market day." ♪ betty: from bloomberg world headquarters, good morning. i'm betty liu. hillary clinton defends what you did on benghazi. she testifies before a house committee. we are going to go live for full billoverage of the hearing ackman lost a fortune on valiant yesterday and now he is doubling down. news on thenomic housing front. i want to get to julie hyman. julie: the numbers coming in better than estimated by economists. 5.5 5 million is the annual pace

at which -- 5.5 5 million is the annual pace at which homes were sold in september. that is what we've got on this number. leading in the comic -- leading economic indicators and little worse than expected. betty: hillary clinton, as you can see, is now walking in to the house committee room where she will be testifying in just a few moments. i want to go to our .orrespondent gowdy, theey chairman of the committee, who will be delivering opening remarks ahead of her own.

this is a hearing we have been anticipating for quite some time . emotions are running high on both sides of the aisle. how do you expect this is going to start? owdy willhe tone trey g want to set? >> he will want to set that this is a fact-finding investigation. unfortunately for the republicans, thanks to house majority leader kevin mccarthy and a congressman from new york, the republicans are going to do everything they can to make this look like a serious fact-finding investigation. the hillary clinton campaign has two goals today. she wants to honor the memory of the americans who died at benghazi and she wants to tout her foreign policy credentials, expeditionary diplomacy, and her opposition to the go it alone foreign policy. betty: are we going to expect a much more controlled and

evenhanded hillary clinton? emotions were quite high in the last hearing and she was visibly exacerbated -- exasperated the last time. is she going to be tried to be -- is she going to try to be more controlled? think she will and the republicans are going to try not to push the buttons in the same way they did last time. the idea is going to try to get information out and push her on why there was not appropriate security on that day. at the same day, the republicans will want to lend some blows. if it comes down to it, she will be ready to deploy the fact that triedl republicans have to drag down her poll numbers with the committee. i want to bring in margaret carlson, our columnist.

would do you think the republicans are going to ask this time around? >> they may concentrate more on the situation in libya, as opposed to just the situation at the benghazi compound. hillary was secretary and in favor of deposing moammar gadhafi. that began the reign of terror in libya from which the benghazi catastrophe occurred. they did not concentrate that much before on that. the reason for blaming the video was to shift blame away from how the administration handled libya on to an enraging video, which turned out not to be the cause of it. i think they will move there. they will be very aware that there is a 50-50 split in the country. after country believes that this

committee -- half the country believes this committee is political and has gone too far. 54% also believe that secretary clinton has not been entirely forthcoming and answered all the questions about benghazi. they go at each other today with those two things in mind. her staff does not expect her to be as aggressive as she was in the first hearing when she said "what does it matter?" betty: maybe the key explosive moment. who is going to give her the hardest time during the hearing? >> i think it is going to be trey gowdy. he is the chairman of the committee. he has stuck to the script for 17 months of the committee's existence. his colleagues have not done

that. he knows with the pressure points are. he knows what secretary clinton has and has not. if anyone knows how to get something out of her, it is him. betty: >> he is a former lawyer. former prosecutor. -- scarlet: he is a -- betty: he is a former lawyer. >> former prosecutor. betty: he worked on various cold cases in his career. how is he going to use his skills? >> i guess we will find out. so far, he has been a very talented investigator. he is the head of the committee clinton's private e-mail server after half a dozen investigations have not uncovered that. we will see how he uses that in this investigation. this could be up to 8-10 hours. betty: a long day for everyone.

how do you think the clinton campaign have prepared for this? >> the secretary was hunkered down in her house for a couple of days working on this. .he is a preparer she was extremely well-prepared for the debate. she has always done her homework. she is the best student in class, like many girls are, as they grow up. she over prepares, she does her homework, and that is what she has been doing for two days. she has been working on this. she is a lawyer, as well. not a prosecutor, but she knows how to handle that. trey gowdy is unlike most of the congressman he builds a case methodically. boring for us because he starts and keeps going incrementally until he keeps

getting to his point. is not going to go right to the heart of it. whilel spend the first without any fireworks. path of popcorn, sit back, it is going to be a long day. betty: that is a perfect analysis of what we are going to see today. gone for a moment. deliveringis still his opening remarks. to what iset back going on in the markets right now. had quite a few earnings that have come out this morning from dow chemical and mcdonald, as well. i want to get back to julie hyman. julie: we are seeing stocks rally, which has as much to do

with earnings as it does with mario draghi. talking the ecb chair about being willing to provide continued stimulus. we are seeing stocks again by about 1%. they are all up by at least 1%. dot rally has something to with earnings, but also to do with that additional stimulus. we also saw european stocks turn around. getting back to the u.s. and earnings here, mcdonald's is one of the most notable this morning. the stock is up 6.5% after third-quarter profits topped estimates. we also sell revenue, although it fell, coming in at better than estimated. global sales were a big standout. we saw a big rebound in that measure.

here is the comps sales by quarter going back a couple of years. the posted a lot of negative quarters. this past quarter, an increase in global comparable sales. in the u.s., mcdonald's also posted a gain in comparable sales. some of the efforts the ceo has been making to cut costs, to slimline the menu, all of that appears to be bearing some fruit. all-day breakfast came after the end of last quarter. we are looking at dow chemical, also. earnings beat estimates and they announced they are reviewing options for agricultural unit. the company has also been slim lining. they have in trying to focus more on the core business, the growth business. caterpillar is another one we want to mention. this one has been going in the opposite direction.

now, it has turned around. caterpillar had been hit really hard by the decrease we had seen in commodities and the demand for various the -- equipment to harvest. the stock is doing better now. betty: it is. julie: maybe it is the draghi effect. betty: maybe. let's check in on the bloomberg first word news. vonnie quinn has more from our news desk and more on the ecb. mario draghi said the central bank will re-examine the amount of them you listed is pumping in two the euro area economy. he said the quantitative easing program may continue before september of next year if needed. >> while euro area domestic demand remains resilient, concerns over growth prospects in emerging markets and possible

repercussions for the economy from developments in financial and commodity market continued to signal downside risks to the outlook for growth and inflation. vonnie: as expected, the ecb kept its interest rate unchanged. russia is pushing for early presidential elections in syria. resident bashar al-assad will decide himself whether to run or not in wartime conditions should not be an obstacle to the vote. twocials in israel say palestinian stabbed a jewish man at a school today. police safely shot one of the attackers and wounded one of the others. at least 50 palestinians have died and nine jews.

benjamin netanyahu discussed the crisis today in berlin with u.s. secretary of state john kerry. back in the u.s., house republicans are clearing the way for paul ryan to become the next speaker of the house. the freedom caucus decided last night to back ryan. house leadership election is next week. vetodent obama plans to the defense policy bill today. the white house says the president does not like how the bill is funded and it would complicate his plans to close guantánamo bay in cuba. latest. is the you can always find the latest on bloomberg.com. betty: thank you so much. vonnie quinn with more at the news desk. stay with us as we continue to you can always find the latest on bloomberg.com. monitor the benghazi hearing on capitol hill. >> no more important than the e-mails of anyone else.

it just took us a little bit longer to get them and it garnered a little more attention in the process. ♪

