES!:NTATIVES 

"TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI: THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S VIEW' 

January 23, 2013 

The deliberate terrorist allacks against U.S embassies and American values on September II. 2012 are a 

firm reminder that ..... e must take threats from terrorist organiuuions, like al Qaeda, very seriously. 

Unfortunatel y, these attacks also highli!!ht the fact that the Obama Administration's ..... ishful thinking that 

the United States can negotiate "ith tetTorists and see positive outcomes fails to rerogni~e the totality of 

the danger in underestimating the enemy. 

In August 2012, the Library of Congress and the Department of Defense issued an e)'e-opening report AI 

Q""'*' ill Libya: A Profile. Just ..... eeks before the attacks in Benghazi, this report noted the growing 

presence of the al Qaeda·affiliated group Ansar al Sharia . ..... hich is based in Benghazi, and al Qaeda 

training groups in east Li bya, within a few hours of Benghazi. 

This report also mentioned that Ansar al Shria has adO!'ted a black flag similar to al Qaeda's, which we 

saw protestors waving in anti_American demonstrations on September 11,2012 in Benghazi, Bahrain. 

Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Tunisia and dsewhere. The State Del"'rtment knew this flag had been adopted by aIQaeda affiliatedjihadist groups III1d it had access to the DOD report highlighting the increased presence of 

such groups in the area. This flag .... -as dearly attributed 10 people who ""aok and kill Americans and il is 

unfathomable that il took State Department officials t"" ,,-eeks to connect the dots and confirm that th ese 

were all terrorist anacks committed by aI_Qaeda 

The American people deserve answers as to not only "tly State Depanment officialS failed 10 lalee Ihe growing 

threa1 ofal Qaeda in Libya seriously, but also why officials .... 'ere either incapable or Ullwilling to annoUllce 

that aI Qaeda orchestrated these anaeks. 

Protestors in Bahrain 
64


78250c-2.eps
65

f


78250c-3.eps
66


78250b-1.eps

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly (VA-ll) 

HCFA Full Committee Hearing: Terrorist Attack in Benghazi: The Secretary of State's View 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 

2pm 

Today's hearing on the attack at the American embassy in Benghazi is the fourth House inquiry on this 

subject in as many months. Hopefully it will be the first to actually address the substance of how this 

tragedy that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, occurred 

and how we can improve security to prevent such attacks in the future. 

The reaction to the Benghazi attack differs from the reaction to past attacks on our people and soil. For 

example, I recall the sorrowful events of October 1983, when a truck filled with 2,500 pounds of TNT 

slammed into the United States Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. service members. I was 

a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time and had just visited the barracks in 

Beirut, and I recall President Reagan and his Cabinet responding to substantive questions about the 

security of our foreign service personnel rather than to partisan attacks that should stop at the water's 

edge. 

The partisan tenor over Benghazi, however, reached a fever pitch in which some chose to launch a 

barrage of personal attacks against Ambassador Rice, Secretary Clinton and others. This begs the 

question-why are the partisans leading this charge so averse to addressing the very real concerns 

about the security of our personnel and posts overseas? Consider that immediately after the attack, 

the State Department asked Congress for the authority to reassign $1.1 billion in already appropriated 

funds to cover the costs of security upgrades at high-risk posts. But that request was not even 

considered by the House. The transfer authority was included in the Senate's supplemental bill for 

Superstorm Sandy relief, but that bill died in the 112'h Congress after the House leadership refused to 

bring it up for a vote. 

Even more troubling, the House majority actually has led the charge to cut embassy security funding by 

$886 million compared to the Administration's requests since FY2010! The majority has continued to 

push for these cuts despite repeated warnings of the risks from career State Department officials. For 

example, Ambassador Ronald Neumann, Ambassador to Afghanistan during the George W. Bush 

Administration, told a Senate subcommittee in 2009 that "it is time to stop flinching from the 

requirement to pay for the mitigation of the dangers we ask our personnel to accept.'" The philosophy 

of a meat-ax, indiscriminate approach to spending cuts carries real consequences, and it rings hollow 

to have some members now ask, (tHaw could this happen?" Moreover, a paucity of resources ingrains 

a specific culture within any organization, in this case the State Department-namely that every 

purchase, every expense, must be justified in a time when the threat of even more cuts loom beyond 

the horizon. State Department officials testifying on the record before this Committee confirmed the 

resource-conscious mentality that permeated multiple levels of decision-making. This is not surprising, 

1 There are two accounts: the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) account, and the Embassy Security, Construction, & Maintenance 

(ESCM) account. Including enduring and overseas contingency operations funding, the House numbers compared to the President's 

request were (numbers in thousands): -161,473 (FY2010), -97,438 (FY2011), -411,251 (FY2012), -215,810 (FY2013). 

2 Han. Ronald E. Neumann, Testimony Before the Senate HomelandSecuritySubcommittee on Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia,(transcript), 22, 

.bn!2:.LLlli:mAu.e~u/medi<U.docum€ntsicongressiot~al comm/senate hon4eland <.;ecutity/us ser:ate homeland seCl!!:1Y_hearinc:r d~L 

2009.odf. 

Page 1 of 3 
67


78250b-2.eps

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly (VA-ll) 

as the State Department was operating in a time of austerity and a constant refrain of "more cuts." Is it 

fair to hold budget-conscious individuals' feet to the fire with one hand while we continually threaten 

to cut their budgets with the other? 

A thoughtful discussion of the Benghazi situation ought to focus on the sequence of events that led to 

the attacks and the context in which they occurred. The Pickering-Mullen Accountability Review 

Board's (ARB) report provides a solid basis from which to examine the attacks, which were a tragedy 

that resulted in the death of four Americans3 who showed "selfless courage.'" The release of this 

report obviates the need for baseless attacks on members of the Administration or the perpetuation of 

conspiracy theories. 

In a letter accompanying the ARB report, Secretary Clinton did not eschew responsibility. Of the almost 

70,000 employees of the State Department worldwide, she said, "I am responsible for everyone of 

them, and I am enormously proud to be a part of their team."slmmediately after the attack, Secretary 

Clinton directed the State Department to further protect State Department staff worldwide, ordered 

an investigation to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi, and intensified a diplomatic 

campaign aimed at combating the threat of terrorism across North Africa. Secretary Clinton said the 

ARB report "provides a clear-eyed look at serious, systemic challenges that we have already begun to 

fix.,,6 She accepted each of the report's recommendations and said that "there is no higher priority for 

me or my Department" than undertaking the implementation of "every recommendation ... by the time 

the next Secretary of State takes office.,,7 

As the ARB was investigating the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, the State Department was making 

its request to reassign already appropriated funds to pursue the following: 

Conducting a worldwide review of its overall security posture. 

Partnering with the Pentagon to dispatch hundreds of additional Marine Security Guards to 

bolster U.S. posts abroad. 

Realigning resources in its 2013 budget to address physical vulnerabilities and reinforce 

structures where needed, including with the goal of reducing the risks from fire. 

Hiring additional Diplomatic Security personnel and providing them with the equipment and 

training they need to face today's security challenges. 

Examining how the Department makes decisions on when, where, and how its people operate, 

including ensuring that regional Assistant Secretaries assume greater responsibility and 

accountability for their people and posts. 

The ARB report clearly states, "Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. 

facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks."s 

The report also paints a clearer picture of the context of post-Revolution Libya and the enemy that our 

3 The four were: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty. 

4 Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, Accountability Review Board Report, p.3. 

5 Letter from Secretary Clinton to Senators Kerry, Senator Lugar, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Rep. Berman. December 18, 2012. 

6 ARB report., 2. 

7 Ibid., 3. 

e Ibid .• 4. 

Page 2 of 3 
68

f


78250b-3.eps

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly (VA-ll) 

people are facing in the region-a "growing, diffuse range of terrorist and hostile actors" who "[pose] 

an additional challenge to American security officers, diplomats, development professionals and 

decision-makers seeking to mitigate risk and remain active in high threat environments without 

resorting to an unacceptable total fortress and stay-at-home approach to U.S. diplomacy.,,9 Such an 

enemy would be challenging to face under normal circumstances, and a post-Revolution environment 

exacerbates the situation. In Libya, the day-to-day situation was characterized by the "security vacuum 

left by Qaddafi's departure"l0 and a "general backdrop of political violence, assassinations .... , 

lawlessness, and an overarching absence of central government authority in eastern Libya."ll 

With the benefit of hindsight, the ARB report pinpoints management and system failures that resulted 

in inadequate security on the ground in Benghazi, but it also details growing challenges State has faced 

"to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work."n Based on this finding, it is clear the 

availability of resources was and continues to be a major issue for our missions abroad, but you 

wouldn't know that based on the rhetoric surrounding this subject up to now. 

Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen also were brutally honest about the sacrifice that our 

personnel knowingly face when serving overseas in hostile environments: 

"No diplomatic presence is without risk ... And the total elimination of risk is a non-starter for 

u.S. diplomacy, given the need for the u.S. government to be present in places where stability 

and security are often most profoundly lacking and host government support is sometimes 

minimal to non-existent.,,13 

Let's not lose sight of the fact that America's foreign aid and diplomatic posts are not just nice things to 

do. They are important and sometimes dangerous jobs and critical components of our national security 

policy. These public servants put themselves on the line every single day to advance America's 

economic and humanitarian interests across the globe, and it is up to us to ensure they have the tools 

and security they need to achieve that mission. 

9 Ibid., 2. 

10 Ibid.} 15. 

11 Ibid.} 16. 

12 Ibid.} 3. 

13 Ibid., 2. 

### 

Page 3 of 3 
69


78250e-1.eps

January 23, 2013 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HEARING 

"TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI: THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S VIEW" 

STATEMENT OF REP. LUKE MESSER 

~\lr. Chrllrnnll, thrl11k you for scheduling this imrort~ll1t herlring today. ~\l{ldam Secret ..lry, 1 \vant to 

thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to appear before this Committee. T know 

that your tenure as our Nation's Secretary of State is coming to an end and you are looking forward 

to your next venture. I wish you all the best in your future cndca\'ors. 

I anl a new rncll1bcr to this Conunittcc rcprcscntmg the 6th Congressional District of Indiana, and 

as T was campaigning oyer the course oFlast year, T traveled all over my district, which covers I ~ 

counties, rU1U spoke \vith thousands of Hoosiers about the issues th~lt concerned them most. 

In the days and \'leeks follo\ving the September 11 tll attack on our compound in Benghazi, 1 

encountered son1C of the n10st intense feelings of distrust and anger at \Xiashington. The indiViduals 

I lnet"\vith could not understand ho"\v President ()balll(l (md his lllOSt senior advisers \vere incapable 

of grasping what seemed to be obvious to the American public. \\fhen something explodes at any 

C.S. facility on any given day, but especially on September 11 th, the AmeriGU1 collective mind 

instinctively thinks terrorism. Instead, the AdnlinistDltlon offered up one inconsistent st;ltenlent 

after another, and in general, expressed reluctance to character17.e the attack as terronstn. \tnong 

the excuses W;!S the now discredited home video ;!S the cause for the ;tttack. 

This hearing is so illlport(mt because "\ve are eX(ullining the findings of the Accountability Revie"\v 

Board's report not with the purpose of casting blame but rather with the purpose of providing a 

t-ratne\vork to avoid such tragedies in the future to assist this Cotntnittec in providing the necessary 

legislatiye renledies. 'loday, ho"\vever, \ve must look back and exanl1ne "\vh~lt h~lppened. 

\ilistakes of judgment were made. _\ladam Secretary, they were mistakes made by your Department -

and your Department alone - and that is why your testimony today is so vital to this Committee's 

oversight "\vork. I \v(mt to kno\v, as le(lder of the State Departlnent, \vhat responsibility do you 

believe lies with you. More importantly, what advice would you give to your successor to help 

ensure the safety of our loyal U.S. employees throughout world? 

Tt"\vas obvious to the "\vorld, at the outset, that the attack on our cotnpound in Bengha7.i \vas an act 

of terrorism; however, the namltive coming out of the Administration blamed faulty intelligence 

reports. Both the ,\ccountability Re,-iew Board's report and the Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security ,md Governnlent .i'lfftirs report ackno"\vledge that there "\vas gro"\ving evidence tll,lt 

Bengha~i was becoming an increasingly dangerous place. 

A Cnited States CODlpound located in a war-torn country is attacked, four of our fcllov\" Arncncans 

lie dead and this all happens on September 11 tho How could there have been any doubt that this 

\vas not an act of terrorism? 
70

f


78250e-2.eps

Requests from the field for additional security were denied by Washington-based offiCIals. The 

j'lccountability Revie\v Board report found that j\tnbassador Stevens lll(lde the decision to travel to 

Bengha~i independently of\vashington, per standard practice and that his status as the leading C.S. 

governnlent ;ldvoclte on Libya policy, ;mu his expertise on Benghazi, cause \\?ashinbrton to give 

Ul1US1Ul deference to his judgnlents. 1 \vould like to kno\v \vhy then \vouldn't \Vrlshington extend 

the same level of deference to the judgment of the Reg10nai Security o Hicer based in L1bya? 

Instead, it appears that tl1e Department defaulted to a "Washington knows best" approach and 

resisted his requests ~-or additional security personnel. 

\ve know trom testimony that the refusals were not due to a lack of resources. On October 10tb, 

Charlene L1111b, who wa; then the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, was 

asked "\vas there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you to not increase the 

nutnber of people in the security forces there? T\ls. Latnb responded, "~O, sir." 

As I read tbe }l.ccountabilitv Re\"iew Board's findings, I am troubled at tl1e extent to which our 

people in the field bad to rely on a Lbyan militia for tbeir security. I am also hoping that you can 

address LibytllS responsiveness - or lack thereof - on the night of the attack ,1l1d in our ongoing 

investigation. These questions cannot go unanswcred. 

Let me finish by honoring our fellow Americans who gave tl1eir lives - J. Christopher Stevens, Sean 

:;mith, TyTone \voods, and Glen Doherty. These '\mericans exemplify what it means to be a public 

senr(l11t. 
71

f


78250d.eps

Page 1 of 1 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN HIGGINS 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, U.S. HOLISE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

"TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI: THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S VIEW" 

January 23, 2013 

In previous hearings this Committee has discussed the additional resources needed to shore up 

physical security in embassies and consulates in high threat areas. We recei ved testimony, for 

example, that the Department of State has requested an additional 225 marines and 155 new 

Diplomatic Security agents. I would like to explore the issue further today 

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations forms the basis for our security arrangements 

with host countries in which we have diplomatic facilities. The personnel used to secure our 

facilities is presently comprised of contractors, local militias, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security 

and U. S. Marine detachments 

But the attack in Benghazi demonstrates that in high threat environments the protection from 

local militias is no substitute for the U.S. military. I believe there needs to be a fundamental shift 

in U.S. policy regarding who is responsible for providing security for American personnel at all 

of our diplomatic posts. 

