But that didn't happen in Benghazi?

Your policy is that anytime a facility is being used for more than one purpose, whatever type of facility has the higher--or the highest level of physical security standards, those standards should be applied?

Well, who denied the additional Diplomatic Security personnel requested in Benghazi by those who were working and living there and in Tripoli? Who was the person that denied that?

I just want to make the point, I'm not saying that additional personnel on the ground would not have helped.

Our outlook on that is that, whether it's temporary or interim or permanent, that we should be applying the same security standards that the OSPB has put in place.

If an ambassador at a high-risk, high-threat post picks up the phone and calls the seventh floor of the State Department today asking for additional security, physical or personnel, who ultimately makes the decision to grant or deny that…

I am trying to figure out if your job is to make the workplace more safe, why are you targeting three States that have incidents below the national average?

I believe that the United States Army is endeavoring to do just that, and I want to recognize Army leaders for their efforts.

The end result is the Aviation Restructure Initiative, or the ARI.

I believe that ARI is a logical answer to a difficult situation.

Rightly or wrongly, Congress has imposed on our military certain budget constraints that will require our commanders to make very tough decisions.