>> they deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. the friends and family deserve the truth. we are going to find the truth. ,etty: ok, that is trey gowdy who was speaking there as the benghazi hearing committee is delivering opening remarks. elijah cummings is going to be speaking in just a few minutes delivering his opening remarks before hillary clinton begins to testify. this is a benghazi hearing committee we will be covering all day long on bloomberg television. i want to bring back margaret

carlson life to us and steve yechino, as well. talking little bit about how much of a political mass it has been head of this hearing. trey gowdyard fighting with his own members of theparty and you have hillary clinton pac that came out with ads talking about various aspects of her upcoming testimony. talk first about the republican side. steve: sure. it has been a mess. everybody says that hillary clinton has high stakes, but it is high-stakes for everyone. if you really want to trace back the mass, it started with -- mess, it started with kevin mccarthy. he goes on fox news and he says

-- he is asked a softball question. what have the republicans accomplished? have created this benghazi committee and you have seen hillary clinton's poll numbers go down. alarm bells went off in the political world. ever since then, the clinton camp's and all of her allies have jumped on this and said, this is an example of how everything that we knew from the start, that this committee was set up for no reason but to take down hillary clinton. since then, the republicans have been trying to improve that this is a legitimate investigation into the deaths of four americans. this is what they have to prove today, that this is a serious investigation, that the questions they are asking our serious, that they do want to talk about hillary clinton's e-mails, but they need to do it in a way that does not look political. that is very hard to do at this point because of the lens

through which everyone is watching the hearing. betty: margaret, the democrats do think this is partisan. haven't they asked for the republicans to pay for, to foot the bill for this committee? margaret: yes, they have a very big number. something like $17 million that they want to be remembers for the hearing. -- reimbursed for the hearing. yes, it is partisan. but it does not mean that it is without merit. i think that is why we are paying so much attention today. even though they got off track on the e-mails because the fbi is going to have the final word on hillary clinton's e-mails, the e-mails had some part to play because they were not all turned over and trey gowdy did not have one of the e-mails that just breaks your heart, where ambassador stevens is pleading for help because the situation

in libya in general and in benghazi had completely deteriorated. se must have known that he wa walking into a small war. that e-mail is there now. but what the committee does not want to do is make this about the e-mails. that sense of the red flags. that makes it partisan, partisan, partisan. i think they will have to bring a few e-mails into this. betty: do you agree? steve: i do. the democrats on this committee have stuck around for this day and this day only. they have every reason to have quit this committee before now. they have said it is partisan and not legitimate. betty: you are hearing elijah cummings say that too. steve: they have stuck around to get their say during this hearing. early --ot reaction

reactionarily look like they are not taking this seriously and are just defending hillary clinton. betty: i was looking at this come at the democrats on this committee. what line of questioning might you expect from them so that they don't look partisan? they put out a very large report a few days ago that called into question a lot of what this committee has investigated so far. they have done tons of interviews. the information has proved to that while there were mistakes clinton wasillary not at fault and that this is a partisan witch hunt. to say thatt them again and again and again and draw attention to the report and use the talking points that they had before this.

it is the tone which with they do it that they have to be careful about. we know what they are going to say. tragedy, thata hillary clinton is not at fault. the questions will reflect that in the way that only house hearing questions can. at the same time, they have to be careful about the town, the political tone, which with they do it. betty: just hang on for a moment. we are going to take a quick commercial break. margaret, stay with us in washington. we are awaiting hillary clinton's opening remarks. >> instead of being cross-jurisdictional, republicans just crossed them off the list. last weekend, the chairman told the republican colleagues to shut up, to stop talking about -- ♪

>> setting forth the lessons and all of the answers. betty: that is the ranking

member of the benghazi committee, elijah cummings. he has already said this committee was formed as a partisan attack against hillary clinton. we expect to hear from her as she is patiently sitting listening to those remarks. we will hear her remarks first and then the testifying begin. going to bring back margaret carlson in washington, who has also been sitting there patiently and following this with us. and steve yaccino. publict, on the american , we are focused on this all day long, but how focused do you think the american public is going to be on her result and whether that is going to affect her campaign and political standing? margaret: i think it will affect her campaign. just as the debate did. this is going to be eight hours.

here is what is going to affect it. about four minutes of it. whatever the press picks up on. whatever are the highlights. people simply don't have the time to watch the hearing. we will see what comes out of it. remember what came out of the last one was the 30 seconds in which she really late into , whatssman gary saying matters is that these lives were lost, really scolding him. we are not going to see a scolding today. when you look at it, that was a miss. we do want to know what happened. we do want to prevent what happened. one of the things the republicans are going to bring up is that what if she had ed ambassador stevens and why didn't she? is thets answer to that

republicans would not have spent another dime on security for ambassadors. it is not what they are doing these days. even if she had, it would not have happened. betty: hang on. thank you so much. just hang on, as well. stand by. we are going to be listening in on this hearing. for those of you just joining us, the committee on benghazi is underway at this moment. we have just heard from trey gowdy, the chairman who has been under fire for holding this hearing in the first place. elijah coming scum a right now, is speaking as well. he really delivered -- elijah cummings is speaking right now, as well. he delivered his remarks. and here we go. the terroristton: and at at our compound

the cia post in benghazi, libya on september 11, 2012 took the lives of four brave americans, ambassador chris stevens, sean smith, glenn doherty, and tyrone woods. i'm here to honor the service of those four men. the courage of the diplomatic security agency. and the cia officers who risked their lives that night. and the work their colleagues do every single day all over the world. i knew and admired chris stevens . he was one of our nation's most accomplished diplomats. liked to say that he had sand in his shoes because he was always moving, always working, especially in the middle east, that he came to know so well.

when the revolution broke out in libya, we named chris as our envoy to the opposition. there was no easy way to get him into benghazi to begin gathering information and meeting those libyans who were rising up against the murderous dictator gaddafi, but he found a way to get himself there on a greek cargo ship, just like a 19th century american envoy. -- very was very minor much 21st century hard-nosed diplomacy. it is a testament to the relationship that he built in following on the day the awareness of his death, tens of thousands of libyans poured into the streets in benghazi.

they help signs reading "thugs don't represent benghazi or , sorry, people of america, this is not the behavior of our islam or our profit." chris stevens, a friend to all libyans. although i didn't have the privilege of meeting sean smith personally, he was a valued member of our state department family. an air force veteran, he was in information management officer who had served in pretoria, baghdad, montréal, and the hague. tyrone woods and glenn doherty worked for the cia. they were killed by mortar fire

at the cia outpost in benghazi a short distance from the diplomatic compound. they were both former navy seals and trained paramedics with distinguished records of service , including in iraq and afghanistan. as secretary of state, i had the honor to lead and the responsibility to support nearly 70,000 diplomats and development experts across the globe. losing any one of them, as we did in iraq, afghanistan, mexico, haiti, and libya during my tenure was deeply painful for our entire state department and usaid family and for me personally. asked chris toho .o to libya as our envoy

i was the one who recommended him to be our ambassador to the president. after the attacks, i stood next to president obama as marines carried his casket and those of the other three americans off the plane at andrews air force base. i took responsibility and as part of that, before i left office, i launched reforms to better protect our people in the field and help reduce the chance of another tragedy happening in the future. benghazi has in been scrutinized by a nonpartisan, hard-hitting accountability review board, seven prior congressional investigations, multiple news organizations, and, of course, our law enforcement and

intelligence agencies. so, today, i would like to share three observations about how we can learn from this tragedy and move forward as a nation. lead in arica must dangerous world and our diplomats must continue representing us in dangerous places. sendsate department people to more than 270 coast -- posts in 170 countries around the world. chris stevens understood that diplomats must operate in many notes where our soldiers do , where there are no other boots on the ground, and safety is far from guaranteed. for justhe volunteered those assignments. we will nevertood