I believe a rethinking of our policy is in order to clarify that the U. S. military and Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security are the parties primarily responsible for the safety and security of our 

personnel If they need additional resources to assume this responsibility, as I am sure they do, 

that is a discussion that we should have and I hope that will be the basis for a future hearing of 

the Committee. But we should not ask our brave diplomatic corps to trust their security to host 

militia whose loyalties may be, depending on the country, divided at best 

With this in policy mind T ask that the Department of State consider, investigate and provide an 

analysis on the benefits and detriments of transferring this responsibility from local militias and 

private contractors to U.S. security personnel. 

Obviously and regrettably it is impossible to eliminate all threats to our personnel; diplomacy is 

often inherentl y dangerous work. But the loyalties and capabilities of those guarding our 

diplomats abroad should never be in question. I look forward to receiving your analysis and 

thoughts on this issue. 
72

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY


78250f-1.eps
73


78250f-2.eps

Quite frankly, the Obama Administration has failed. They have failed to prioritize this 

investigation. They havc ([tiled to bring the necessary pl'essur~ to bear on the Libyan, Tunisian 

and Ugyptian goventrnents. 

But more fundamentally, the administration has failed to respond to a terrorist attack 

appropriately: treating it as a law enforcement and diplomatic issue rather than as a security 

issue. 

2 

At its core, this is yet another reflection of Pres idem Obama's schizophrenic 

counterterrorism policy. The same odnlinistration that unapologetically reigns down kLh,d drone 

strikes OIl ;:om~ al-Qaeda-arlilio.led telTorists in Pakistan, Yemcn and Somalia will not use other 

counterterrorism resources to identifY, locate and detain the terrorists involved in the death of our 

ambassador in Libya. 

This inconsistent policy may stem from the president's hasty campaign promise to shut 

down Gitmo and prematurely transfer detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, 

the president etTectively ended America's ability to detain and intelTogate terrorists; depriving 

the FRI, CTA illld other agcncies of critical opportunities Le.> obtain infr.1l1llation on al-Qaeda 

networks. 

Today, as the case of Benghazi suspect Ali Harzi has demonstrated, the United States is 

completely reliant on the cooperation of host countries to detain on our behalf and selectively 

allow access to suspects. And as the case of Harzi has demonstrated, this approach is fraught 

with diplomatic roadblocks - costing critical time in getting information from suspects to track 

terrorist networks. 

Pcrhar~ that is why Prt'sident Obama so oftcn opts to use lethal drone strike:; to kill 

terrorists, knowing thaI the U.S. would be unable to get access to interrogate these terror suspects 

by working through the host government, or because he no longer has a way to detain them in 

U.S. custody, short of providing them the full privileges of an Article III court. 

In short, the president has tied his own hands, compromised U.S. national security, put 

the FBI in an impossihle position and laid the groundwork for the administration's inept response 

in the wake of the terroris!. allack in Benghazi. 

To make matters worse, the administration is not even seeing any significant success 

from its diplomatic-focused response. When Tunisia refuse-d to allow the FBI access to Harzi for 

more than five \veeks, the administration took no public steps to use diplomatic tools. like U.S. 

foreign assistance, to pressure the Tunisians to make Harzi available. In fact, the FBI only 

gained access after members of Congress threatened amendments to cut off or restrict Tunisia's 

future foreign aid if they continued to ohstruct the FRT investigation. 

T \\",IS ilmong thosc Mcrnber, "I"('ongress. In the interim 1 urged the administration to act. 

immediately to suspend foreign assistant if the Tunisian government persisted in obstructing the 

investigation. On January 4 I received a tepid response from the acting deputy assistant 

administrator for legislative and public affairs at USAID, which I submit for the record, with 
74


78250f-3.eps

bland assurances that the Tunisian goyemment was cooperating. Days later Ali Ha.rzi was 

released. Today, I again wrote USAl!), expressing my disappointmcnt that the administrator 

himsel f c(1uld not respond directly 10 a jI,·fember of Congress who servcs on th" wmmillee 0 I' 

i urisdiction. And further, pointing out whal should be obvious the Tunisian governmenl did 

not cooperate. The Tunisian government never seriously thought the aid, precious taxpayer 

money, was in jeopardy. The Tunisian government has not faced a single consequence for 

undermining 'C.S. national security. I submit my letter for the Record. 

Sadly, the failure to respond forcefully and appropriately to the Benghazi attack will 

um\oubl"dly encouragc oU!' cncmics, and make the world a morc dangerous place li1r Americans 

working in hostik environments. This Ibilure to respond has cndangcrud ruture emba.>sy staff 

and ambassadors th" federal employees who serve our COlllllry al greal risk. 

Rather than demonstrating that there will be no quarter, no respite and no safe haven for a 

terrorist who threatens American officials abroad, the message the administration has sent is that 

there is no apparent consequence for these actions. This will only embolden our enemy to plan 

the next Benghazi, knowing that under this administration, there is less consequence than ever 

I'or iheir involvcment in such an "lla~k. 

In this ~ontexl, perhaps it is not surprising thatlhe al-Qaeda-afliliated terrorist group 

Ansar al-Sharia brazenly took pictures of the FBI agents interviewing Harzi and posted the 

pictures on their Web sites. And \vhen the Tunisian government released Harzi, Ansar al-Sharia 

was there to welcome him and post a video of their celebration of his release. Again. these 

antagonistic actions have been met by silence from this administration. 

As Stn'e Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn reported in The fFeekly Standard this week, "(1.:'l, 

ofllcials tell Tile Weekly Standard that 11,C rele'Ls" or the photos was a elear attempt to intimidate 

lhe Americans and show that the FBI could not act with impunity. In its posting, Ansar al Sharia 

Tunisia warned the Tunisian people that their government had allowed the FBI ·to begin 

investigating your sons under post-reyolutionary protection.'" 

Consider that the same week of the Benghazi attack, our embassies in Cairo, Tunis and 

:'lana'a were also overrun in an increa.,ingly-apparent coordinated plot. Tn each case, the 

American tlag: was ripped down aml burnl and a black al Qacda tlag waS flown in its place. We 

are I(lriunat<' that none of these incidenls resulted in a loss of lik; they were nondheless a public 

allack on America by hostile groups, As the administration's own State Department Web site 

states, "any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents." 

Each embassy and consulate that was overrun the \veek of September II represents, in its 

own way, a public attack on Ameriea, Ailld in the months that have followed, this administration 

demonstrated that there are no consequences for breaching OUT embassies or killing our 

personnel. 

j fear that the latest hostage-taking and killing of Americans and other V .... esterners in 

Algeria is a manifestation of a newfound confidence by our enemy - knowing that they may face 

no serious consequences from this administration for their murderous acts. It is telling that 
75


78250f-4.eps

neither President Obama nor any others in his administration have made a public statement on 

the rcccllt terron;:t activities in Algerill. 

4 

All the while, the "Arab Spring," which was fannod by tills adminislmlion to much 

fanfare, has become an "Arab Winter" for many of the peoples in the Middle East and North 

Africa. And in this "Arab Winter," a new safe haven for al-Qaeda-affiliated groups is formingideologically fueled by the release of ierrorists and extremists from prisons and flush with 

weapons provided to anti-Qaddafi rebels last year. 

We are witnessing the potential formation of the next];-ont in the War on Terror, but we 

increasingly h,lVe an admilllstration that no longer considers il a war wOlth fighting -1l0 matter 

the (;OstIa American powcr or the sat;;ry of am people abroad. 

While some have described the Obama Doctrine as leading from behind, it is increasingly 

clear that the Obama Doctrine means not leading at all. 

While most of the responsibility falls on the president and his administration. the 

Congress and the mcdia share somc blame lilr l'<Jiling to adequately investigatc and bring 

attention to the many questions sumHlnding the administration's rcsponse to Bengha~.i 

Aside from a handful of reporters who have stayed "ith this story and continued to raise 

questions about the administration's words and deeds, I can't help but wonder, where are the 

New York Times. The Washington Post, or the network news programs? Why, in the wake of 

last week's deadly terrorist attack in Algeria, are no reporters investigating the serious links 

between al-Qaeda's affiliates in Korth Africa and the connection between the groups? 

EClually impoltant, whcrc has the Congress been in investigating both till' circumstances 

of the attack and the administration's response over the last four months? Despite a hand±hl of 

hearings, many in a classified setting, the American people have not been provided anything 

close to an adequate answer to the following questions: . 

Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and DNI Clapper still haven't testi1led before 

Congress - what steps did they take during the atlack and in the days that followed? 

Whm wcr~ the President':; activities during the seven-hour period ol'altack? 

Why 'wasn't the U.S. military deployed to assist? On the anniversary of the worst 

terrorist attack in American history, and after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and 

Western interests, why were U.S. military units and assets in the region not ready, alert 

and positioned to respond'? After all, two of the four people killed were mmdered seven 

hours after fighting began. 

Why do we slill not have clear answers on tho inlemal process that produc~d the 

inaccmaLe, ,md 1rankly miskadillg, talking points on wbich Ambassador Rice reliet! 

several days after the attack? 
76

f


78250f-5.eps

Why were the testimonies ofthe U.S. persorrnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on 

September 12 - eyewitnesses who knew Ihem neVeT was a demonstration outside the 

C\l1lsulate - not immediately factored in 10 Ihe j Llllgments 0 r our intelligence conllllUluty'i 

Why wasn't Sec. Clinton interviewed by the Pickering Commission? 

Was the White House aware of the FBI investigation of Gen. Petraeus? If not, why not? 

To date, the Congress has "libl to gd these answers and has not developed a coordinated 

or substantial inh,sligalive plan to liLily explore this critical matter which has a dirc.el hearing on 

U.S. national sccLlfily. Aml in the absence of serious oversight, the media has lll(}ved on. And 

the administration, whieh has so much to account for to the American people, receives a "carte 

blanche" from the Legislative Branch to continue its questionable policies. 

These matters are too serious to be brushed aside. There are critical legislative decisions 

the next Congress will have to make based on the answers to these questions. But more 

importantly, the American people deserve answers to these questions -- including op,.11 hearings 

and an unclm;sificd report 

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I remain convinced that a House Select Committee on the 

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi is needed more than ever. That is why last week I reintroduced my 

resolution, H. Res. 36, with twenty of our colleagues joining as original cosponsors, 

A select committee is essential 10 comhine the myriad existing investigations into a 

single, comprehensive and exhaustive review, I believe such a combincd cffort \vill yield even 

morc information regarding Ihe In"" ",,-lme ofthese terrorist attncb and the administration's 

response and will not allow administration officials to offer up siloed accounts to various 

committees, 

The select committee I anl proposing should draw from the existing congressional 

investigations by including the chairman and ranking member of each committee of jurisdiction -

-lntelligcnce, hlwign A/hirs, Jtlili<:im)" Armed Services, Homcland Sccurity '\lld Oversight and 

(JOVCfl1men[ Re/llfl1l-- as well as five additional Rcpublicall~ appointed by the Speaker and two 

additional Democrats appointed by the :'v!inority Leader. 

I appreciate the support I have received for this resolution from the original cosponsors, 

as well as the Heritage Foundation, former Senator Fred Thompson, the counsel on the 

Watergate Select Committee, former Ambassador John Bolton and Gen. Jerry Boykin, a former 

special operations onicer and CIA opcrativc who is widely TC8peded in the intelligence 

cOllllllunity. 

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the families of the victims, and the American people, to fully 

investigate this terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support my resolution to create a House 

Select Committee. 
77


78250g-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#la) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

In a Jlme 11,2012, Department email exchange, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Charlene Lamb observed the following with respect to Benghazi: "This is very 

concerning when you start putting the events together: The recent big 

demonstration that was openly anti-American, the attack on our compound, and 

now this UK motorcade attack. Tfthe tide is turning and they are now looking for 

Americans and Westerners to attack that is a gamer changer. We are not staffed or 

resourced adequately to protect our people in that type of environment. We are a 

soft target against the resources available to the bad guys there ... " 

What efforts were made to reevaluate security in Benghazi after this attack on our 

closest ally? 

Answer: 

Our personnel both in Libya and in Washington were constantly monitoring 

the t1uid security environment in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack, 

including the attacks and incidents directed at foreigners. U.S. personnel in both 

Tripoli and Benghazi convened meetings regularly to review mission security 

posture, including in response to the incidents that took place over the course ofthe 

year. 

Tn response to the deteriorating security situation, a number of steps were 

taken to enhance physical security at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, and our 

personnel on the grOlmd stepped up engagement with Libyan forces, particularly 

with regard to seeking additional Governnlent of Libya security presence outside 

the Mission. While it is important to note that the previous attacks were neither of 

the scope nor the lethality of that of September 11, the ARB fOlmd that the 

response from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington was inadequate. We are 

implementing all of the ARB's recommendations, as well as measures that go 

above and beyond those steps, to better protect on facilities and persOimel. 
78


78250g-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#Ib) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

If senior officials knew our diplomats were not safe and were not adequately 

staffed, then why did the Department continue to withdraw security personnel such 

as Mobile Security Deployment (MSD) teams and the Site Security Team (SST)? 

Answer: 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, the State Department was 

extremely grateful for the responsiveness and support of the Department of 

Defense in deploying some persOlmel to provide important services in Libya. The 

SST was based in Tripoli and was working to help us stand up our Embassy after 

the fall ofQaddafi. Furthermore, we knew this arrangement was not open ended: 

the DoD SST was an interim measure, while we identitled new persom1el and 

ensured training to meet the evolving needs of our embassy in Tripoli. 

Approximately 2 percent of SST members' total time in Libya was spent in 

Benghazi; 1-3 SST members visited Benghazi on tour occasions for limited 

durations. Like the SST, the MSD teams were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi. By 

the summer of 2012, they had transitioned to training our local guard force and 

bodyguards in Tripoli in order to get the embassy up and rum1ing. Once this 

training was completed, the MSD teams transitioned out of Libya. 
79


78250g-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#Ic) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Who specifically made the decisions to withdraw the MSD and SST Teams? 

Answer: 

As I have stated, the DoD SST was an interim measure while we identified 

new persomlel and ensured training to meet the evolving needs of our embassy in 

Tripoli. By the summer of 20 12, the MSD teams had transitioned to training our 

local guard force and bodyguards in Tripoli in order to get the embassy up and 

rumling. Once this mission was completed, the MSD teams transitioned out of 

Libya. These matters were handled by the security professionals in the Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security. 
80


78250g-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Edward R. Royce (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Would the Department make these individuals available to the Conunittee to share 

their accounts ofthe events of September I 1-12, 20127 

Answer: 

The Department appreciates your interest in talking to the five State 

Department Diplomatic SeCluity agents who survived the attack. At the same 

time, we have serious concerns about their welfare and want to be careful not to 

interfere with the FBT's investigation ofthe attack. One agent is currently 

recovering at a local military hospital, and the other fom have retmned to duty. All 

are security professionals, and we are COlllillitted to ensming their security as they 

return to the field. Should their identities become public, they may become targets, 

putting their lives, as well as those oftheir families and the people they protect, at 

increased risk. 