prevent every act of terrorism or achieve perfect security and that we, inevitably, must accept a level of risk to protect our country and advance our interests and values. make no mistake, the risks are real. terrorists have killed more than 65 american diplomatic personnel since the 1970's and more than 100 contractors and locally employed staff. 2001, there have been more than 100 attacks on u.s. diplomatic facilities around the world. if you ask our most experienced ambassadors, they will tell you they can't do their jobs for us from bunkers. it would compound the tragedy of benghazi if chris stevens' death

and the death of the other three americans ended up undermining the work to which he and they devoted their lives. ,e have learned the hard way when america is absent, especially from unstable places, there are consequences. extremism takes root, aggressors seeks to fill the vacuum, and security everywhere is threatened, including here at home. that is why chris was in benghazi. it is why he had served previously in syria, egypt, saudi arabia, and jerusalem during the second intifada. nobody knew the dangers of libya better. a weak government, extremist groups, rampant instability. but chris chose to go to benghazi because he understood america had to be represented

their at that pivotal time. libya wasat eastern where the revolution had begun and that unrest could do -- derail the country's fragile transition to democracy. gained a foothold, they would have the chance to destabilize the entire region, including egypt and tunisia. knew how urgent it was to ensure that the weapons. he had left strewn across the country -- that the weapons moammar gadhafi had left strewn across the country, including shoulder fired missiles that could shoot a plan out of the sky, did not fall into the wrong hands. the nearest israeli airport is a day's drive from the libyan border. above all, chris understood that most people in libya or anywhere

reject the extremist argument that violence can ever be a path to dignity or justice. that is what those thousands of libyans were saying after they learned of his debt. he understood that there was no thetitute for going beyond embassy walls and doing the hard work of relationships. retreat from the world is not an option. america cannot shrink from our responsibility to lead. that does not mean we should ever return to the go it alone foreign policy of the past, a foreign policy that puts boots a first choices rather than a last resort. quite the opposite. we need creative, confident leadership all of america's

strengths and values, leadership that integrates unbalances the tools of diplomacy, development, and defense. at the heart of that effort must be dedicated professionals might chris stevens and his colleagues who put their lives on the line ,or a country, our country because they believed that america is the greatest force for peace and progress america has ever known. --second observation is this we have a responsibility to provide our diplomats with the resources and support they need to do their jobs as safely and effectively as possible. after previous deadly attacks, leaders from both parties and both branches of government came together to determine what went wrong and how to fix it for the future. that is what happened during the reagan administration.

when hezbollah attacked our people,and killed 63 including 17 americans, and then, in a later attack, attacked our marine barracks and killed so many more. those two attacks in beirut resulted in the deaths of 258 americans. it is what happened during the clinton administration when al qaeda bombed our embassies in kenya and tanzania, killing more than 200 people, wounding more , and killing 12 americans. it is what happened during the bush administration after 9/11. part of america's strength is we

learn, we adapt, and we get stronger. after the benghazi attacks, i asked ambassador thomas pickering, one of our most distinguished and longest serving diplomats, along with admiral mike mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff appointed by president george w. bush to lead and accountability review board. this is an institution that the congress set up after the terrible attacks in beirut. there have been 18 previous accountability review boards. only two have ever made any of their findings public. the one following the attacks on our embassies in east africa and the one following the attack on benghazi. the accountability review board did not pull a single punch. they found systemic problems and

management deficiencies into state department bureaus. two state department bureaus. the recommended 29 changes. i pledged that it when i left office, they would be on the way to implementation and they were. more marines were slated for deployment to high threat embassies. additional security agents were being hired and trained. secretary kerry has continued this work. but there is more to do and no administration can do it alone. congress has to be our partner, as it has been after previous tragedies. for example, the accountability review board and subsequent investigations have recommended improved training for our officers before they deploy to the field, but efforts to establish a modern joint training center are being held

up by congress. the men and women who serve our country deserve better. finally, there is one more observation i would like to share. countries as 112 secretary of state. every time i did, i felt great pride and honor representing the country that i love. we need leadership at home to match our leadership abroad. leadership that puts national security ahead of politics and ideology. our nation has a long history of bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy and national security. not that we always agree, far from it. but we do come together when it counts. state, i worked

with the republican chairman of the senate foreign relations committee to pass a landmark treaty with russia on nuclear arms. i worked with the republican leader, senator mitch mcconnell, to open up burma, now myanmar, two democratic change. i know it is possible to find common ground because i have done it. we should debate on the basis of fact, not fear. we should resist denigrating the patriotism or loyalty of those with whom we disagree. .o i'm here despite all the previous investigations and all the talk about partisan agendas, i'm here to honor those we lost and to do what i can to aid those who serve us still. my challenge to you, members of the committee, is the same challenge i put to myself. the trust they of american people have bestowed

upon us. they expect us to lead, to learn the right lessons, to rise above partisanship, and to reach for statesmanship. that is what i tried to do every day as secretary of state and it is what i hope we will all strive for here today and into the future. thank you. >> thank you, madam secretary. i did not cut off your opening at all, nor would i think about doing so because the subject matter is critically important and you deserve to be heard. -- and just simply note i don't plan on cutting off any of your answers. our members have questions that we believe are worthy of being answered. i would simply note that we do plan to ask all of the questions and in whatever precision you can give to the answers without giving short shrift to any of the answers would be much appreciated. with that, i would recognize the

gentleman from illinois. >> good morning, secretary clinton. jake sullivan wrote a memo on 21, 2011, thet day before the rebels took tripoli. he titles that "secretary clinton's leadership on libya." he describes you as a critical voice and the public face of the u.s. effort in libya and instrumental in tightening the noose around gaddafi and his regime. that did not come easy, did it? you faced considerable opposition. i can pause when you read your notes from your staff. >> one thing at a time, congressman. >> ok. that did not come easy, did it? the public face that i just mentioned? >> i know this is an issue that the committee has raised and it

really boils down to why were we in libya, why did the united states join with our nato and european allies, join with our arab partners to protect the people of libya against the murderous planning of gaddafi, why did we take a role alongside ?ur partners in doing so there were a number of reasons for that. tohink it is important remind the american people where we were at the time when the rose up demanding freedom and democracy. threatens them with genocide, with hunting them down like cockroaches. we were then approached with great intensity, our closest allies in europe, people who felt very strongly, the french, the british, but others as well,

that they could not stand idly by and permit that to happen so close to their shores with the unintended consequences that they worried about. they asked for the united states to help. we did not immediately say yes. we did an enormous amount of due diligence in meeting with not only our european and arab partners, but also with those heading up the transitional national council. we had experienced diplomats who were digging deep into what was happening in libya and what the possibilities were before we agreed to provide very specific, andted help to the european arab efforts. we did not put one american soldier on the ground. we did not have one casualty. i think by many measures, the cooperation between nato and arab forces was quite remarkable and something that we want to learn more lessons from. >> secretary clinton, you were

meeting with opposition within the state department from very senior career diplomats, in fact, and they were saying that it was going to produce a net negative for u.s. military intervention. for example, in a march 9, 2011 e-mail discussing what has he come known as the "libby options memo," ambassador stephen maule and one of the top career -- "in theaid this case of our diplomatic history, when we have provided material or tactical military support to all seeking to drive their leaders from power, no matter how do just their cause, it has tended to produce net negatives for their interest in the long term for those countries." we will come back to that in a minute. overruled those career diplomats. they report to you and you are the chief diplomat of the united states. read the note if you need to. [laughter] i'm not done with my

question. i'm just giving you the courtesy of reading your notes. sec. clinton: that's all right. >> they were pushing back. but you overcame those objections. big you had another obstacle, didn't you? that was the white house itself. there were senior voices within the white house that were opposed to military action. vice president biden, department -- department of defense, the national security council, secretary gates, but you persuaded president obama to intervene militarily. isn't that right? sec. clinton: i think it is important to point out that there were many in the state department who believed it was very much in america's interest to protect the libyan people, to join with our european allies and our arab partners. the ambassador, who had to be withdrawn from libya because of direct threats to his physical safety, but who knew libya very advocate fortrong

doing what we could to assist the europeans and the arabs. it is fair to say there were s and varying opinions about what to do, how to do it, and the like. at the end of the day, this was the president's decision. views, i said in our did not favorite until i had done the due diligence speaking with not just people within our government and within the government of all of the other nation, but also meeting in person with the gentleman who had assumed a lead role in the transitional national council. it is fair to say that this was a difficult decision. i would not sit here and say otherwise. at the end of the day, in large the strongcause of

appeals of our european allies and the arab league resolution, those were unprecedented requests. in recommending to the president that there was a way to do it. the president very clearly had a limited instruction about how to proceed. the first planes that flew were french planes. i think what the united states provided with some of our unique capacity. but the bulk of the work militarily was done by europeans and arabs. sellingnk you are under yourself. you got the state department on board, you convinced the objections of the vice president and the secretary of defense, and the national security council. you had another obstacle then, the united nations. you were able to persuade the russians of all things to

abstain. had you not been successful in abstention, the security council resolution 1973 would not have passed because the russians had a veto. you overcame that obstacle as well, isn't that right? abstention, the security councilsec. clinton: it after doing my due diligence and optionsg the various and the potential consequences of pursuing each of them, i was in favor of the united states joining with our european allies and our arab partners and i also was in favor of obtaining un security council support because i thought that would provide greater legitimacy. in that, our basset or to the u.n. was very influential and success will in making the case to her colleagues. behest of was at the an direction of the president. >> and you presented the arguments. sec. clinton: i have been in a number of situation room

discussions. i remember the decision over whether or not to launch the against the compound that might house bin laden. there was a split in the advisors. eventually, the president makes the decision. i supported doing what we could to support our european and arab partners in their effort on a humanitarian basis, a strategic basis, to prevent gadhafi from launching and carrying out mass massacres. >> there was another obstacle that you overcame and that was the arabs themselves. jake sullivan sent you an e-mail and he said, "i think you should call, it will be a painful 10 minutes, but you will be the one who delivered arab support your co -- support." that is an e-mail jake sullivan sent to you asking you to call the head of the arab league.

you were able to overcome opposition within the state department, you were able to persuade the president, you were able to persuade the united nations and the international community, you made the call to the arabs and brought them home, you saw it, you drove it, you articulated it, and you persuaded people. did i get that wrong? sec. clinton: congressman, i was the secretary of state. my job was to conduct the diplomacy and the diplomacy consisted of a long series of meetings and phone calls here in our country and abroad to take the measure of what people were saying and whether they meant it. we had heard sometimes before from countries saying, the united states should go do this and when we said, what will you do in support of us, there was not much coming forth. this time, if they wanted us to support them in what they saw as an action vital to their respective national security interests, i wanted to be sure that they were going to bear the

bulk of the load. and, in fact, they did. what the united states did, as i have said, is use our unique every call, if you wanted in monetary terms, slightly over $1 billion is what the united states committed in support of our allies, slightly what we spent in iraq in less than one day. >> let me reclaim my time. sec. clinton: they had asked for us to help them. whenu summed it up best you e-mailed your senior staff and you said of this interchange, "it is good to remind ourselves and the rest of the world that this could not have happened without us." and you are right, secretary clinton. i libya policy could not have happened without you because you were its chief architect. said,ador mullins "long-term things were not going to turn out very well." he was right.

after your plan, things in libya today are a disaster. sec. clinton: we will have more time to talk about this because that is not a view i will love scribe to -- i will ascribe to. >> i want to recognize the gentleman. >> thank you for being here. i want to start with the number one question that republicans inim has not been answered eight previous investigations. yesterday, the chairman wrote an this is his said top unanswered question about benghazi. libya "why are people in and benghazi made so many requests for additional security personnel and equipment and why are those requests denied?" i will give you a chance to answer in a minute. as you know, this question has been asked many times and

answered many times. let's start with the accountability review board. aboutnt ago, you talked admiral mullins. another veryted distinguished gentleman, ambassador pickering. underl mullins served republican administrations. ambassador pickering, who i have a phenomenal amount of respect as part of 40 years our diplomatic corps. he served under george h.w. bush. he also served as u.n. ambassador rice -- ambassador under reagan. now, i'm just wondering, let me go back to that question. why people in libya and benghazi

made so many requests -- there seems to be an implication that the arb, the accountability review board, was not independent. i think the chairman said they were hand-picked by you. of course, that is done by law. would you comment on those two things? sec. clinton: i would be happy to. you know, as i said in my opening statement, i take responsibility for what happened in benghazi. i held responsibility for all 70,000 people working at the state department. i take that very seriously. as i said with respect to security requests in benghazi when i testified in january 2013, those requests and issues related to security were rightly handled by the security professionals in the department. i did not see them, i did not approve them, i did not deny

them. ambassador pickering and admiral mullen make this case very clearly in their testimony before your committee and in their public comments. these issues would not ordinarily come before the secretary of state and they did not, in this case. as secretary, i was committed to taking aggressive measures to personnel and facilities were as safe as possible. when the nonpartisan, critical report from the accountability review board came forward, i took it very seriously and that is why i embraced all of their recommendations and created a new position within the diplomatic security bureau specifically to evaluate high risk posts.

i think it is important to mention that the diplomatic who wereprofessionals reviewing these requests, along with those who were serving in war zones and hotspots the world have great expertise and experience in keeping people safe. -- mosto on hotels, importantly, that is what they do every day for everybody who served our country as a diplomat or development recessional. -- professional. i was not going to second-guess judgment,bstitute my which is not based on experience that they have in keeping people safe for there's. the changes that were recommended by the accountability review board are ones that we thought made sense and began quickly to implement. conducting after

more than 100 interviews, identified specific employee at the state department who denied these requests. it was deputy assistant secretary of the bureau of , and she didcurity come before the oversight committee. the arb report was very critical of her. it was also critical of her two supervisors, principal deputy assistant secretary and the essay state secretary -- assistant secretary for diplomatic security. the oversight committee found the same answer as arb, that this official denied these requests and found no evidence that you approved or denied them. is, republicans keep asking the same question over and over again and pretend they do not know the answer. in 2013, the republican chairman

of five house committees issued a report falsely accusing you personally of denying these requests. day, the chairman of the oversight committee went on national television and accused you of the same thing. can we play that clip? [video clip] >> the secretary of state was just wrong. she said she did not participate in this and am few months before the -- attack, she denied security in her signature in april 2012. >> do you remember that allegation, adam secretary? ms. clinton: i do. >> when the washington fact