We have provided Congress with extraordinary access to infornlation related 

to the attack in Benghazi. We have participated in eight Congressional hearings 

and more than 20 Congressional briefings, and shared over 25,000 pages of 

internal records related to the situation in Benghazi, including reporting from the 

night ofthe attack. Also, we shared with the Congress the classified and 

ill1classified reports of the independent Benghazi Accoill1tability Review Board, 

which reflect the input of people on the ground in Benghazi and Tripoli. 
81


78250g-5.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#3a) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Multiple e-mails from Benghazi warned that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade was 

inadequate and could not compensate for a lack of Diplomatic Security Agents. In 

an April 6, 2012 e-mail, Assistant Regional Security Officer Antonio Zamudia 

stated that "I can honestly say that I have lost all confidence in their ability or 

willingness to perfonn that mission." According to the Accountability Review 

Board, the February 17 Martyrs Brigades, which provided four armed members as 

the Special Mission's Libyan security contingent, contained elements with 

ideologies that are "extremist in nature." 

Were you or anyone else within the Department aware of this prior to the attacks? 

Answer: 

First, it is important to point out that the ARB makes clear after their months 

of research that the picture remains complicated. The report states that "Key 

questions surrounding the identity, actions, and motivations ofthe perpetrators 

remain to be detemlined." The FBI and our intelligence community continue to 

piece this complex picture together. 

Second, the email referenced in the question for the record refers to the local 

guard contract with Blue Mountain, not the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which 

Libyan governmental authorities arranged to provide us with security in Benghazi. 

The constellation of militias in post-Qadhafi Libya is complex, but as the ARB 

report acknowledges, the February 17 Brigade had been considered to have 

responded satisfactorily to previous incidents, though its response on September 11 

was inadequate. 

The Department was aware of the issue with the Blue Mountain guards 

discussed in the email. Throughout the month of April 2012, Blue Mountain 

continued to train the guards and to remove those who were not perfonning to 

standards. By the first of May, the RSO had reported that guard perfommnce, 

quality and morale were improved. 

Lastly, the issue of host nation security and local guards is of tremendous 

importance, and that is why when General Dempsey and I deployed Interagency 
82


78250g-6.eps

Security Assessment Teams to high threat posts, and we specifically asked them to 

assess the capabilities and capacity of these sorts of security assets. As I have 

stated, we are in the process of reviewing the findings of these assessments, and we 

will ensure an ongoing conversation with Congress to best address any issues. 
83


78250g-7.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#3b) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

If so, then why did the Department use members of the February 17 Martyrs 

Brigade to guard the Benghazi compound and allow them to live on its premises? 

Answer: 

The email cited in Question 3A does not refer to the February 17 Brigade 

but to contract guards from the Blue Mountain group that did not reside at the 

compOlmd. As we have stated, host nations generally provide additional 

protection for diplomatic personnel within their borders, and Libyan governmental 

authorities arranged for February 17th Brigade persOlmel to provide us with 

security in Benghazi. Prior to the September 11 attack on our facilities, the 

February 17 Brigade had proven etIective in responding to incidents at our 

compound. 
84


78250g-8.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#3c) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Were these individuals vetted? If so, when and by whom? 

Answer: 

The email cited in Question 3A refers to the local guard contract with Blue 

Mountain, not the February 17 Brigade, which Libyan govemmental authorities 

arranged to provide us with security in Benghazi. 

The standard policies and procedures for hiring and vetting local guard force 

persOlmel are detailed in the Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual (12 

F AM 321.1) and Foreign Affairs Handbook (12 FAH-6 and 12 FAH-7). The 

Regional Security Officer (RSO) conducts local security checks as well as 

interagency database checks in the United States. The vetting oflocal guards in 

Benghazi included proof of successful employment during the past three years and 

recommendations from their respective supervisors, in addition to a police check 

that includes criminal and/or subversive activities and a check of sources from 

their neighborhoods. 

More broadly, as I stated before the Committee, I believe it is important to 

change the laws to allow for more use of best value contracting. By statue (Title 

22 USC Section 4864), State Department local guard contracts for most locations, 

including Libya, must be awarded using a lowest price, technically qualified 

selection process. Since 2009, we have requested a change in legislation that 

would allow the Department to use some discretion to award local guard contracts 

under the best value selection process, as we currently are able to do in 

Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Evaluating on best value would give the 

Department the opportunity to select the firm most capable to perform and 

strengthen security at our missions abroad, which is an absolute necessity at a time 

of uncertainty around the globe. 
85


78250g-9.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

As you will recall, it took several days to evacuate American personnel from Libya 

during the upheaval surrounding the February 2011 revolution. Afterwards, were 

any steps taken to develop contingency plans to better evacuate American 

persOlmel from this dangerous country? Were any requests made to the Pentagon 

to develop contingency plans? 

Answer: 

The evacuation from Tripoli in 20 II occurred over several days, as the 

evacuation was planned to occur in three phases: the first involved commercial 

airlines; the second, a ferry boat; and the third, chartered aircratt. 

Because of the tumultuous conditions and natural disasters faced 

periodically around the world, the Department has robust contingency planning for 

our posts; this planning involves the interagency, including the Department of 

Defense. The classified Mission Libya Emergency Action Plan, includes 

intormation on evacuation planning for Libya. The Benghazi Evacuation Plan, 

which was updated in January 2012, provides additional information about 

Benghazi evacuation and emergency procedures. Both documents have been made 

available to the Committee. 

When the Department is faced with evacuating post personnel, we 

simultaneously infornl private U.S. citizens in that country, under a "no double 

standard" policy, and urge our citizens to leave the country. Typically, U.S. 

government employees and citizens first will leave via cOlllillercial aircratt; on 

occasion we have asked airlines to increase seating capacity by adding flights to 

their schedules or employing larger aircraft. If commercial transportation options 

are not available or lack capacity, we have a process in place to charter aircraft or 

other appropriate transports. Our third option, when appropriate, is military 

aircraft. Tn such cases, DOD is receptive to any State Department requests, though 

using military assets carries logistical challenges and financial implications. 
86


78250g-10.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#5) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Last month, the New York Times reported that, "The Obama Administration 

secretly gave its blessing to amlS shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, 

but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning 

some of the weapons over to Islamic militants." Other reports suggest that Qatar 

shipped more than 20,000 tons of weapons to Libyan rebels, many the most 

militant and anti-democratic forces operating in the country. 

• Did the Obama Administration acquiesce to Qatar supplying amlS to Libyan 

rebels during the 20 II uprising? 

• 1fnot, how did the Obama Administration attempt to prevent these 

shipments? How many were halted? 

• Has the Obama Administration been able to determine where most ofthe 

Qatari weapons have gone? 

Answer: 

The United States was not involved with any activities to arm the opposition 

to Qadhafi's regime, either directly or through other countries. We supported a 

United Nations arnlS embargo on Libya to limit the movement of weapons to and 

from Libya, in recognition ofthe significant proliferation concerns in the region. 

Following the end of Qadhafi's rule and the establishment of broad Transitional 

National Council authority, we encouraged all partners, including Qatar, to only 

provide support to the recognized government of Libya, rather than any outside 

group. Qatar played an instrumental role in Libya's revolution, providing support 

to the Benghazi-based rebel movement and to Operation Unified Protector. The 

UN arnlS embargo remains in place to prevent the transfer of anTIS to any entity in 

Libya outside ofthe legitimate Libyan government. 
87


78250g-11.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#6) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

The ARB refers to "systemic failures and leadership and management deticiencies 

at senior levels" in the Bureaus of Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs. 

What systems and checks are in place to ensure that the same "deficiencies at 

senior levels" are not adversely impacting other Bureaus across the Department? 

Answer: 

Assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries, and special envoys who 

oversee U.S. missions abroad work with senior Department principals, the Bureau 

of Diplomatic Security, and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations to 

support chiefs of mission in protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, exercising 

judgment to balance U.S. interests and policy priorities with evolving security 

threats, and ensuring the mitigation of security risks. Following the tragedy in 

Benghazi, we are actively examining ways to ensure even closer coordination 

among these key policymakers, including implementing all ofthe 

reconU11endations ofthe independent Accountability Review Board. 
88


78250g-12.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#7) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

You noted in your testimony that you were not asked to speak with the 

Accountability Review Board during their investigation. Do you believe that 

future ARBs should interview senior State Department officials, including the 

Secretary of State? 

Answer: 

As r stated in my testimony before the Committee, if the members of the 

AccOlmtability Review Board thought I had infomlation relevant to their 

investigation, I would have gladly discussed that with them at their request. I 

believe that future Accountability Review Boards should continue to have the 

discretion to interview those State Department ofticials that they deem appropriate, 

up to and including the Secretary of State. 
89

f


78250g-13.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ed Royce (#8) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

According to a published report, senior State Department officials decided not to 

send a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) an interagency rapid response 

unit designed to respond to terrorist attacks, in response to the terrorist attacks in 

Benghazi. This team from the State Department and CIA reportedly has a military 

Joint Special Operations Command element assigned to it and has been routinely 

deployed to assist in investigations-for instance, after the USS Cole bombing and 

the bombings at the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Who specifically 

made this decision and why. What was different about the terrorist attacks in 

Benghazi from these previous attacks? 

Answer: 

The FEST is a tool deployed by the interagency - not by the State 

Department - to bolster the capabilities of om embassies, including 

communications capabilities, following a significant emergency. It is not a quick 

reaction secmity team and would not have arrived in Benghazi before all U.S. 

govemment personnel had departed the city; evacuation to Tripoli was complete 

within 12 hours ofthe initial attack, with no remaining U. S. presence. 

The AccOlmtability Review Board (ARB) found that "Washington-TripoliBenghazi conIDmnication, cooperation, and coordination on the night ofthe attacks 

were effective." The ARB report further stated that "Overall, communication 

systems on the night ofthe attacks worked, with a near-constant information flow 

among Benghazi, Tripoli, and Washington." Functionality at Embassy Tripoli had 

not been compromised and did not require FEST support. 
90


78250h-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#1) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

On September 11,2012, in your tirst public conTInents on the Benghazi attack, you 

stated: 

Some have sought to justifY this vicious behavior as a response to inflanTInatory 

material posted on the Intemet. 

Answer: 

(a) Who sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to 

inflanunatory material on the Internet? 

(b) Who did you consult prior to these remarks? 

(c) What evidence did you have that "material posted on the 

internet" caused the Benghazi attack? 

(d) Were your remarks cleared by INR? 

As r stated before the Committee, the tragedy in Benghazi was a terrorist 

attack. On September 12, I stated that '·heavily armed militants assaulted the 

compound" the previous day, and the President spoke of an act ofterror. We did 

not know who the attackers were, what their motives were, what the context of the 

attack was, and other information ofthat sort. At the same time, we were dealing 

with protests against our facilities in the region that were clearly connected to the 

video, and we were focused on keeping our people safe. We had our compounds 

breached in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, and Sana'a, in addition to Benghazi. We had 

serious disturbances in Pakistan and protests in more than 10 other cOlmtries that 

week. So we were working around the clock on high alert to deal with those 

threats and to protect our personnel and our facilities. 

Throughout, we saw public conTInents that such violence was justitied by -

whether or not it was motivated by - inflammatory material posted on the intemet, 

including the video. The Administration made clear that all such violence was 

unacceptable and unjustified, regardless of the motives. The intelligence 

community has addressed the fact that it assessed in the inm1ediate afiernmth that 

the attack in Benghazi began spontaneously following protests earlier that day in 
91


78250h-2.eps

Cairo. The senior Administration officials who spoke to this, including me, had 

the same information from the intelligence comrmmity - which reflected the best, 

most current assessment at the time - and made clear that we were continuing to 

gather infonnation and our assessment might change. And when additional 

infommtion was collected, we updated our public posture which is nonnal in fluid 

circumstances. 
92


78250h-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#2a) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

1. Did you meet with the father of former SEAL Tyrone Woods after at the 

Transfer of Remains? 

2. Did you tell him, in effect, "we will make sme that the person who made that 

tilm is arrested and prosecuted?" 

3. Did you and/or the Department of State take any action to initiate legal 

proceedings by other agencies against filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? 

4. Did you or the Department of State play any role in the interview and 

incarceration offilnm1aker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? 

5. What was the legal basis for your actions given that the First Amendment allows 

freedom of speech? 

6. Did you tell Woods' father that the terrorists who actually killed his son would 

also be hunted down and brought to justice? 

Answer: 

On September 12, I said we would not "rest until those responsible tor these 

attacks are found and brought to justice." This is something that both the President 

and T have stated on several occasions and, as T said on January 23, T don't think 

anybody should doubt this President at his word. At the transfer of remains 

ceremony I had the opportunity to meet the families of the fallen Americans and to 

thank them for the service and ultimate sacrifice their loved ones made and to 

reiterate this promise. 

With regard to the filmmaker, it is my understanding that Nakoula Basseley 

Nakoula was sentenced to one year in jail for violating the terms of probation 

stenm1ing from an unrelated incident in 2010. Neither the Department of State nor 

T played a role in the proceedings. T would refer further questions to the office of 

the U.S. Attorney who handled the case. 
93


78250h-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#2b) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Did you discuss a proposal to appear on the Stmday Morning Talk shows with 

President Obama? 

Answer: 

[ did not discuss such a proposal with the President. [do not appear 

regularly on the Stmday shows and had not since 2011. 
94


78250h-5.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#2c) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Did you discuss a proposal to appear on the Stmday Morning Talk shows with 

Ambassador Rice? What did she say? 

Answer: 

[ did not discuss such a proposal with Ambassador Rice. 
95


78250h-6.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Prior to UN Ambassador Susan Rice's appearance on the five Stmday TV shows 

on 16 September 2012 did she submit her remarks for policy review by the 

Department of State? If not, why not? 

Did you or the Department of State approve her conunents prior to delivery on 

September 16? 

Did the Department of State provide her any guidance or infonlmtion to prepare 

her for her appearance on the talk shows? 

You said at the January 23 HF AC hearing that you led the State Dept. response the 

night ofthe attack, but were not part ofthe "talking points" process when it came 

time to explain to the American people what had happened. Why were you not 

involved in this process? 

Answer: 

I tmderstand that the talking points used by Ambassador Rice on September 

16 were dratled by ot1lcials at the CIA and tinalized in a typical interagency 

process in which State Department staff participated. r was not involved in that 

process. As I have stated in my testimony, all of the senior Administration 

ot1lcials who spoke to this had the same information from the intelligence 

community -- which reflected the best, most current assessment at the time -- and 

all of us made clear that the intelligence assessment could change as additional 

intom1ation was collected and analyzed. As our understanding evolved regarding 

the attacks and the extremists involved, we updated Congress and the American 

public. 
96


78250h-7.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#4a) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Did policies of the Libyan government force State to depend on the February 17'h 

Brigade because no other options were permitted? 