claim, looked into this they gave it for pinocchio's. it turns out the republicans had a copy of the cable but did not tell the american people that your so-called signature was a stamp that appears on millions of cables from the state department every single year, is that right? ms. clinton: that is correct. my goal hasretary, been to gather facts and defend the truth. tot year i asked your staff compile and asked and answered database, and the specific issue was answered thoroughly. on monday we put out another report in this issue was addressed again, but the republicans want to keep this attack going so they are now trying to argue that we have new e-mails that raises new questions. the truth is, we have reviewed these e-mails and they do not

contradict a previous conclusion, they confirm them, they corroborate them. we have reviewed e-mails from ambassador stevens and they show that he asked for more security. nothing we have obtained, not the new interviews or new e-mails, changes the basic fact we have known for three years. secretary clinton, let me ask one final question, and please take as much time as you want to answer this. there is no evidence to support claims that you rejected security requests so some have argued that since you knew the danger was increasing in libya, he should have been in there ed decisions about whether there should be 5, 7, or nine security officers at any given post. i know you have answered and you

might want to just elaborate. you,linton: thank congressman. i think there has been some confusion and i welcome the opportunity to try to clarify it to the best of my ability with respect, as you rightly point out, the claims made about the cables. i think you have explained the fact which is it is the long-standing tradition of the state department for cables from around the world to be sent to, and sent from the state department under the signature, over the signature of the secretary of state. it is a stamp. it is part of the tradition. there are millions of them. they are sorted through and directed to the appropriate personnel. there are of them ever comes to my attention, none of them with respect to security regarding benghazi did. the other point, which i thank

you for raising so that perhaps i can speak to this one as well, there is of course information about there obtaining increasingly dangerous environment in libya. country, but in particular in eastern libya, and we were aware of that and we were certainly taking that into account. there was no actionable intelligence on september 11 or even before that date about any kind of planned attack on our compound in benghazi. debatese were a lot of apparently that went on within the security professionals about what to provide, because they did have to prioritize. the accountability board pointed that out. the state department has

historically not had the amount of money that we thought would be necessary to do what was required to protect everyone, so of course there had to be priorities. that was something the security professionals dealt with. i think both admiral mullen and ambassador pickering made it very clear that they thought the high threat post should move to a higher level of scrutiny, and we had immediately moved to do that. >> thank the gentleman. the chair would recognize the lady from indiana. >> good morning. ms. clinton: good morning. >> drawing on what you just said, that very few but no request for benghazi came to your attention, i would like to show you something.

this style represents -- this pile represents the e-mails you received in 2011 about libya. pile represents the e-mails you sent from early 2012 until the day of the attack. there are 795 e-mails in this pile. there are 67 e-mails in this pile in 2012, and i am troubled by what i see here. so my questions relate to these. in this hield in 2011, i see daily updates, sometimes hourly updates from your staff about benghazi and chris stevens. inn i look at this pile 2012, i only see a handful of e-mails to you from your see

million -- senior staff about benghazi. we know from talking to your senior advisers that they knew, and many of them are here today, they knew to send you important information, issues that were of importance to you. by your ownonclude records that there was a lack of interest in libya in 2012. let's first focus on this pile and what was happening in libya in 2011. we had an ambassador to libya, ambassador christ, and you said you have hand-picked steve -- chris stevens. e-mails, most provided last february, they show that in march of 2011, you had chris stevens join you in paris where you were meeting with the leader of the libyan revolution. as youaris, that is when

talked about chris stevens went into benghazi april 5 of 2011 on that greek cargo ship. how long was he expected to stay? what were chris stevens' orders about libya and benghazi specifically? ms. clinton: chris stevens was asked to go to benghazi to do reconnaissance, to try to figure of the were the leaders insurgency who were based in benghazi, but their goals were, what they understood, what would happen if they were successful. it was the hard-nosed 21st century diplomacy that is rooted in the old-fashioned, necessary work of building relationships and gathering information. >> how long was he anticipated to stay? ms. clinton: it was open ended. in discussing it with him we were unsure as to how productive it would be, whether it would be

appropriate for him to stay for a long time or a short time. that was very much going to depend on chris' own assessment. we knew we were sending someone who understood the area, who understood the language, who understood a lot of the personalities because of the historical study that he used to love to do, and we were going to be guided by what he decided. >> i would like to draw your attention to an e-mail found at cap one. it is an opt center e-mail that was forwarded to you from whom they dean on sunday, march 22 -- 27th that says at the bottom of the e-mail "the current game plan", but at the bottom it says "a state of up

to 30 days." i believe initially the goal was to go in for 30 days. were you personally briefed on his security plan prior to him going into libya? if i'm not mistaken, gaddafi's forces were still battling the rebels. ms. clinton: that is right. >> were you personally briefed before you sent mr. stevens into benghazi? ms. clinton: i was personally told by the officials who were in the state department who were chris, who above were making the plans for him to go in, that it was going to the expeditionary diplomacy. it was going to require him to make a lot of judgments on the ground about what he could accomplish and including where it would be safer him to be, and how long for him to say.

i think the initial decision was up to 30 days and reassess, but it could have been 10 days or 60 days, depending on what he found and reported back to us. >> who were those officials? ms. clinton: there were a number of officials. >> that were advising you on the security specifically. ms. clinton: this was a particular concern of the assistant secretary for the bureau in which chris ware. >> i'm sorry, what was that person's name? ms. clinton: assistant secretary the assistantand secretary for a diplomatic security and other officials within the state department. i think it is fair to say, this was a risky undertaking and it was something that was, as i said in my opening statement, more reminiscent of the way diplomacy was practiced in the 19th century because we did not

have the internet. we did not have instantaneous communication. obviously not that kind, but it was not that different in degree from what we had done before, and it was a risky undertaking, and one that chris volunteered for. >> it was so risky, i would like to pull up another e-mail from the ops center from this -- ms. abedin, indicating the situation had worsened to the point where stevens is considering departing from benghazi. this is within five days of him going in. were you aware of that concern? ms. clinton: we were aware because we were really counting on chris to guide us and give us the information from the ground. we had no other sources.

there was no american outpost. there was no american military presence. other americans representing different agencies were able to get into benghazi and begin to do the same work, but they of course could not do that work overtly, which is why we wanted a diplomat who could be publicly meeting with people to get the best assessment. it was always going to be a constant risk and we knew that. >> let me go back to the risk in 2011, because there was a lot of communication from your senior staff, from the state department to you or from you in 2011. in fact, that is when qaddafi fell. when we go to 2012, libya, benghazi, the staff, they seem to fall off your radar and the

situation was getting much worse. let me just share for you in your records that we have reviewed, there is not one inail to you or from you 2012 when an explosive device went off our compound in april. there is not a single e-mail in your records about that explicit device. so my question is, this was a very important mission in 2011. you sent chris stevens there but when we wereact -- what could 2012, they not tell you in an e-mail? not conduct i did most of the business that i did on behalf of our country on e-mail. i conducted it in meetings. i read massive amounts of memos, a great deal of classified information. i made a lot of secure phone

calls. i was in and out of the white house. there were a lot of things that happened that i was aware of and that i was reacting to. if you were to be in my office at the state department, i did not have a computer. i did not do the vast majority of my work on e-mail. -- i do not want you to have a mistaken impression about what i did and how i did it. most of my work was not done on e-mails with my closest aides and officials in the state department, officials with the government and the white house, and people around the world. >> thank you for sharing that, because i'm sure it is not all done on e-mails and there are meetings and discussions. when our compound to a second attack on june 6, no e-mails at all but i am interested in

knowing, who were you meeting with, who were you huddling with, how were you informed about those things? there is nothing in the e-mails that talks about two significant tax -- attacks on our compounds. i would be happy to explain. every morning when i arrived at the state department between 8:00 and 8:30, i had a one-on-one briefing from the representative of the central intelligence agency who shared with me the highest level of classified information that i was to be aware of on a daily basis. with thed a meeting top officials of the state department every day that i was in town. that is where a lot of information, including threats and attacks on our facilities was shared. i also had a weekly meeting every monday with all of the officials said that i could be

brought up to date on any issue they were concerned about. during the day, i received hundreds of pages of memos, many of them classified, some of them so top-secret they were brought into my office in a locked briefcase that i had to read and immediately returned to the courier. i was constantly at the white house in the situation room, meeting with the national security advisor and others, and meeting with others in the state department. there was a lot going on during every day. i did not e-mail during the day, except on rare occasions when i was able to, but i did not conduct the business that i did primarily on e-mail. that was not how i gathered information, assessed information, asked the hard questions. >> it appears leaving benghazi was not an option in 2012. ms. clinton: if i could just

quickly respond, there was never a recommendation from any intelligence official in our government, from any official in the state department, or from any other person with knowledge of our presence in benghazi, to shut down benghazi, even after the two attacks that the compound suffered. and perhaps, you would wonder why but i could tell you it was thought the mission in benghazi, in conduction -- in conjunction with the cia issue was vital. >> i just want to clarify. when i was asking secretary clinton a question of moment ago, i mentioned an e-mail that had gone from ambassador stevens to secretary lamb. what i meant to say was a cable. >> the record will reflect that.

miss duckworth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pleasedy clinton, i am you finally have the opportunity to be here. i just want to clarify with regards to the april, june 2012 incidents, i believe the procedure the state department had was to actually hold what are called emergency action committee hearings on the ground immediately, and in fact there were at least five on record for june at all -- alone. that is the correct her seizure for handling such instances, correct? ms. clinton: that is correct. >> my focus is to make sure that we never put brave americans like ambassador stevens, sean smith, ever on the ground again anywhere in the world without the protection they so rightly deserve.

having flown combat missions myself and in some dangerous places, i understand the dedication of our men and women. i have a special affinity for the diplomatic corps because these are folks that go in without the benefit of weapons, military might, armed only with america's values and diplomatic words and a handshake to further our nation's interest. i am determined to make sure that we safeguard in the name of our heroic dead, our men and women in the diplomatic corps around the world. the bottom line for me, i'm a mission-driven person, with respect to examining what went wrong in benghazi it is clear. let's learn from those mistakes and figure out what we need to do to fix them. i have only been in congress, not quite three years. i have served on two other

committees that have looked at the benghazi attack. so i have had a chance to really look at all of these documents. ,ne of the things that i saw and i would like you to discuss this, the department of state and the department of defense at the time seems to have not had the most ideal cooperation when it came to threat or security analysis. i do know that over the past decade to have established a tradition of working together on the ground in dangerous regions that has increased over times. as a member of the armed services committee which also looked at the benghazi attack, i am concerned the interagency cooperation was not sufficient in the weeks and months leading up to the september 11, 2012 attacks. concisione, the joint

-- contingency exercises, if we this mighted any, have helped the state and dod to identify and fix existing vulnerabilities in the temporary mission facility. regular communications between africom and the special mission facilitatedld have the pre-positioning of military assets in a region where there were very real questions to protect our diplomatic personnel. within the weeks of the terrorist attack, following that, i understand you partnered with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to deploy five interagency employment assessment teams to assess our security posture and needs at, at least 19 high threat posts. in fact, the deputy secretary testified in december 2012 that the state department and dod

initiative created a remap for emerging -- a roadmap for emerging security challenges. why did you partner with the department of defense, and was it effective in addressing the shortfalls in benghazi and applying it for other locations? ms. clinton: thank you very much, and thank you for your service and particularly, your knowledge about these issues arising from your own military service and the service on the committee's. challenging to get military assets into countries that do not want them. in fact, that has been a constant issue that we have worked between the state department and the department of defense. the libyans made it very clear from the very beginning, they did not want any american

military or foreign military at all in their country. i concluded is that we needed to have these assessments because even if we could not post our own military in the country, we needed to have a faster reaction. agree 100% with the findings of the armed services committee in the house and other investigations. our military did everything they could. ,hey turned over every rock tried to deploy as best they could to get to benghazi. it was beyond the geographic range. nearbyd not have assets has we do not have a lot of installations and military personnel that are in that immediate region. following what happened in the chairman of the joint chiefs, general dempsey and i agree to send out mixed securityour diplomatic

and they are security experts from the defense department to get a better idea of the 19 high threat posts, and that is exactly what we did. it gave us some guidance to have better planning ahead of time. on malala testified it would be beyond the scope of our military provide immediate reaction to 170 posts. we do get help from our military in war zones. the military has been incredibly supportive of our embassy in , but we have aad lot of hotspots, and very dangerous places that are not in military conflict areas where we have american military presence. we wanted to figure out how we could get more quickly a fast reaction team to try to help prevent what happened in benghazi. process that goes

out, and initially looked at the 19 posts, that is great they come back with a report. it is like the seven reports and we have another committee. we never act on them and it does not help. what i want to know is, with these committees, they came back with their recommendations to you. are they institutionalized? what has been done with this process that it is not a snapshot in time in reaction to the benghazi attack? i want to make sure at the very least we are continuing cooperation, or that there is some institutionalization of the review process to make sure it is not those 19 posts, if there is a shift, what has been done? ms. clinton: that was one of the changes i instituted before i left and i'm confident that secretary kerry and his

counterpart secretary carter at the defense department are continuing that because i think it was very useful. certainly it was useful for our security professionals and our diplomats to be partnered in that way with the defense department. presencelly, the only at some of our facilities has been marines. know, marines were there not for the purpose of personnel protection. they were there to destroyed classified material and equipment. part of the challenge we have faced in some of these hotspot dangerous areas is how we get more of a presence. after benghazi, we were able to get marines deployed to tripoli. this is a constant effort between the state department and the defense department, but it is my strong belief that the process has been and should be

institutionalized, and we keep learning from it. >> i would like to touch on the quadrennial reviews. even as a young platoon leader platoon, we got and reviewed the current 20 review an individual soldier an idea of what the defense department is trying to do. i understand you initiated something similar in the state department. there has been discussion already about the culture at the state department, especially when it comes to security. defensehe department of review is very good at instilling cultural throughout the department. can you talk a little bit about how and why you decided to do the review for the state department? was it useful? is it a waste of time and we

should not be wasting money on it? ms. clinton: i hope it is not the latter. i learned about the quadrennial defense serving on the arms committee of the senate. i agree with you completely. it is a very successful roadmap as to where we should be going, and i am impressed that as a platoon leader it is something you took into account. when i came to the state department, there had never been anything like this done. fightate department would with whatever money -- for whatever money they could get from congress. entire budgete and it was difficult to explain effectively what we were trying to achieve, so i did implement the first quite journey overview. -- quadrennial review. one of the key questions we were addressing, what is the balance between risk and reward when it

comes to our diplomats and development professionals? the first thing i heard when i got to the state department was a litany of complaints from a lot of our most experienced diplomats that they were being hamstrung. the security requirements were so intense they were basically unable to do their job. for the security professionals who were all part of this, they were saying, we do not want you to go beyond the fence. we cannot protect you in all these dangerous circumstances. you balance that, and it is a constant balancing of risk and reward in terms of what we hope our diplomats and development professionals can do. it has been done twice now. secretary kerry has done the i hope itr, and becomes as important and as much of a roadmap as the qdr has four the military services.