Answer: 

Host nations generally provide additional protection for diplomatic 

personnel within their borders. Libyan governmental authorities arranged for 

February 17th Brigade personnel to provide us with security in Benghazi. In 

addition to the February 17'h brigade, the Mission had security provided by the 

Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and local guards contracted 

from Blue MOlmtain Libya. As is the case in many countries arOlmd the world, the 

Libyan government does not allow the use of arn1ed foreign national contractors in 

either a static security or personal security capacity. 
97


78250h-8.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#4b) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

You mentioned during the hearing that the State Department regularly employs 

private security contractors to guard installations around the world. In Benghazi, 

only a handful ofunanned contractors were deployed. Is this because the Libyan 

government would not allow a larger contingent of arnled contractors to be 

deployed? 

Answer: 

As is the case in many countries around the world, including the United 

States, the Libyan government would not allow the use of armed foreign national 

contractors in either a static security or personal security capacity. 
98


78250h-9.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#4c) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Why does the State Department prefer to hire private contractors rather than 

expand its own Diplomatic Security force or request more Marines to guard 

personnel as well as documents? 

Answer: 

As the Accountability Review Board notes, addressing the needs of 

diplomatic security "requires a more serious and sustained commitment from 

Congress to support State Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small 

percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. 

One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this 

challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address 

security risks and meet mission imperatives." In this context, the Department has 

requested Congressional support to increase the l1lunber of Marine Security Guard 

Detachments worldwide, hire additional Bureau of Diplomatic Security special 

agents, and build additional secure facilities overseas. Additionally, if we replace 

all of our local guards with Americans, the cost would be over $18 billion. 
99


78250h-10.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#4d) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Reports have surfaced that the private guard force hired to protect our embassy in 

Kabul is in disarray; that morale is low, training is inadequate and the force is 

spread thin because of a desire to cut costs. Those who have complained about 

security problems have been tIred. What is happening in Kabul? And why does 

such a key embassy in a war zone rely on contractors for security rather than on 

dedicated U.S. personnel? 

Answer: 

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of State uses a complex security 

contract mechanism, the Worldwide Protective Services contract, to meet its 

security needs. The lmique security challenges posed by these two environments 

require a high level of guard forces and protective security details to provide a safe 

and secure enviromnent at our facilities and while moving around the countries. 

This summer, responsibility for Embassy Kabul's private security guard 

contract transitioned from AnnorGroup North America (AGNA) to Aegis LLC. A 

small fraction ofthe guard staff, 43 of approximately 1000 security personnel, 

signed a petition stating they lost confidence in senior Aegis leadership. . 

We were aware of the guards' concerns about senior Aegis personnel on the 

ground at that time, and we took action. The day after receiving the petition, 

Embassy Kabul conducted rOlmdtable discussions with those who wanted to voice 

their concerns. Many personnel participated in those discussions, which centered 

around administrative, as well as morale, welfare, and recreation issues in 

conjunction with the contractual transition from AGNA to Aegis. 

After the roundtable discussions, the Regional Security Officer reviewed the 

security program at Embassy Kabul, taking into consideration points that were 

raised during the discussions and other factors, and deternlined that security 

policies and procedures remained sound. 

The Department has approximately 32,600 local guards worldwide at our 

275 missions. In contrast Diplomatic Security has approximately 800 direct hire 

Special Agents and Security Protective Specialists assigned to diplomatic missions 
100


78250h-11.eps

abroad. The Department has requested Congressional support to increase the 

number of Marine Security Guard Detachments worldwide, hire additional Bureau 

of Diplomatic Security special agents, and build additional secure facilities 

overseas. Additionally, if we replace all of our local guards with Americans, the 

cost would be over $18 billion. 
101


78250h-12.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#5) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

You mentioned during the hearing about the march by tens of thousands of 

Libyans protesting the attack on the consulate. This march took place ten days after 

the attack in Benghazi. What you did not mention was that the marchers descended 

on militia strongholds, and overran the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a group 

widely reported to have been involved in the attack that killed Ambassador 

Stevens. 

If people in Benghazi know what groups are responsible for the consulate attack, 

why don't we? 

Answer: 

As the Accountability Review Board's report makes clear, after their months 

of research, there are "key questions sUITOlmding the identity, actions and 

motivations of the perpetrators that remain to be detennined." No one wants clear 

answers more than I do, but it remains a complex picture, and the FBI and our 

intelligence comrmmity are still piecing it together. As I said during the hearing, 

the FBI is following some promising leads. I assure you that we are fully 

committed to bringing those responsible for these attacks to justice. 
102


78250h-13.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#6) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

On the day of the hearing (Jan. 23) the New York Times quoted an Algerian official 

as saying that several Egyptian members of the terrorist force that attacked the 

Algerian gas complex also took part in the Benghazi attack. You told the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee that morning that weapons from Libya were flowing 

across the region so it is not unreasonable to suspect people are moving too. 

Do you think that if the U.S. had retaliated against those who had attacked the 

consulate four months ago, the planning for the Algerian attack could have been 

disrupted? 

Answer: 

The President and the Administration are fully committed to bringing to 

justice the perpetrators ofthe attack on our facilities in Benghazi, and I assure you 

that every resource of the United States is being brought to bear to ensure exactly 

that. We are not aware of a direct link between the attack on our facilities in 

Benghazi and the In Amenas attack. However, we are offering help to the 

Algerian govenunent to assist their investigation. Further, we are working with 

countries in the region, including Libya, to bolster border controls and rule oflaw 

to disrupt the ill icit movement of amlS and fighters. 
103

f


78250h-14.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (#7) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

During the hearing, many questions were not answered because the attack was still 

being investigated by the FBI and nothing is supposed to interfere with that 

process. 

(a) Whose decision was it to place the FBI in charge ofthe investigation, 

rather than the CIA or other departments/agencies with better overseas 

contingency capabilities? 

(b)Do you think it is wise to give the FBI such a leadership role that the 

State Department could not even talk to its own people who survived the 

attack? 

(c) Was granting the leadership role to the FBI a throwback to the notion that 

terrorist attacks are a criminal act rather than an act of war? 

Answer: 

While the details are best discussed in a classified setting, both the FBI and 

the intelligence community are playing key roles in the effort to identify and bring 

to justice those responsible for the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi. The FBI 

has consistently used its unique capabilities and experience to play an important 

part in investigating terrorist attacks - including those of September 11, 200 1, 

which led to the FBI's largest investigation ever. The President and his 

Administration are fully committed to bringing the perpetrators to justice, and I 

assure you that every resource ofthe United States is being brought to bear to 

ensure exactly that. 
104


78250i-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Steve Chabot (#\) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Within a couple of months ofthe attack, during the July-August time period, 

Ambassador Stevens expressed concem about militia activity, particularly in 

Benghazi and the need for additional security assistance. We have seen the cables 

where security otlicers on the grOlU1d expressed considerable frustration at the 

difficulty in getting the persOlmel they believed were needed to protect American 

diplomats and property. We now know that management of security personnel, 

especially the assignment of State Department agents on very short-tenn duty, 

virtually guaranteeing very limited institutional knowledge, was grossly 

inadequate. 

Why was the department hierarchy so obstinate and why would the department 

deny a personal plea from Ambassador Stevens, given his expertise on Libyan 

affairs? Why did the Department senior leadership not take into consideration the 

approaching September Illh anniversary, particularly in light of direct requests 

from our mission in Libya? 

Answer: 

We are constantly assessing and upgrading our security at all of our missions 

and we take the reconunendations of our Ambassadors and security persOlmel very 

seriously. Nearly all requests to upgrade the physical security of the mission 

compound in Benghazi received by Washington through the summer of2012 were 

promptly flU1ded and implemented in the field. These security upgrades to the 

temporary mission facility include: adding Jersey barriers to strengthen the 

perimeter, emplacing defensive positions with sandbags, installing guard booths 

for our local security personnel, as well as upgrading, raising, and adding razor 

wire to the perimeter wall. That said, as the independent ARB noted, "In the 

weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response from post, Embassy 

Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation was inadequate." We 

are implementing the ARB's recommendations - and doing much more - to ensure 

that our security experts on the ground and in Washington are able to provide our 

personnel overseas with security that meets the threat environment they face. 
105


78250i-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Steve Chabot (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

We have heard numerous times over the last several months that more funding is 

need for diplomatic security, including in your testimony before the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee. I do not believe there is anybody who does not want to 

protect our diplomats stationed abroad, often in very dangerous regions. Since 

2000, Congress has provided funding in the neighborhood of$lO billion for 

embassy security, construction and maintenance. And we will, no doubt, continue 

to provide significant funding in the future. Even the Department's Chief 

Financial Otlicer for Diplomatic Security stated, "I do not feel that we have ever 

been at a point where we have sacrificed security due to lack offunding." Given 

that our nation now faces a mOlmtain of debt means that we carmot fund every 

single program that every federal agency requests, so when we increase funding in 

one area, we have to consider cuts in others. Is the State Department currently 

conducting any internal reviews, for example, to determine what offsets in current 

program funding might be considered? 

Answer: 

As the independent Accountability Review Board noted, addressing 

diplomatic security "requires a more serious and sustained commitment from 

Congress to support State Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small 

percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. 

One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this 

challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address 

security risks and meet mission imperatives." 

To be clear with regard to the budget, as I stated on January 23, since 2007, 

the department has consistently requested greater funding for embassy construction 

and diplomatic security. With the exception of201 0, Congress has consistently 

enacted less than requested. Most notably, in 2012, the department received $340 

million less than requested, close to 10 percent less than the request. Over the last 

two years, cuts to embassy construction, security and maintenance budgets were 

almost 10 percent off, as well. 
106

f


78250i-3.eps

We are focused everyday on ensuring we use taxpayer dollars wisely and 

constantly review our programs and adjust funding levels. The budget ofthe State 

Department is less than 1 percent ofthe federal budget - and with that 1 percent 

we fund a range of efforts that promote our national security, including our aid to 

Israel, PEPF AR, and our diplomatic efforts at over 270 posts around the world. 

We tight every single day to make sure we have the right resources, but as 

importantly, we make sure there's not a dime wasted. If you have questions about 

any of our Congressionally-appropriated funds, then we can make available to you 

the appropriate State Department briefers. 

Ilmnediately following the attacks in Benghazi, as well as violent attacks on our 

embassies in Cairo, Sana'a, Ttmis, and Khartoum, we asked the Department of 

Defense to join Interagency Security Assessment Teams to evaluate security at 

certain high threat posts and recommend increased security measures. Based on 

those results, and the recommendations of the independent Accountability Review 

Board, we are working with Congress to authorize the Department to transfer 

existing Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds between the Diplomatic 

and Consular Progran1s (D&CP) and Embassy Security Construction and 

Maintenance (ESCM) accOlmts, which would allow us to use already appropriated, 

prior year funds to cover a substantial amount of these increased security measures. 

Specifically, we are working on plans to deploy additional Marine Security Guard 

Detachments, hire and equip additional Diplomatic Security personnel, upgrade 

embassy facilities and security systems, including compOlmd access controls, 

bollards, vehicle barriers, emergency sanctuaries, security lighting, and other 

improvements, as well as expand high-threat training facilities in the United States. 
107


78250j-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Joe Wilson (#\) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

First and foremost, what was going on in Washington while our consulate was 

under attack? 

Answer: 

The interagency worked quickly and collaboratively to respond to the attack 

in Benghazi on September II, and as the independent Accountability Review 

Board stated, "Washington-Tripoli-Benghazi communication, cooperation, and 

coordination on the night ofthe attacks were effective." As 1 have said, upon 

learning ofthe attack on September 11, we engaged in continuous conversations 

within the Department, the inter-agency, and internationally to review options and 

actions and to ensure all effort was made to assist our personnel. 1 immediately 

instructed senior Department officials and Diplomatic Security persOlmel to 

consider every option to seek as much security support as possible and to 

coordinate with Libyan authorities; I called Libyan General National Congress 

President Magariaf myself to press him for greater support not only in Benghazi 

but also in Tripoli. The President gave clear directions to Secretary Panetta and 

Chairman Dempsey to work to mobilize all available assets and move them into 

the region as rapidly as possible, which the Department of Defense illlillediately set 

out to do. T spoke several times with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to 

seek all possible support from the White House, which they quickly provided. 1 

also spoke with our Charge d'Affaires in Tripoli to receive updates on the situation 

and to former CIA Director Petraeus to confer and coordinate. I spoke with 

President Obama later in the evening to update him on the situation. Early on the 

morning of September 12,1 spoke with General Dempsey and again with Tom 

Donilon. 

The independent Accountability Review Board report found that ''The 

interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough 

time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference." It also stated that 

"the safe evacuation of all U. S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours 

after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result 
108


78250j-2.eps

of exceptional U.S. govemment coordination and military response and helped 

save the lives of two severely wOlmded Americans." 
109


78250j-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Joe Wilson (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

'Why the delay in labeling the attack as terrorislll, when it was inUllediately known 

that's what it was? 

Answer: 

As I stated in my testimony before the Conunittee, I told the American 

people on the morning of September 12 that "heavily armed militants assaulted the 

compOlmd," on September 11. Later that day, the President spoke of the events of 

September 11 as an act ofterror. The harder question was what caused it. We did 

not know who the attackers were, what their motives were, what the context of the 

attack was, and other information ofthat sort. For that reason, Administration 

officials - including myself- were careful to indicate that om understanding of the 

attack could change as additional information was collected and analyzed. As the 

ARB's report makes clear, after their months of work, there are "key questions 

sUITOlmding the identity, actions and motivations ofthe perpetrators that remain to 

be determined." It is still a complex pictme, and the FBI and om intelligence 

community continue to piece it together. 
110


78250j-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Joe Wilson (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Relations 

January 23, 2013 

September 11 is the anniversary of the disastrous events of 9/ lliO 1. Chris Stevens 

was ambassador to Libya based at the us. Embassy in Tripoli, protected by us. 

Marine guards. What was so important that he needed to be in Benghazi on such 

an infamous anniversary, with our consulate so inadequately protected? 

Answer: 

Every year, in advance of the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 

2001, a notice is sent to all posts to conduct an evaluation on threat streams, to be 

on heightened alert, and to assess whether they have the assets to meet their needs. 

This was the case at our facilities in Libya. The AccoID1tability Review Board 

found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical waming ofthe 

September 11,2012 attacks in Benghazi. The intelligence cOl1111lunity has spoken 

to this as well. 

Ambassador Stevens decided to go to Benghazi to meet with Libyan 

officials and the network of contacts that he had developed during his time there as 

Special Envoy and to reaffirm that he and the United States recognized the 

importance of Libya's second city, the cradle of its revolution. Ambassador 

Stevens understood Benghazi better than anyone else in the US. govenU11ent. He 

understood that diplomacy, by its nature, must be practiced in dangerous places 

because our interests suffer and our security is threatened when we are absent. 
111


78250j-5.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Joe Wilson (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Why weren't Marine guards posted in Benghazi in the first place? 

Answer: 

The primary mission of Marine Security Guards (MSGs) is to provide 

internal security services to designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities to 

prevent the compromise of classified infonnation and equipment vital to our 

national security. In Benghazi we were not conducting activities that called for 

Marine support within the compound. T would note that less than 60% of our 

embassies and consulates have Marine h'1lard presence for this type of security. 
112


78250j-6.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Joe Wilson (#5) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

In such a tumultuous environment, why did the State Department refuse requests to 

enhance security at our consulate? 

Answer: 

We are constantly assessing and upgrading our security at all of our 

missions. The security upgrades to the temporary mission facility in Benghazi 

included: adding Jersey barriers to strengthen the perimeter, emplacing defensive 

positions with sandbags, installing guard booths for our local security personnel, as 

well as upgrading, raising, and adding razor wire to the perimeter wall. That said, 

as the ARB noted, "In the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response 

from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation 

was inadequate." We are implementing the ARB's reconunendations - and doing 

much more - to ensure that our security experts on the ground and in Washington 

are able to provide our personnel overseas with security that meets the threat 

envirom11ent they face. 
113

f


78250j-7.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Joe Wilson (#6) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Given prior threats, why did the state department allow Amb. Stevens to proceed to 

Benghazi at that particular time? 

Answer: 

The Chief of Mission does not need approval from Washington to travel 

within the country of his assigmnent. Ambassador Stevens lmderstood Benghazi 

better than anyone else in the U. S. govenm1ent, and he recognized that diplomacy, 

by its nature, must be practiced in dangerous places because our interests suffer 

and our security is threatened when we are absent. 

The AccOlmtability Review Board fOlmd that intelligence provided no 

inuuediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11, 2012, attacks in 

Benghazi. The intelligence community has spoken to this as well. 
114


78250k-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Michael T. McCaul (#1) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Did Ambassador Stevens ever send you a "roger channel" cable about the security 

environment in Benghazi? 

Answer: 

All files have been searched, and there is no roger channel cable responsive 

to this question. 
115


78250k-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Michael T. McCaul (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

According to high-ranking intelligence officials, a classified State Department 

cable marked "SECRET" on August 16th warned that the Benghazi consulate could 

not withstand a "coordinated attack." The Regional Security Officer believed our 

consulate could not be protected and at an "emergency meeting" less than a month 

before the attack on 9/11, a contingency plan was supposedly drafted to move the 

consulate operations to the CIA annex about a mile away. This cable is presumed 

to have been shared with senior staff at the State Department and the National 

Security Council inside the White House. 

• Was this a "roger channel" cable? 

• Tfyou personally did not receive this cable, then who in the State 

Department did see this cable and what specific actions were taken in 

response') 

Answer: 

There was no such "roger channel" cable sent on August 16,2012. There 

was a classified cable sent by Mission Libya on August 16th, which was reviewed 

by personnel in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near Eastern 

Affairs. This cable has been shared with the Committee. As I told the Committee, 

"the August 16th cable stated that security requests for Benghazi would be 

forthcoming. The RSO in Benghazi submitted to Tripoli a preliminary list of 

proposed security recommendations on August 23rd, but no requests were 

submitted to Washington before the attacks." 
116


78250k-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Michael T. McCaul (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

1 understand that you receive 1.43 million cables per year, but does not a cable 

alerting you to an emergency meeting over concerns that our consulate could not 

withstand a coordinated attack warrant strike you as important enough for you or 

someone from your office to read? 

Answer: 

Despite the volume of information the State Department processes, the 

subject matter professionals in each bureau strive to address each and every cable 

from the field, especially sensitive and urgent messages, and then take action as 

appropriate, and/or flag appropriate material for review by more senior officials. 

The referenced classified cable indicates such action was being taken by the U.S. 

Mission in Benghazi in coordination with Embassy Tripoli. 

Regardless, and consistent with the recommendations of the ARB, the 

Department has taken additional steps to help ensure that officials up the chain of 

command are properly kept infonned of circumstances and questions about 

security, including through the initiation of an annual High Threat Post Review, 

chaired for the first time by the Secretary of State, and ongoing reviews by the 

Deputy Secretaries. I have also named the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

for High Threat Posts, who is responsible for ensuring that missions in dangerous 

places get the attention they need. 

And as I said at the hearing, it is important to remember the long list of 

attacks foiled, crises averted, and lives saved as a result of the extraordinary efforts 

of our security personnel. We should never forget that these dedicated 

professionals get it right 99 percent of the time, against difficult odds all over the 

world. That's why, like my predecessors, I trust them with my life. 
117


78250k-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Michael McCaul (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Given the extremely poor security environment in Eastern Libya, why was 

Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on the anniversary of9/11? 

Answer: 

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to meet with Libyan officials the 

network of contacts that he had developed during his time there as Special Envoy, 

and to reaffirm that he and the United States recognized the importance of Libya's 

second city, the cradle of its revolution. Specifically, he intended to meet with 

local political leaders and members of ci viI society, the business community, and 

the diplomatic community. He was also scheduled to open an American Space He 

was also scheduled to open an American Space to promote educational and cultural 

outreach in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens understood Benghazi better than 

anyone else in the U.S. government. He understood that diplomacy, by its nature, 

must be practiced in dangerous places because our interests suffer and our security 

is threatened when we are absent. 

The AccOlUltability Review Board found that intelligence provided no 

immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11,2012, attacks in 

Benghazi. The intelligence community has spoken to this as well. 
118


78250k-5.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Michael T. McCaul (#5) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Does not State Department's failure to comply with these two statutes prevent 

Congress-and this committee-from appropriately crafting policy that combats 

terrorist safe havens? 

Being specific, what has the State Department done to comply with these two laws 

and what impact have those actions had our cOlUlter-terrorism and security strategy 

in North Africa? 

Do you view North Africa as the new front in the War on Terror? 

Answer: 

We have long been concemed about a range of counterterrorism threats 

across North Africa, and continue to benefit from multiple, longstanding 

partnerships across the region in order to effectively combat these challenges. The 

President's 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism makes it clear we are at 

war against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates. 

The State Department complies with the reporting requirements of 22 U.s.c. 

2656f, as amended by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 

2004, in the annual Country Reporls on Terrorism. These reports provide specific 

information on terrorist safe havens - including assessments of efforts to prevent 

the proliferation of and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction in and through 

the territory of the country - as well as initiatives and programs to address them, 

specifically in Chapter 5 of the report, "Terrorist Safe Havens (Update to the 7120 

report)." Additional infonnation is fOlUld in other Congressionally mandated 

reports that are referenced in the Counlry Reporls on Terrorism, such as the 

"Annual Report on Assistance Related to International Terrorism." While we 

provide these reports, we note that statutory reporting requirements and reports that 

detail past activities are not the basis for determining the development of executive 

branch policy or counterterrorism strategies. Denying safe havens and 

strenbrthening the capabilities of at-risk states are ongoing, active, and critical 

elements of our counterterrorism strategy in North Africa, and elsewhere. 
119


78250k-6.eps

We note that the reporting requirement in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for FY20l0, which requires the administration to produce a list 

ofD.S. counterterrorism efforts relating to the denial of terrorist safe havens, was 

110t directed to the State Department. 
120


78250k-7.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Michael T. McCaul (#6) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Only days-if not hours-after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, analysts and the 

media focused their attention almost exclusively on Ansar al-Sharia as the group 

responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, 

and Glen Doherty. A series of internal State Department emails obtained by the 

media shows that just hours after the attack State Department officials had reported 

that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack. 

• Why did it take your Department until October 4,2012, nearly a month after 

the terrorist attack in Benghazi, to designate Ansar al-Sharia as a Foreign 

Terrorist Organization? 

• Is there any dispute over whether Asnar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for 

the attack? 

If not, was there ever any doubt in your mind that the events in Benghazi 

were in no way "spontaneous"? 

• Was the fact that the assailants carried RPGs and mortars, among other 

weapons, not an indication to you and the President's national security team 

that the attack on 9/11 was not a spontaneous mob response to a YouTube 

video, as you and others in the administration so often indicated? 

Answer: 

As I stated before the Committee, the tragedy in Benghazi was a terrorist 

attack. On September 12 I called it an attack by "heavily anned militants" on our 

compound. The President spoke to an act of terror. In the days after the attack, we 

did not know who the attackers were, what their motives were, what the context of 

the attack was, and other details of that sort. At the same time, we were dealing 

with protests against our facilities that were clearly connected to that video and 

were focused on keeping our people safe. We had our compounds breached in 

Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, and Sana'a, in addition to Benghazi. We had serious 

disturbances in Pakistan and protests in more that1 10 other countries that week. So 

we were working around the clock on high alert to deal with those threats and to 

protect our personnel and our facilities. 
121


78250k-8.eps

The intelligence community has addressed the fact that it assessed in the 

immediate aftennath that the attack in Benghazi began spontaneously following 

protests earlier that day in Cairo. All of the senior Administration officials who 

spoke to this had the same infonnation from the intelligence community and made 

clear that we were continuing to gather infonnation and our assessment might 

change. And when information did change, we updated our public posture. That is 

normal in fluid circumstances. 

The email alerts sent by the State Department Operations Center reflected 

the information, which has been widely and publicly reported, that Ansar al-Sharia 

claimed responsibility online and then sought to retract that claim. As the ARB 

report makes clear, after their months of research, there are "key questions 

surrounding the identity, actions and motivations of the perpetrators that remain to 

be determined." It remains a complex picture, and the FBI and our intelligence 

community are still piecing it together. 

On October 4,2012, the Department of State designated Ansar al-Sharia in 

Yemen as an alias ofal-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, a separate group from 

Ansar al-Shari'a in Libya. While the two groups share a name, they are wholly 

separate entities. Ansar al-Shari'a is a general tenn -literally translated to 

"supporter of shari' a" - that is increasingly being used by groups across the Middle 

East. Instead of adopting unique, individual names, many groups are instead using 

the generalized "Ansar ai-Shari' a" to broadcast their desire to establish an Islamic 

state. 

A decision to designate Ansar al-Shari'a as a Foreign Terrorist Organization 

(FTO) would be made in accordance with the statutory criteria found in section 

219 of the immigration and Nationality Act (iNA). The iNA establishes specific 

criteria that must be met in order to designate an organization as an FTO. The 

designation of an FTO is a deliberative and thorough process that typically takes a 

number of months to complete. As a matter of general practice, the Department 

does not publicly comment on prospective FTO designations because doing so 

would risk undermining the effectiveness of the designation by alerting the 

potential target of the upcoming sanctions. For example, such pre-notification 

could result in the t1ight of assets in the financial system before they could be 

frozen. 

The Department will continue to work with other relevant U.S. agencies and 

international partners in identifying ways we can further erode the capacity of 

organizations carrying out terrorist attacks in Libya and elsewhere in northem 

Africa. 
122

f


78250k-9.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Michael T. McCaul (#7) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Only days - if not hours - after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, analysts and the 

media focused their attention almost exclusively on Ansar-al-Sharia as the group 

responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, 

and Glen Doherty. A series of internal State Department emails obtained by the 

media shows that just hours after the attack State Department Officials had 

reported that Ansar-al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack. 

Do you have evidence that Ansar al-Sharia and its supporters knew well in advance 

of the attack that Ambassador Stevens would be at the Benghazi mission on 9/11 ? 

If so, when did that information become available to you and how did Ansar alSharia learn of the Ambassadors whereabouts? 

Answer: 

The Department has no evidence that Ansar al-Sharia and its supporters knew 

well in advance that on September 11,2012, Ambassador Stevens would be in 

Benghazi. The Accountability Review Board found that "intelligence provided no 

immediate, specific tactical waming of the September 11 attacks." 
123


78250l-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Tom Manno (#\) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madame Secretary, you have referred to the terrorist attack on our embassy in 

Benghazi, Libya as a "militant attack," when, in fact, it was a "terrorist attack by al 

Qaeda." Why did you use the tenn, "militant attack," on several occasions instead 

of a "terrorist attack by al Qaeda"? 

Answer: 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, the tragedy in Benghazi 

was a terrorist attack. I told the American people on the morning of September 12 

that "heavily armed militants assaulted the compOlUld" the previous day. 

However, we did not know who the attackers were, what their motives were, and 

what the context of the attack was, among other details. For that reason, 

Administration officials - including myself - were careful to indicate that our 

understanding of the attack could change as additional infonnation was collected 

and analyzed. As the ARB's report makes clear, after their months of work, there 

are "key questions surrOlUlding the identity, actions and motivations of the 

perpetrators that remain to be determined." I would refer you to the classified 

version of the report and to the FBI for further infonnation as it is still a complex 

picture, and the FBI and our intelligence community continue to piece it together. 
124


78250l-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Tom Manno (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Do the terms "militant attack," and "terrorist attack by al Qaeda" have different 

meanings to you or, to the best of your knowledge, the Obama Administration? 

Answer: 

As I have stated, we knew in the days after the attack that our compound had 

been attacked by heavily armed militants, but we did not know who the attackers 

were, what their motives were, and many other details. For that reason, 

Administration officials - including myself - were careful to indicate that our 

understanding of the attack could change as additional information was collected 

and analyzed. As the ARB's report makes clear, after their months of work, there 

are "key questions surrounding the identity, actions and motivations of the 

perpetrators that remain to be determined." It is still a complex picture, and the 

FBI and our intelligence community continue to piece it together. 
125


78250l-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Tom Manno (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madame Secretary, many have raised the concern that you and senior officials in 

the Obama Administration are reluctant to use the term, "terrorist attack by al 

Qaeda." Have you or anyone at the State Department been instructed by President 

Obama, or personnel from the Obama Administration, not to use the tenn "terrorist 

attack," or "al Qaeda?" Or to use the tenn "militant attack" instead of "terrorist 

attack?" 

Answer: 

The President spoke to an act of terror the day after the attack, on September 

12. T have repeatedly described the tragedy in Benghazi as a terrorist attack, 

including in my testimony before the Committee on January 23. Again, regarding 

who conducted the attack, the ARB report states, there are "key questions 

surrounding the identity, actions, and motivations of the perpetrators that remain to 

be determined." These questions remain the subject of etlorts by the FBI and 

intelligence community. 
126


78250l-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Thomas Marino (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madame Secretary, numerous senior officials in the Obama Administration posited 

several times that Congress has not allocated enough money to adequately fund the 

State Department. In fact, the State Department designated in its budget, over the 

last four years, tens of millions of dollars for expenditures, such as a remodeled 

kitchens at the Department of State, statues and art work for our embassies around 

the world, liquor for State Department functions, copies of the book J)reams of My 

Father authored by President Obama, global warming programs, landscape 

beautification, etc. 

I am not debating the merit of these expenditures at this point in time, but I and 

others do not believe that they and certain other programs are of the same priority 

level as worldwide embassy security. Furthennore, with a nearly $16.5 trillion 

federal debt, which Adm. Mike Mullen has named "the single, biggest threat to our 

national security," we must diligently prioritize taxpayer dollars in order to uphold 

our constitutional duty to ensure the security of the United States. 

Given our fiscal realities, would you support reducing and or eliminating funding 

for expenditures such those as cited above, among others, in order to offset 

increased funding towards the desperately needed increase in security at our 

embassies around the world, especially in the Middle East? If so, please state 

specific funding sources that could be used to offset security costs. lfnot, please 

provide a detailed explanation as to why these programs cited above should take 

priority over embassy security. 