>> the chair would know recognize ms. robie. >> good morning. ms. clinton: good morning. my colleagues have focused on your relationship with chris stevens and why you sent him into benghazi in 2011. it is not so clear from everything that we have reviewed that you had a vision in benghazi going forward into 2012 and beyond. that there was confusion and uncertainty within your own department about libya. quite frankly, it appears that you were a large cause of that uncertainty. we have seen all the day-to-day updates and concern early in 2011. i heard what you said to my .--s ague missed brooks m

brooks. libya in benghazi belong to you and from your records that we saw, we saw a drop in your interest in libya and benghazi in 2012. not only do the records show your drop in interest, it was noticed by your own staff. i say this because i want to point you to an e-mail in early february 2012 between two staffers at your libya desk that says, "you did not know whether we still had a pregnant -- presence in benghazi. they can be found at tab 31. said, one writes to another about an encounter that she had with you, "also the secretary asked last week if we still have a presence in

benghazi. i think she would be upset to hear yes, we do, but because we do not have enough security they this isockdown." i say very troubling to me because it raises several issues that i would like to ask you about. , am struck by the first part "the secretary asked last week if we still have a presence in benghazi." you pointed out to ms. brooks based upon the e-mail stacks that you engaged in a lot of conversations and briefings, so i am assuming this conversation with this member of your staff took place in one of those briefings. but then she sent this e-mail asking about this. yourw can this be a two of staffers are e-mailing about whether you knew that we had a presence in benghazi in 2012,

with all your interest in libya in 2011, including your trip october 2011, and months later we come to find out you did not know if we had a presence. ms. clinton: i cannot comment on what has been reported. of course i knew we had a presence in benghazi and were evaluating what that presents should be. i knew exactly what we were doing in libya. , since it is important you have some very legitimate questions about what we were doing. majorited states played a role in the first election the libyan people had in 51 years. it was a successful election and they voted for moderates. they voted for the kind of people they wanted to govern them. we had a very successful effort that the united states supported, getting rid of gaddafi's remaining chemical

weapons. we supported the united nations and others. we were counteracting the proliferation of weapons. that is one reason there was a cia presence, because we were trying to figure out how to get those weapons out of the wrong hands and get them collected in a way and destroyed. in fact, we began reducing those heavy weapons stocks. we were working on providing transition assistance to the libyans. . met with the libyans i saw the libyans all during this period, and it was hard because a lot of them do what they wanted but did not know how to get from where they were to that goal. we did an enormous amount of work. .y two deputies went to libya other officials in the state department went to libya so there was a constant, continuing effort that i lead to try to see what we could do to help.

of the problems we faced is that the libyans did not really feel that they could welcome a peacekeeping mission. they could not welcome foreign troops to their soil. .hat made it really difficult it did not have to be american troops, it could have been from anywhere in the world that might have begun to secure their country. >> this e-mail says something very different. ms. clinton: i cannot speak to that. >> but this is your staff. if they had this conversation with you, why they would make it up. i want to move on. this e-mail makes me wonder about the vision for benghazi as they are asking, they are saying you asked if we still had a presence. we look at the second part of i think she"and

would be upset to hear yes, we do." ms. clinton: congresswoman, i have no recollection. page 31.o ms. clinton: we have members of congress visiting benghazi so of course i knew we had a presence in benghazi. i cannot speak to what someone heard or misheard. i think what is important, and i understand the underlying point of your question is, what were we doing about libya? and that is what i am trying to explain to you about what we were doing. get to the second part of the e-mail that suggested that we were in lockdown. lockdown, andn you have said on numerous occasions including in your opening statement, america must lead and we must represent in dangerous places.

do their jobs for us in bunkers." essentially what we know as there were not the required number of security on the ground in order for the individual to even move about the country to provide you with what you have reiterated on numerous occasions as being very important at that time, which is political reporting. tell me,on: could you who are the names on this e-mail that you are talking about? alice adalla and yenya sadareyes. ms. clinton: they were not on my staff. >> can you tell me who they were if they were not on your staff? ms. clinton: they were in the state department along with thousands of other people.

i get what you are saying and i want to focus on this, because i think it is a fair and important question. the facility in benghazi was a temporary facility. there had been no decision made as to whether or not it would be permanent. there was not even a consulate. our embassy was in tripoli. much of the work we were doing was going through the embassy. there was a very vigorous discussion on the part of people who were responsible for making a recommendation about benghazi as to what form of counsel at, what form of facility it should be. chris stevens believed it should be a formal consulate, but that was something that had to be worked out and there had not been a decision at the time that the attack took lace. -- took place. it was not a permanent facility and there were a number of questions that people were asking about whether it could or

should be. >> it is frustrating for us on this panel asking these questions to hear you in your opening statement talk about the responsibility you took for all 70,000 employees, yet i read you an e-mail that is a conversation between two of those employees and it seems like you are brushing it off as not having any knowledge. ms. clinton: i am just saying i have no recollection and it does not correspond with the facts. >> i have a few seconds left. ,n 2011 during the revolution then envoy stevens had 10 agents with him on the ground and in 2012 where it says the security situation deteriorated even further, there were only three agents assigned to benghazi. cannot even move anybody off of the facility to do the necessary

political reporting. my question is, why did you not knowledge because of your interest in 2011, the importance of having those security officers there to do what was so important, the political reporting? when an ambassador was there and brought two of the zone the night of the attack, which would meet the requisite five. if you could address that. ms. clinton: he did have five with him on september 11. >> he brought two with him and there were three there. ms. clinton: but the point was they were personal security so they were there to secure him. yes, he did bring two and when he got there he had five. the day before he went into benghazi. he went to a luncheon with

leading civic leaders, business leaders in benghazi. he felt very comfortable. it was his decision. ambassadors do not have to seek permission from the state department to travel around the country that they are assigned to. bydecided to go to benghazi taking two security officers with him and having three there. he had the requisite five that had been the subject of discussion between the embassy and state department security professionals. i am not going to in any way embassythat he or the got everything they requested. we know they did not from the accountability review board, from investigations done by the congress. we know that there were a lot of discussions about what was needed, particularly in benghazi