Answer: 

The Accountability Review Board made it very clear that resources are a 

significant constraint to the State Department's progress. In the report's 

introduction, it states, "One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must 

do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the State 

Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives." Every day we 

strive to ensure the greatest return on each dollar we spend and on ensuring we use 
127


78250l-5.eps

taxpayer dollars wisely. The nature of diplomacy requires us to invest in a broad 

range of people-to-people diplomacy. The budget of the State Department is less 

than 1 percent of the federal budget - and with that 1 percent we fund a range of 

efforts that advance our foreib'll policy priorities abroad and strengthen our security 

at home, including aid to Israel and PEPF AR, and our diplomatic efforts at over 

270 posts around the world. We fight every single day to make sure we have the 

right resources, but as importantly, we make sure there's not a dime wasted. If you 

have questions about any of our Congressionally-appropriated flUlds, then we can 

make available to you the appropriate State Department briefers. 

It is important to remember that in addition to Benghazi, our posts in Cairo, 

Sana'a, TlUlis, and Khartoum had also been under attack. Immediately following 

the attacks, we asked the Department of Defense to join Interagency Security 

Assessment Teams to evaluate security at certain high threat posts and recommend 

increased security measures. Based on those results, and the recommendations of 

the independent Accountability Review Board, we are working with Congress to 

authorize the Department to transfer existing Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO) funds between the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) and 

Embassy Security Construction and Maintenance (ESCM) accounts, which would 

allow us to use already appropriated, prior year funds to cover a substantial amount 

of these increased security measures. Specifically, we are working on plans to 

deploy additional Marine Security Guard Detachments, hire and equip additional 

Diplomatic Security personnel, upgrade embassy facilities and security systems, 

including compound access controls, bollards, vehicle barriers, emergency 

sanctuaries, security lighting, and other improvements, as well as expand highthreat training facilities in the United States. 
128


78250l-6.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Thomas Marino (#5) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

When questioned if the Libyan government is willing and able to bring the culprits 

of the recent embassy attacks to justice, you said that there are currently numerous 

holds on appropriations that would be used to assist Libya, indicating that these 

funds could prevent Libya from helping to capture those responsible. However, it's 

my understanding that the only hold the House has placed on funds to Libya is a $2 

million hold to Libya from the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and 

Related programs account, not directly towards bringing tllose responsible for the 

death of Ambassador Steven and three other Americans to justice. 

It is also my understanding that this hold was implemented after Congress 

appropriated over $200 million to Libya since Libya's uprising in 2011. As I'm 

sure you know, the ARB report stated, "The Board found the Libyan government's 

response to be profoundly lacking on the night of the attacks, reflecting both weak 

capacity and near absence government influence and control in Benghazi." When 

the previous $200 million given to Libya did not amount to positive results in the 

Benghazi attack, what is the State Department doing differently going forward to 

ensure that any additional funds to Libya are met with positive results? 

Answer: 

A large majority, over $130 million, of our assistance to Libya was provided 

during the revolution to address urgent humanitarian and security needs. This 

included approximately $90 million in humanitarian assistance to support those 

suffering from the violence ofthe Qadhafi regime, both inside Libya and for those 

who had fled to neighboring countries. The United States committed an additional 

$40 million to support demining and unexploded ordnance removal throughout 

Libya, and to account for, secure, or destroy loosely-secured or otherwise-at risk 

conventional weapons, including over 5,000 man-portable air defense systems and 

components to date. 

After the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi, Libya's security sector institutions were 

completely gutted, and the new Libyan authorities faced the daunting task of 

reconstituting these bureaucracies with little capacity or experience. Since these 
129


78250l-7.eps

initial expenditures, the United States has provided the Government of Libya with 

offers of targeted support and technical assistance in a number of critical areas to 

help establish security sector institutions; this type of capacity building directly 

supports our national security interests. These offers of assistance include the 

$2. 1 million in FY 12 bilateral NADR assistance for Libya to support weapons 

abatement and the development of security sector institutions, which is currently 

under Congressional hold. 
130


78250l-8.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Thomas Marino (#6) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madame Secretary, you previously stated that you accepted full responsibility for 

the short comings at the State Department concerning the Benghazi terrorist 

attack. However, accepting responsibility is more than simply accepting the errors 

of one's way or the errors of those one oversees. It should also be followed 

immediately by consequences in order to deter such grievous errors from 

reoccurring. The "Systematic failures and leadership and management 

deficiencies" in the State Department identified by the ARB particularly warrant 

con sequen ces. 

Why should you or those responsible for the systematic failures and leadership and 

management deficiencies not be punished? During the hearing, you testified that 

federal laws and regulations are preventing the State Department from taking any 

additional action against these individuals at this point in time. Could you please 

provide a detailed list of the federal laws and regulations to which you referred? 

Answer: 

The ARB statute, 22 U.s.c. 4834(c), allows the ARB to recommend 

disciplinary action where it finds reason to believe that an employee has breached a 

duty of the employee. It directs the ARB to consider "any standard of conduct, 

law, rule, regulation, contract or order which is pertinent to the performance of the 

duties of that individual." 

As stated in the Boards' report, the Board found that certain senior State 

Department officials within two bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive 

leadership and management ability in their responses to security concerns posed by 

Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack 

of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find 

reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee 

breached his or her duty. These senior State Department officials have been 

removed from their positions. 

The ARB, in Recommendation 23 of its report, expressed its view that 

findings of unsatisfactory leadership perfonnance by senior officials in relation to 
131

f


78250l-9.eps

the security incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline 

recommendations by future Accountability Review Boards, and would recommend 

a revision of Department regulations or amendment to the relevant statute to this 

end. The Department is working with Congress on a legislative proposal to amend 

the ARB statute to address the Board's recommendation. 

The Department's discipline regulations for the Foreign Service are found in 

3 F AM 4130 and 3 F AM 4300. 3 F AM 4130 contains the standards of conduct for 

Foreign Service employees, including a list of broad grOlUlds for disciplining 

Foreign Service employees in 3 FAM 4138. 3 FAM 4300 sets out the process and 

procedures for actually disciplining employees. 

The discipline regulations for civil service employees are found in the CFR, 

specifically 5 CFR 752, and in 3 F AM 4500. 
132


78250o-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Jeff Duncan 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

You haven't provided the call logs of messages, instant messages during that attack 

between the post and the operations center. Members of Congress would 

appreciate the opportunity to get a perspective of what was happening in real-time 

with the personnel on-the-ground in Libya and in Washington. Ifit is possible to 

provide an unclassified version for the American people, we would appreciate your 

consideration. In an air of transparency will you release these commlUlications 

between Benghazi, Tripoli and Washington? 

Answer: 

Let me clarify a point I made at the hearing: the Department's Operations 

Center does not utilize instant messaging to communicate with posts, thus there are 

no such records. 

As I stated during the hearing, I was in the Department on the night of 

September 11th itself, and directed our response from the State Department. 1 saw 

firsthand what Ambassador Pickering and Chainnan Mullen called "timely and 

exceptional coordination." One of the things the ARB looked into was 

commlUlication as the attack unfolded. The Board reviewed thousands of pages of 

doclUnents, interviewed more than 100 people and concluded that "WashingtonTripoli-Benghazi communication, cooperation, and coordination on the night of the 

attacks were effective." 

Additionally, as I stated, we engaged in continuous conversations within the 

Department, the inter-agency, and intemationally to ensure all effort was made to 

assist our personnel in Benghazi. I immediately instructed senior Department 

officials and Diplomatic Security personnel to consider every option to seek as 

much security support as possible and to coordinate with Libyan authorities. 

I spoke several times with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to seek 

all possible support from the White House, which they quickly provided. 1 also 

spoke with our Charge d'Affaires in Tripoli to receive updates on the situation and 

to former CIA Director Petraeus to confer and coordinate. I called Libyan General 

National Congress President Magariaf to press him for greater support not only in 
133

f


78250o-2.eps

Benghazi but also in Tripoli. T participated in a secure video conference of senior 

officials from the intelligence community, the White House, and the Department of 

Defense, during which we reviewed the options and the actions we were taking. 

And 1 spoke with President Obama later in the evening to update him on the 

situation. Early on the morning of September 12, I spoke with General Dempsey 

and again with Tom Donilon. 

I want to re-iterate that during this period, we were continuing to face 

protests, demonstrations, and violence across the region. We had our compounds 

breached in Cairo, Tll11is, Khartoum, and Sana'a, in addition to Benghazi. We had 

serious disturbances in Pakistan and protests in more than 10 other countries that 

week. So we were working around the clock on high alert to deal with those 

threats and to protect our personnel and our facilities. 
134


78250p-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Adam Kinzinger (#1) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madam Secretary, were you responsible for the decision not to send a Foreign 

Emergency Support team (FEST) in response to the Benghazi attack? Why wasn't 

the team activated? 

Answer: 

The FEST is a tool deployed in coordination with the interagency - not 

unilaterally by the State Department - to bolster the capabilities of our embassies, 

including communications capabilities, following a significant emergency. It is 

not a quick reaction security team and would not have been positioned to save lives 

that night. 

Embassy Tripoli did, however, take quick action and notified Benina 

Airbase in Benghazi of a potential need for logistic support and aircraft for 

extraction and received full cooperation. Embassy Tripoli quickly coordinated 

with the Libyan President and Prime Minister's offices among other Libyan 

government agencies and organizations to mobilize and support a rescue effort. 

And within hours, Embassy Tripoli chartered a private airplane and deployed a 

seven-person security team to Benghazi. 

The Accountability Review Board (ARB) report notes that "WashingtonTripoli-Benghazi communication, cooperation, and coordination on the night of the 

attacks were effective." It goes on to say, "Overall, commlUlication systems on the 

night of the attacks worked, with a near-constant information flow among 

Benghazi, Tripoli, and Washington." The safe evacuation of all U.S. government 

personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to 

Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government 

coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely 

wounded Americans. 
135


78250p-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Adam Kinzinger (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madam Secretary, to your knowledge, did the President or someone in the White 

House make a decision to stand down any military assets that the Department of 

S tate requested? 

Answer: 

The President has made clear that as soon as he learned the Benghazi facility 

was under attack, he acted immediately to ensure that our military and security 

team could secure our Embassies around the globe and reinforce the men and 

women serving in Tripoli. He directed Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey 

to work to mobilize all available DoD assets and move them into the region as 

rapidly as possible, which the Department of Defense immediately set out to do. 

As the ARB found, "The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but 

there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a 

difference." 
136


78250p-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Adam Kinzinger (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madam Secretary, given our reliance on Bahrain as an ally and host to the Fifth 

Fleet, what will the Department do to ensure that we hold the Govemment of 

Bahrain to its promise to implement political and human rights reforms to ensure 

our security interests are protected? 

Answer: 

A major non-NATO ally since 2002, Bahrain is an important U.S. partner in 

a tense region, partnering with us to pursue joint interests and maintain the safety 

and security of our naval assets and personnel in the Persian Gulf. It is finnly in 

the U.S. interest, and that of the wider region, for Bahrain to pursue necessary 

human rights, reforms, and inclusive political dialob'ue in order to build a stable 

political and economic future. 

President Obama and I have pressed Bahrain to take steps to forge a more 

inclusive future that is responsive to all Bahrainis. My colleagues and r have 

engaged the Bahraini govemment, political groups, the private sector, and civil 

society on this vision. The State Department will continue to press for 

accountability for human rights violations, protection of freedom of expression, 

and support for meaningful political reform. Meanwhile, the State Department will 

be vigilant in opposing any efforts by the Iranian government to int1uence events 

within Bahrain. 

The surest way to maintain stability is to address the legitimate demands of 

all Bahrainis through a process of meaningful dialogue between the govemment 

and political societies. Dialogue and negotiation can help Bahrain build a strong 

national consensus about its political future, strengthen its economic standing, and 

make it a more prosperous country and a more stable ally of the United States. The 

State Department, through its programming, seeks to promote reforms and 

reconciliation and improve govemance in areas such as commercial law, military 

capabilities, and anti-terrorism capacity. 

As I have said publicly, "As a country with many complex interests, we'll 

always have to walk and chew gum at the same time. That is our challenge in a 

country like Bahrain, which has been America's close friend and partner for 

decades." 
137


78250p-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Adam Kinzinger (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

During the hearing, in response to a question from Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois 

concerning previous statements you had made regarding the genesis of the terrorist 

attacks of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, you stated: "With respect to the-the 

video, I did not say that it was video from-that it was about the video for Libya. 

It certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these 

disturbances."lIJ However, in a statement you released on September II 

condemning the attack on the Temporary Mission, you stated: "Some have sought 

to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on 

the Internet." On September 12,2012, in remarks on the deaths of American 

personnel in Benghazi, you also stated that "We are working to detennine the 

precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have 

thought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protests that took place at 

our embassy in Cairo yesterday as a response to intlammatory material posted on 

the Tnternet.,,[2] 

Could you please reconcile your assertion during the hearing with these comments 

of September 11 and September 12? Please explain how these two statements are 

not inconsistent with one another. 

Answer: 

In the days after the Benghazi attack, senior administration officials were 

focused on keeping our people safe. We had our compounds breached in Cairo, 

Tunis, Khartoum, and Sana'a, in addition to Benghazi. We had serious 

disturbances in Pakistan and protests in more than 10 other countries that week. So 

we were working around the clock on high alert to deal with those threats and to 

protect our personnel and our facilities. The attack on our facilities in Benghazi 

was a complex and confusing event that transpired over several hours. In the 

immediate aftennath of the attack, we were working to determine who the 

III Testimony of Secreta!) of Slate Hilla!)' Clinton before the House Foreign AITairs COlmniHee. Jalluat;.' 23,2013. 

[2] Department of State. Remarks on the Deaihs (~r1merjcan Personnel in flenghazi, T,ihya, September 12, 2012, 

http://www.state.gov/secretaJy/nl1I2012/09/19765~.htJl1. 
138

f


78250p-5.eps

attackers were, what their motives were, what the context of the attack was, and 

other details. Administration officials were careful to indicate that our 

understanding of the attack could change as additional information was collected 

and analyzed. As the ARB report makes clear, after its months of work, there are 

"key questions sUffOlmding the identity, actions and motivations of the perpetrators 

that remain to be determined." With regard to some of the other instances of 

violence in the region, it was clear that the video was a key motivational factor. 

The Administration made clear that violence against U.S. diplomatic 

missions was unacceptable and unjustified, regardless of the motives, and that we 

were continuing to gather infonnation and update our assessments. And when 

infonnation did change, we updated our public posture in an attempt to be as 

transparent as possible. 

r know that people want to get clear answers - no one wants that more than r 

do. But the motivation behind this terrorist act remains a complex picture and the 

FBI and our intelligence community continue piecing it together. 
139


78250q-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative George Holding (#\ & tb) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

How many additional State Department posts are listed as "non-status" or 

"temporary status" as Benghazi was? 

Please list out what steps have been taken at other temporary status facilities to 

address any shortfalls in physical security and personnel levels to prevent further 

tragedies. 

Answer: 

The Department of State has "temporary facilities" in Goma, the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, and in El Fasher, in the Darfur region of Sudan. 

Operations at these facilities are suspended at this time because of civil 

unrest in both locations. 
140


78250q-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative George Holding (#Ia) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Do you believe that the listing of "non-status/temporary status" for the Mission in 

Benghazi had a negative impact on the security posture and personnel 

allotment/placement at the compound? 

Answer: 

The AccOlUltability Review Board found "Special Mission Benghazi's 

uncertain future after 2012 and its "non-status" as a temporary, residential facility 

made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult, and left 

responsibility to meet security standards to the working-level in the field, with very 

limited resources." 
141


78250q-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative George Holding (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

The State Department in conjlU1ction with our intelligence community is 

continually assessing and reviewing threats to our diplomatic posts. Recently, 

specifically after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, has it turned up any likely host 

nations or transnational governments that you feel would be unable to fulfill their 

duty to provide proper and timely security and assistance to our diplomatic posts? 

If so, what has been done to ensure our facilities and personnel are protected? 

After the attack in Benghazi and the lack of local resources by the Host provided 

should we consider taking a stronger line when it comes to determining to pull our 

personnel out? 

Answer: 

Diplomacy, by nature, must be practiced in dangerous places. The State 

Department takes significant measures everyday to protect personnel, their 

families, and U.S. interests overseas. 

In the immediate aftermath of the events in Libya, and the protests in Egypt, 

Tunisia, Sudan, and other countries, we took a number of swift measures to 

heighten security at our diplomatic missions, including deploying additional 

security personnel, intensifying security cooperation with host governments, and 

making other post-specific adjustments as warranted by the intelligence and threat 

environment 

We then undertook a worldwide review of our overall security posturewhich has been infonned by the findings of the Accountability Review Board 

(ARB) - and have partnered with the Department of Defense on targeted 

assessments of high-threat posts to detennine whether additional steps need to be 

taken to further augment our security profile in these locations 

Tripwires are events that activate, initiate, or set in motion post plans to 

prevent hann to the post, its perso1111ei, the U.S. citizen community, or other U.S. 

national interests. In the course of developing a post's Emergency Action Plan, the 
142

f


78250q-4.eps

post's Emergency Action Committee (EAC) must review the capabilities and 

limitations that may impact post's ability to operate, communicate with the private 

U.S. citizen community, and to carry out post plans in response to a crisis. The 

EAC also reviews the types of threats faced in the host country, then develops 

tripwires. Given that a number of factors, such as the host cmmtry's ability or 

willingness to respond to events, are considered in developing tripwires, they vary 

from post to post. 

Pursuant to the Accountability Review Board's recommendation, tripwire 

guidance is being reviewed. In late December, the Department instructed all posts 

to perfonn a review of tripwires and report if any had been breached in the past 

year. Posts have informed the Department of their results and their plans to update 

tripwires as necessary. After a thorough review, revised guidance responding to 

posts' tripwires will be issued via cable to all posts. 

As I have said, "We will not retreat ... that is the best way to honor those 

whom we have lost." 
143

f


78250r.eps

Question: 

Question for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Trey Radel (#1) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

The ARB said, "Poor performance does not ordinarily constitute a breach of duty 

that serve as a basis for disciplinary action." Yet, it is clear that senior State Dept. 

Officials failed in their leadership and management abilities. Are they on 

administrative leave? Are they on paid leave? Pending what? Pending an 

investigation? If so, what is the time frame? What are the possible outcomes to 

hold these individuals responsible for their actions and inaction? Specifically, is 

job tennination an option? When will these individuals be truly held accOlUltable 

for their negligence? 

Answer: 

The Board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual 

U.S. govermnent employee breached his or her duty. 

The Board did find that certain senior State Department officials within two 

bureaus demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability in 

their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the 

deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host govennnent 

protection. These senior State Department officials have been reassigned from 

their positions. 

In Recommendation 23, the Board expressed its view that findings of 

unsatisfactory leadership performance by senior officials in relation to the security 

incident under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations 

by future Accountability Review Boards, and would recommend a revision of 

Department regulations or amendment to the relevant statute to this end. The 

Department is working with Congress on a legislative proposal to amend the ARB 

statute to address the Board's recommendation. 
144


78250s-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Doug Collins 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Complacency is the single largest issue the ARB points to as a problem in the State 

Dept. The ARB does not specify complacency as a problem but it does suggest it. 

Towards the beginning of the ARB, it mentions the "tempered reaction" in 

Washington. It goes on to mention that the longer a post is exposed to continuing 

high levels of violence, the more it considers those events as normal and raising the 

threshold for reassessing risk. 

While I was deployed to Iraq in the Air Force Reserves, the unit was told that the 

last three months of a deployment are the worst. Airmen let their guard down; they 

believe they have seen the worst of the worst and focus on returning home, 

complacency starts to set in. The threat environment hasn't changed but Airmen's 

perception has. 

Since none of the State Department officials implicated in the ARB employment is 

being tenninated, how do you see, moving forward, a culture of complacency not 

taking root until another tragic incident occurs? 

Answer: 

The Department is aware that complacency can be an issue with security 

awareness. Our Foreign Service Institute (FSI) addresses personal and institutional 

complacency regularly in our crisis management training. All of our security 

training (Security Overseas Seminar, Crisis Management Training, and Foreign 

Affairs Counter-Threat) stresses self awareness and the importance of developing 

and maintaining good security habits. When statf are sent abroad, the Regional 

Security Otficer (RSO) reemphasizes these points during briefs. The Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security (DS) additionally provides a security self-assessment checklist 

to staff to enable them to periodically evaluate whether they are being mindful of 

and carrying out good security practices. 

Tn addition, based on the recommendations of the independent 

Accountability Review Board, the Department is convening a panel of outside 

experts to include members from the Overseas Security Advisory Council and the 
145

f


78250s-2.eps

Overseas Security Policy Board to support DS with security recommendations. DS 

will also consult with allied govemments, the Red Cross, the UN, and other 

organizations to discuss best practices for dealing with this issue and others. 
146


78250t-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#1) 

House Committee on Foreign Relations 

Clinton said Stevens had a "number of meetings that he was holding and some 

public events" on his schedule in Benghazi on or around 9/11. Exactly what were 

these meetings and events') When did he arrive in Benghazi, and who were the 

five people Clinton said were on his security team? What happened to them? 

Answer: 

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to meet with Libyan officials the 

network of contacts that he had developed during his time there as Special Envoy, 

as well as to reaffirm that he and the United States recob'nized the importance of 

Libya's second city, the cradle of its revolution. In particular, he planned to meet 

with local political leaders and members of ci vii society, the business community, 

and the diplomatic community. He was also scheduled to open an American Space 

to promote educational and cultural outreach in Benghazi. 

Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi on September 10,2012. Five 

Diplomatic Security Special Agents comprised the Ambassador's security team. 

Two agents accompanied the Ambassador from Tripoli and three were stationed in 

Benghazi. All five agents responded valiantly during the attack, survived and were 

evacuated the following morning to Tripoli. One of these agents was critical 

injured and remains at Walter Reed. 
147


78250t-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Who are the "more than 100 witnesses" ARB interviewed? Where are the 

transcripts? Why did they not interview Clinton? 

Answer: 

Accountability Review Boards have the discretion to interview those State 

Department officials that they deem appropriate, up to and including the Secretary 

of State. As T stated in my testimony before the Committee, if the members of the 

ARB thought 1 had infonnation relevant to their investigation, 1 would have gladly 

discussed that with them at their request. I refer you to the classified version of the 

ARB report for additional infonnation on who was interviewed. 
148


78250t-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Who are the ARB members, and what are their individual qualifications for that 

mission? 

Answer: 

The Board members were Ambassador and fonner Under Secretary of State 

for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering; Fonner Chainnan of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff Admiral Michael Mullen (Ret); Richard Shinnick, a retired Senior Foreign 

Service Officer who served as interim Director for the Department of State's 

Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations in 2008; Catherine Bertini, a Professor 

of Public Administration and International Affairs at the Maxwell School of 

Citizenship and Public Affairs and fonner Executive Director of the United 

Nations World Food Program; and Hugh Turner, a former deputy director of the 

CIA's Directorate of Operations. 
149


78250t-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Relations 

You said in your opening remarks that it was you that sent Ambassador Stevens to 

Benghazi. Further down the line in your response to questioning, you said you 

didn't know why he went. Why exactly was Ambassador Stevens sent over to 

Benghazi, and who was it that sent him? 

Answer: 

I sent Chris Stevens to Benghazi as our Special Representative to the 

Transitional National COlUlCil in April 20 II, soon after the popular uprising 

against Qadhafi's dictatorship began. He left that position in November 20ll. 

Later r nominated him as Ambassador to Libya and he was sworn in to that 

position in May 2012. 

Ambassador Stevens himself decided to travel to Benghazi in September 

2012, independent of Washington, which, as the ARB indicated, is standard 

practice for ambassadors. He wanted to meet with Libyan officials and reengage 

with the network of contacts that he had developed during his time there as Special 

Envoy, as well as to reaffirm that he and the United States recognized the 

importance of Libya's second city, the cradle of its revolution. In particular, he 

planned to meet with local political leaders and members of civil society, the 

business community, and the diplomatic community. He was also scheduled to 

open an American Space to promote educational and cultural outreach in 

Benghazi. 
150


78250t-5.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#5) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Exactly what was happening in real time in the State Department Ops Center 

during the Benghazi attack? 

Answer: 

Beginning the aftemoon and evening of September 11,2012, and continuing 

into the morning of September 12, the State Department Operations Center 

collected information about the ongoing attacks in Benghazi and provided regular 

updates to the Secretary and senior Department officials throughout the night. 

Throughout the attack on the Special Mission and the Annex and the evacuation to 

Tripoli, the Operations Center received continuous oral updates from the Deputy 

Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, who was receiving regular reports 

from USG personnel on the ground in Benghazi. The Operations Center also 

included open-source reporting from media, including social media, in the updates 

it circulated. Senior Department officials and 1 were also receiving information 

from the Diplomatic Security Command Center, which was in direct telephone 

contact with Diplomatic Security personnel in Benghazi during the attack and 

throughout the night. 
151


78250t-6.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#6) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

In the month before the attacks, why were the requests for extra security denied, 

especially after the some 12 or 14 preceding attacks? 

Answer: 

The question of resource allocation and whether the number of security 

personnel at Benghazi on the day of the attack was adequate has been examined by 

the Accountability Review Board (ARB) and is addressed in their report. 

In the month before the attack, the Department only received one fonnal 

request from Embassy Tripoli on August 2, requesting approval to add 11 locallyemployed bodyguard positions in Tripoli. This request was approved by the 

Department on August 3. 
152


78250t-7.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#7) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Why were military assets--which were available and within range to be effective--

not deployed to rescue the ambassador and others under attack in Benghazi? 

Answer: 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, the President gave clear 

directions to Secretary Panetta and Chainnan Dempsey to work to mobilize all 

available assets and move them into the region as rapidly as possible, which the 

Department of Defense immediately set out to do. In its report, the Accountability 

Review Board - which included Fonner Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Admiral Mike Mullen (Ret.) - found "the interagency response was timely was 

timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed u.S. 

military assets to have made a difference." In addition, the report states, "The 

Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of 

support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the 

contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi 

twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base 

was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response 

and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans." 
153


78250t-8.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#8) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Libyan assets were allegedly responsible for guarding the US facilities in 

Benghazi. What did they do during the attack? Were they in on it? 

Answer: 

The AccOlUltability Review Board found that the responses by both Blue 

Mountain Libya (BML) contract guards and the host nation security personnel at 

the compound were "inadequate." The report states that, "No BML guards were 

present outside the compound immediately before the attack ensued, although 

perimeter security was one of their responsibilities, and there is conflicting 

infonnation as to whether they sounded any alarms prior to fleeing the Cl gate 

area to other areas ofthe Special Mission Compound (SMC). Although the 

unarmed BML guards could not be expected to repel an attack, they had core 

responsibility for providing early warning and controlling access to the compound, 

which they had not always performed well in the past." The Board's inquiry 

"found little evidence that the armed February 17 guards alerted Americans at the 

SMC to the attack or summoned a February 17 militia presence to assist 

expeditiously once the attack was in prOb'Tess - despite the fact that February 17 

members were paid to provide interior security and a quick reaction force for the 

SMC and the fact that February 17 barracks were in the close vicinity, less than 2 

km away from the SMC. A small number of February 17 militia members arrived 

at Villa C nearly an hour after the attack began. Although some February 17 

members assisted in efforts to search for Ambassador Stevens in the smoke-filled 

Villa C building, the Board found little evidence that February 17 contributed 

meaningfully to the defense of the Special Mission compound, or to the evacuation 

to the airport that took place on the morning of September 12." 

We refer you to the FBI for infonnation regarding the ongoing investigation 

and the individuals potentially involved in the attack. 
154


78250t-9.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#9) 

House Committee on Foreign Relations 

January 23, 2013 

Is only the FBI investigating this? And why did it take so long for them to arrive 

on the scene when reporters were in the facility the day after the attack and picked 

up documents? Is this being treated only as a law enforcement issue? 

Answer: 

While the details are best discussed in a classified setting, both the FBI and 

the intelligence community are playing key roles in the effort to identify and bring 

to justice those responsible for the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi. President 

Obama and his Administration are fully committed to bringing the perpetrators to 

justice, and T assure you that every resource of the United States is being brought 

to bear to ensure exactly that. 

The weekend after the attack, we worked with the Libyan Embassy to ensure 

that the FBI's team received expedited visas and that they were able to travel to 

Libya as soon as possible, which they did. However, in the days and weeks 

following the attacks, we understood from Libyan officials that U.S. government 

officials would have been targets in Benghazi at that time, and U.S. personnel did 

not travel to Benghazi until it was determined safe to do so. The FBI team 

conducted its efforts from Tripoli lUltil it was able to visit Benghazi on October 4. 
155


78250t-10.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#10) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Who debriefed the survivors, when, and where are the transcripts? Who are the 

two critically wounded, and where are they now? 

Answer: 

Once the attack commenced, the Diplomatic Security (OS) agent in the 

Tactical Operations Center (TOC) located at Benghazi's Temporary Mission 

Facility (TMF) was in periodic telephone contact with Embassy Tripoli, the 

Benghazi Annex, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center (DSCC) in 

Rosslyn, Virginia, until he joined the Annex response force moving from the TOC 

to the TMF main building to search for the Ambassador. Upon departing the TMF 

and arriving at the Annex, the OS agents re-established telephone contact with 

Embassy Tripoli and the DSCC until they departed Benghazi on the moming of 

September 12. These telephone contacts were not recorded or transcribed. 

As Secretary Clinton indicated in her testimony on January 23, the primary 

concern and focus of the Department immediately following the tragic attacks on 

our mission in Benghazi was the safety and well-being of our personnel. Our top 

priorities were the evacuation of personnel to a safe location and the provision of 

crucial medical treatment and, as such, the Department did not debrief evacuated 

personnel in the immediate hours after the attacks. 