, and that the day that he died he had five security officers. a lot of security professionals who have reviewed this matter, even those who are critical that the state department did not do enough, have said the type of attack that took place would have been very difficult to repel. that is what we have to learn from. there are many lessons going back to beirut, going back to tehran and the takeover of our embassy, and going through these years. sometimes we learn lessons and we actually act and do the best we can, and there is a perfect terrible example of that with respect to what happened in benghazi. >> we will certainly never know what the outcome have been if there had been more agents. that is not with the professionals and experts

insecurity have concluded. >> it says that security was grossly inadequate. ms. clinton: it said that there were deficiencies within two bureaus and the state department, which we have moved to correct. and it also pointed out that the diplomatic security officers who were there acted heroically. there was not one single question about what they did, and they were overrun. it was unfortunate that the agreement we had with the cia annex, and when those brave men showed up that it was also not enough. >> we will discuss this more. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam secretary. you knew we had a presence? ms. clinton: of course. aware of thoseo

two attacks on our compound even though you did not e-mail? ms. clinton: yes, i was aware. and $4.717 months million as the ranking member pointed out in his opening statements and as we see today, this committee is simply not doing its job. i do not think it should have been formed in the first place. what we are hearing is an up session with e-mail, the idea that two fairly junior level staffers might not have gotten something wrong in what they heard or the information in an e-mail might in fact not be accurate or certainly not things that should be news to anybody. it is the obsession with the e-mails that takes us off of what should have been the task of this committee. i also find it interesting that final comments or to quote the arb report. and it we had to have it

was appropriate for the committees in congress to do the butstigations they did, that begs the question of why we have spent the $4.7 million on this. openingthe chairman's remarks, it was primarily a defense of the committee's existence. what we have figured out that is new and different, nothing. we have heard nothing, not even in today's hearing, a single solitary thing that has not been discussed repeatedly. we have learned absolutely nothing. yes, we have uncovered a trove of new information. in this age, i do not think there is ever and and to the e-mails. the question is, how we found anything substantively that tells us something different about what happened in benghazi? the answer to that question is no. i did not think this committee

should have been formed in the first place, but if it was going to be formed, the least we could do would be to actually focus on the four brave americans who were killed, why they were killed, and focus on benghazi. and we have not. mr. roskam's questions i found to be the most interesting, it was like he was running for president. he wanted to debate you on overall liberal -- libya policy. that is not about the attack on benghazi. that is not about what we could have done to better protect them. i think we have seen this committee is focused on you. i am the ranking member of the armed services committee. i do not see the department of defense or the cia. there were many other agencies involved but yours is the one they have obsessively focused on. i think that is a shame for a whole lot of reasons, but for one thing, this committee as it

has been in the news has been yet one more step in denigrating this institution. i think this institution needs more support, not less, so i wish we would stop doing that. , and thatned beirut was the first thought that occurred to me when this happened was, a democratic congress at the time did a fair and quick investigation of what was an unspeakable tragedy. two separate suicide bombings for months apart. it was clearly inadequate security, but the focus was not on partisanship, not on embarrassing the reagan administration, but in actually figuring out what happened and how we can better protect americans. i wanted to ask questions about what i think was the central issue. how do we have that presence in the world that you described in what is an increasingly dangerous world? , have traveled to pakistan

afghanistan, yemen, and other places, i am amazed at the willingness of our democratic core to put their lives at risk. how do you balance that decision? what i've heard more often from the diplomatic corps as they chase at the restrictions. i remember vividly being in the shower. from the like the ride airport to the embassy, which was 10 minutes and we were there for a few hours, and then out. personneldepartment lived there and when out amongst the community. how do you try and strike that balance of being present at the same time, meeting the security -- obligations, and who drives that decision? it seems to me and most decisions it is driven by the diplomatic corps there. if they take risks it is because they have decided to do it.

the security situation certainly better than the secretary and most everybody else. what is the proper way to strike that balance moving forward, to protect our personnel and fulfill their mission? i think that is the most important question and i would welcome congressional discussion and debate about this. it is what we tried to do, going back to congresswoman duckworth's question, what we tried to do in the quadrennial diplomacy review. that is exactly what we were facing. we have had diplomats and development professionals in war zones now for a number of years. we have had them in places that are incredibly unstable and dangerous because of ongoing conflicts. bias of thenk the diplomacy corps that they be there, because that is what they signed up for.

they know that if america is not represented, then we leave a vacuum and we lose our eyes and ears about what people are thinking and doing. it is certainly the hardest part of the job and many of our agencies and departments today, and it was for me in the state department. that is why i relied on the security professionals. 2009, the security professionals have been taking care of american diplomats in iraq, in afghanistan, in pakistan for years. they have learned a lot of lessons and they were forced to make tough decisions all the time. shower.ioned the kashaur, one of the high thread posts. since 2001, we have had 100 and

our facilities attack. if we were to shut them all down , we would be blinding ourselves so it is a constant balancing act. what are the risks and rewards for opening, maintaining and/or closing a site? i do not know there is any hard and fast rule we can adopt. we just have to get better at making that assessment. your question goes to the heart of it. you were guarded by our diplomatic security professionals. they had to ss, was it safe enough for a member of congress to come? how do we get him from the airport to the embassy? it will not surprise you to hear we have had attacks there as well as other places around the world. responsibility and the diplomatic security professionals did it right 999 times out of 1000.

it is deeply distressing to them when anything goes wrong. non-americans with some of these attacks on facilities. we have lost our locally employed staff. they never want to see any successful attack so they have to be right 100% of the time. the terrorists only have to be right once and that is why this is at the core of what i tried to do before even i got the accountability review board, going back to the qddr to find a better way to make those assessments. is, benghazi line on 9/11, 2012 was not the only dangerous place in the world and where these difficult decisions had to be made. make,her point i want to this was in 2012 so we were only a couple years into this, but secretary of defense ash carter wrote an editorial about the

impact of five years of budget abilitynty on the dod's to function. for five years we have gone threateneds, government shutdowns, actual shutdowns. next theyeek to the barely know what they can spend money on. one of the criticisms, there should have been more security, but if you do not have an appropriations bill, have is that complicate your job in trying to figure out what money you can spend? it veryton: it makes difficult, and this is a subject that we talked about all the time. how do you plan? have so manyow you diplomatic security officers in so many dangerous places, how do you know what you were going to have to be able to deploy?

where are you going to have to make the choices. prioritizationir which should not have to be the responsibility of the officials in the state department or defense department to try to guess what makes the most sense. we should have a much more orderly process for our budget. i will say again as secretary of state, the kind of dysfunction and failure to make decisions that we have been living with in our government hurts us. obvious ways, the like where are you going to deploy forces or where will we send security, but it hurts us as the great country that we are being viewed from abroad as unable to handle our own business. so it has a lot of consequences and is something that i wish we could get over and have our arguments about policy, have our arguments about substance, but

get back to regular order where we have the greatest nation in the world with a budget they can plan against as opposed to the uncertainty that has stopped us. >> thank you. the bottom line is, congress needs to do its job. ms. clinton: i would agree with that. >> i would be happy to give a couple -- a copy of my opening statement to the gentleman from washington. madam secretary, i talk a little bit slower than everybody else. ms. clinton: i lived in arkansas for a long time. >> some of the questions could get us a yes or no answer, that would be great, but i do want you to give us a full answer. washingtonrom mentioned there were no new facts brought out in these interviews, and i think he was at one interview for one hour.

i have been at a bunch of those and a lot of new facts have come out. one of the things he said, that you knew about these two incidents that have been mentioned previously, it is not a matter if you knew about them. it is a matter of what you did about them. to us, the answer to that is nothing. by the you were briefed cia every morning that you were in washington, is that correct? ms. clinton: that is correct. >> did they ever mentioned to you assistant acting director morel wrote in his book that there were scores of intelligence pieces describing in detail how the situation in libya was becoming more and more dangerous. did you ever read any of these pieces? ms. clinton: yes, as i have previously stated, we were

certainly aware that the situation across libya was becoming more dangerous and that there were particular concerns about eastern libya. the piece that was libya, al qaeda establishing sanctuary? ms. clinton: i am aware that was certainly among the information provided to me. there was another particular piece that was talked about after the ied attack. al qaeda expands in libya. were you familiar with that? clinton: i was well aware of the concerns we all have about the setting up of jihadist training camps and other activities in libya, particularly in east libya. agree the cia between january and september and