The FBI conducted law enforcement interviews of four of the five evacuated 

agents, with a OS special agent present to support the FBI, on September 15 and 

16. The fifth OS agent was unable to participate at that time for medical reasons; 

however, that agent was interviewed by the FBI in late September. 

OS and other Department of State officials held conversations with the five 

OS agents in the United States starting in late September, following their initial 

interviews with the FBI. These conversations were not recorded or transcribed. 

One agent is currently recovering at a local military hospital, and the other 

four have retumed to duty. 
156


78250t-11.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#11) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Have Panetta and Holder and Generals Ham and Petraeus been interviewed and/or 

provided sworn statements on Benghazi? Other than Petraeus, have any testified 

under oath? 

Answer: 

I refer you to the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense and the 

CTA for further infonnation on this question. 
157

f


78250t-12.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Mark Meadows (#12) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

What are the reasons for the three hour delay at the airport when the team from 

Tripoli arrived? 

Answer: 

U.S. security reinforcements dispatched from Embassy Tripoli arrived at the 

Benghazi airport at around I: 15 a.m. on September 12. While awaiting secure 

transportation, they learned of the Ambassador's possible presence at the hospital 

and prepared to recover him there; however, after receiving word of his death, they 

subsequently arranged to move to the Annex. 
158


78250u-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ted Yoho (#1) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madam Secretary, I respect the fact that you've taken ultimate responsibility for 

the egregious management failures that occurred at the State Department, but 

ultimately, what does that mean? 

Answer: 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, taking responsibility 

meant not only moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond 

to the immediate crisis, but also to make sure we were protecting our people and 

posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world. I immediately ordered a 

review of our security posture around the world, with particular scrutiny for highthreat posts. I asked the Department of Defense to join Interagency Security 

Assessment Teams and to dispatch hundreds of additional Marine Security Guards 

to our posts. I named the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for High Threat 

Posts, who is responsible for ensuring that missions in dangerous places get the 

attention they need. And we reached out to Congress to provide additional funding 

and authorities to help address physical vulnerabilities, including risks from fire, 

and to allow us to hire additional Diplomatic Security personnel and Marine 

security guards. 

Taking responsibility also meant launching an independent investigation to 

detennine exactly what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for 

improvement. I quickly moved to appoint the Accountability Review Board 

because r wanted them to come forward with their report before r left my position, 

as I felt the responsibility to put in motion the response to whatever they 

recommended. I also made the findings of the independent ARB available to the 

Congress and the American people who deserve to know what happened in 

Benghazi - the findings of only one previous ARB were made public. 

I have accepted everyone of the ARB's recommendations. The Deputy 

Secretary for Management and Resources is leading a task force to ensure all 29 

recommendations are implemented quickly and completely, as well as pursuing 
159


78250u-2.eps

additional steps that go above and beyond the Board's recommendations. We are 

also initiating an annual High Threat Post Review, chaired for the first time by the 

Secretary of State, and ongoing reviews by the Deputy Secretaries, to ensure that 

pivotal questions about security reach the highest level. 

Finally, taking responsibility also means intensifying our efforts to combat 

terrorism and to support emerging democracies in North Africa and beyond. I've 

conferred with the region's leaders, including on September 11 and the following 

days, and T was part of a special meeting at the UN two weeks after the attack 

focused on Mali and the Sahel. In October, I flew to Algeria to discuss the fight 

against AQIM. In November, I sent Deputy Secretary Bill Bums to lead an 

interagency group to Algiers to continue that conversation, and then in my stead, 

he co-chaired the Global Counterterrorism Fonlll1 that was held in Abu Dhabi and 

a meeting in Tlmis, working not only on building new democracies but 

simultaneously reforming security services. These are just a few examples of the 

constant diplomatic engagements that we are having focused on targeting alQaida's syndicate of terror - closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering 

their extremist ideology, and slowing the flow of new recruits. We continue to 

hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to 

bring them to justice. And we are using our diplomatic and economic tools to 

support the emerging democracies, including Libya, in order to give them the 

strenbrth to provide a path away from extremism. 
160


78250u-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ted Yoho (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

You've claimed numerous times that the attack in Benghazi had indications of a 

planned terrorist attack yet Ambassador Rice was allowed to continue the story 

that the attack was spontaneous due to an inflammatory video--which we now 

know to be a falsehood--for weeks. Why did it take you and the President so long 

to admit it was an organized and planned act of terror even though you called it 

correctly from the beginning? 

Answer: 

As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, I told the American 

people on the morning of September 12 that "heavily armed militants assaulted the 

compound." The same day, the President spoke of an act of terror. However, in 

the days after the attack, we did not know who the attackers were, what their 

motives were, and what the context ofthe attack was, among other information. 

For that reason, Administration otIicials - including myself - were careful to 

indicate that our understanding of the attack could change as additional 

information was collected and analyzed. After months of work and research, the 

ARB's report makes clear that there are "key questions surrounding the identity, 

actions and motivations of the perpetrators that remain to be determined." As I 

told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 23, there is evidence that 

the attacks were deliberate, opporhmistic, and pre-coordinated, but not necessarily 

indicative of extensive planning. It remains a complex picture, and the FBI and 

our intelligence community continue piecing it together. 
161


78250u-4.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ted Yoho (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

And just as important, why were talking points circulated regarding an attack on an 

embassy without the Secretary of State signing off on them? 

Answer: 

r understand that the talking points used by Ambassador Rice on September 

16 were drafted by officials at CIA and finalized in a typical interagency process in 

which State Department staff participated. I was not involved in that process. As I 

have stated in my testimony, the senior Administration officials who spoke to this 

had the same information from the intelligence community - which reflected the 

best and most current assessment at the time -- and all of us made clear that the 

intelligence assessment could change as additional information was collected and 

analyzed. As our understanding evolved regarding the attacks and the extremists 

involved, we updated Congress and the American public. 
162


78250u-5.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ted Yoho (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

You've also repeatedly said that it was you who asked Ambassador Stevens to go 

to Benghazi due to his unparalleled knowledge of the area, the situation, and the 

important players in the region. His expertise was so renowned yet his personal 

plea for additional resources for security was denied. Why? The very same 

expertise that prompted you to ask him to go to Benghazi was ignored when it was 

needed most. Why was that the case? 

Answer: 

We are constantly assessing and upgrading our security at all of our missions 

and we take the recommendations of our Ambassadors and security personnel very 

seriously. Nearly all requests to upgrade the physical security of the mission 

compound in Benghazi received by Washington through the summer of2012 were 

promptly funded and implemented in the field. These security upgrades to the 

temporary mission facility include: adding Jersey barriers to strengthen the 

perimeter, emplacing defensive positions with sandbags, installing guard booths 

for our local security perso1111el, as well as upgrading, raising, and adding razor 

wire to the perimeter wall. That said, as the independent Accountability Review 

Board noted, "In the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, the response 

from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a deteriorating security situation 

was inadequate." We are implementing the independent Board's recommendations 

- and doing much more - to ensure that our security experts on the grOlUld and in 

Washington are able to provide our perso1111el overseas with security that meets the 

threat environment they face. 
163

f


78250u-6.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Ted S. Y oho (#5) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Related to my previous question, can you talk about the physical security upgrades 

to the facility and are similar compounds around the world at risk? It has been 

reported that Ambassador Stevens made multiple requests to bolster security. 

How are these requests reviewed and who makes the determination? Is the 

opinion of the diplomats on the ground given proper weight? 

Answer: 

We are constantly assessing and upgrading our security at all of our 

missions. These security upgrades to the temporary mission facility in Benghazi 

included: adding Jersey barriers to strengthen the perimeter, emplacing defensive 

positions with sandbags, installing b'l.lard booths for our local security personnel, as 

well as upgrading, raising, and adding razor wire to the perimeter wall. 

Our security experts on the ground and in Washington always seek to 

provide security that meets the threat environment they face - and that is what was 

done in Benghazi. Through our normal process of consultation among our security 

experts on the ground and in Washington, we strive to meet the requests of post 

with measures that support the goals our experts on the ground are trying to 

achieve. That said, as the ARB noted, "In the weeks and months leading up to the 

attacks, the response from post, Embassy Tripoli, and Washington to a 

deteriorating security situation was inadequate." We are implementing the ARB's 

recommendations - and doing much more - to ensure that our people have the 

security they need. 
164


78250v-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Luke Messer (#IA) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

What kind of real time communication was available to you and your senior 

advisors during the attack on our compound in Benghazi? 

Answer: 

Beginning the afternoon and evening of September 11,2012, and continuing 

into the morning of September 12, the State Department Operations Center 

collected information about the ongoing attacks in Benghazi and provided regular 

updates to the Secretary and senior Department officials throughout the night. 

Throughout the attack on the Special Mission, the Annex and the evacuation to 

Tripoli, the Operations Center received continuous oral updates from the Deputy 

Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, who was receiving regular reports 

from USG personnel on the ground in Benghazi. The Operations Center also 

included open-source reporting from media, including social media, in the updates 

it circulated. We were also receiving infonnation from the Diplomatic Security 

Command Center, which was in direct telephone contact with Diplomatic Security 

personnel in Benghazi during the attack and throughout the night. Situation 

updates circulated over email by both the Operations Center and the Diplomatic 

Security Command Center on September 11 and 12 have been shared with the 

Committee. 
165


78250v-2.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Luke Messer (#IB, C) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

What led you to believe that an intemet video caused a spontaneous demonstration 

in Benghazi? What led you to believe that a spontaneous demonstration was 

responsible for the attack on our compound in Benghazi? 

Answer: 

As I stated before the Committee, I told the American people on the moming 

of September 12 that "heavily armed militants assaulted the compound" the 

previous day, and the President also spoke of an act of terror. At the same time, 

we were dealing with protests against many of our facilities in the region that were 

clearly connected to that video, and we were focused on keeping our people safe. 

We had our compounds breached in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, and Sana'a, in 

addition to Benghazi. We had serious disturbances in Pakistan and protests in 

more than 10 other countries that week. So we were working around the clock on 

high alert to deal with those threats and to protect our personnel and our facilities. 

The intelligence community has addressed the fact that it assessed in the 

immediate aftermath that the attack in Benghazi began spontaneously following 

protests earlier that day in Cairo. The senior Administration officials who spoke to 

this had the same information from the intelligence community -- which reflected 

the best, most current assessment at the time -- and made clear that we were 

continuing to gather information and that Ollr assessment might change. And when 

additional information was collected, we updated our public posture, which is 

normal in fluid circumstances. 
166


78250v-3.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Luke Messer (#2) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

Madam Secretary, I am a new member of this Committee representing the 6th 

Congressional District ofIndiana. I traveled all over my district, which covers 19 

counties, and spoke with thousands of Hoosiers about the issues that concerned 

them most. [n the days and weeks following the attack on our compound at 

Benghazi, I encountered some of the most intense feelings of distrust and anger at 

Washington that [ had not experienced previously in my campaign. Hoosiers that [ 

met with couldn't understand that President Obama and his top advisors were 

incapable of grasping what seemed to be obvious to the American public. When 

something explodes at a U.S. facility on any given day, but especially on 

September 11, the American collective mind instinctively thinks terrorism. 

However, in the aftermath of Benghazi, President Obama and his senior advisors 

offered up inconsistent statements and expressed a general reluctance to 

characterize the attack as terrorism. 

Madam Secretary, a United States compound located in a war-torn country is 

attacked, four of our fellow Americans lie dead and this all happens on September 

11 tho In light of those facts and with access to real time information about what 

was happening, was there any doubt in your mind that this was an act of terrorism? 

• When did you come to the realization that the attack on our compolUld in 

Benghazi was, in fact, terrorism? Was it before or after September 16th, -

which was the date that Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday 

news shows stating it was the Administration's assessment that the attacks in 

Benghazi were a spontaneous reaction to an internet video? 

• If you knew, it was an act of terrorism, why as Secretary of State didn't you 

correct the record? 

• Did you advise the rest of the Administration of this knowledge? 
167


78250v-4.eps

Answer: 

As r have stated, r told the American people on the morning of September 12 

that "heavily armed militants assaulted the compound," and the same day, the 

President spoke of an act of terror. However, in the days after the attack, we did 

not know who the attackers were, what their motives were, what the context of the 

attack was, and other information of that sort. The senior Administration officials 

who spoke to this had the same information from the intelligence community --

which reflected the best, most current assessment at the time -- and made clear that 

we were continuing to gather information and that our assessment might change. 

And when additional information was collected, we updated our public posture, 

which is normal in fluid circumstances. 
168


78250v-5.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Luke Messer (#3) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

The structure of the Department of State does not seem able to accommodate the 

security funding requests of the Department's Regional Security Officers in a 

timely manner, particularly in high threat areas. Based on events over the course of 

the last few decades focus is attained only after disasters occur such as the East 

Africa bombings a decade ago and the Benghazi Consulate attack last year. 

What needs to happen to ensure that adequate security for our citizens and 

ambassadors is achieved before these tragedies occur? 

What level of oversight is provided within the Department and reported? 

Answer: 

We are undertaking a thorough review of the Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security's organization and management. A panel has been formed to focus on 

operating overseas, both in the policy and security arenas. This panel will begin its 

work in February and will be tasked to provide guidance and recommendations on 

restructuring the organization of Diplomatic Security to ensure effective allocation 

of resources. 

It should also be noted that the ARB report stated, "The solution requires a 

more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State 

Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small percentage both of the full 

national budget and that spent for national security. One overall conclusion in this 

report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide 

necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet 

mission imperatives." 

r established a new Deputy Assistant Secretary position for High Threat 

Posts and have provided requisite staff. This will focus attention and resources 

allocation for security at these posts. 

Additionally, as a result of the ARB report, we are revising the position 

descriptions of every assistant secretary, deputy assistant secretary, and special 

envoy who oversee U.S. missions abroad to reflect their shared responsibility with 

senior Department principals, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Bureau of 
169


78250v-6.eps

Overseas Buildings Operations, and chiefs of mission for the security ofD.S. 

personnel and facilities. 

We believe these steps, and others that will be identified as we move 

forward implementing the ARB recommendations, will make allocating our 

resources for security more effective, with appropriate scrutiny applied at crucial 

decision points. 
170

Æ


78250v-7.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by 

Representative Luke Messer (#4) 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

January 23, 2013 

The same office that is responsible for procurement of pencils, paper and 

providing HR administrative functions does not seem to be the correct location for 

the organization responsible for protecting the lives of our ambassadors and civil 

servants. Based on the results of the last two decades a reorganization of 

intelligence and security functions at the Department seems both sensible and 

necessary. 

• What more effective organizations has the Department considered and why 

have they not been affected') 

• Is reorganizing the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security away from 

the Under Secretary for Management necessary to provide the autonomy 

necessary to achieve focus on the security mission? 

Answer: 

In response to the panel chaired by retired Admiral Bobby Imnan, the 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security was established by an Act of Congress in 1985. 

A security program that best protects our personnel overseas is comprised of 

security personnel and facilities, logistics, medical capabilities, and information 

technology. The Under Secretary for Management, to whom these offices all 

report, is best able to ensure coordination and the best results.