when we interviewed people who were concerned with security,

not just be s but be pulled from other parts of the government also, they were not happy, people we talk to were not happy with their role in the selection process. so the pendulum had shifted from security to design. i mentioned -- there are several examples of our observations as i said before, didn't come from the six of us, they were based on the interviews we did with a hundred people, not all of them obviously opined on oboe and security but many did. so those observations that are in there, it is not my opinion. it is what we got from people who work on a daily basis, will hopefully work on a daily basis

with bobo. >> i am out of time, mr. chairman. >> of the gentlewoman could yield 4 response to this. >> i will yield. >> as mr. green put together this report which is an offshoot and started because of the accountability review, lydia muniz, has the state department accepted this? has it been approved? anything in your mind that has been -- do they disagree with it? >> as mr. green pointed out the management review board really looked at the organization, i don't know the status of the response or implementation of those recommendations. let me finish. with respect to the questions, there was one recommendation we look at the cost implications or

security implications of this program and we have a firm time and again that there will be no security implications to this program. we are dedicated to meeting all the security requirements that are established in law, and working to innovate better and better products every year that meet those security standards. >> if it takes longer to build something to you consider that a security implications? >> as i explained to the committee from the time of award which is how 0 b 0 receives its funding annually the time to build the facility because we will be doing construction only will be the same or shorter which means we will have people been safer facilities faster than using the design methodology, in particular when we have advanced time to plan. >> i hope -- my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- this

report was done. we asked for a copy. state department has refused to give us a copy. al-jazeera has it, they print it on their web site. we don't have one in the united states congress. i am holding one i got off of al-jazeera. patrick kennedy had a very significant post on cbs news said he disagreed with this report. it is part of our business to understand what does he disagree with? what does he agree with? the very person who is implementing this office isn't totally familiar with it, isn't necessarily implementing it. there is a problem. there is a problem. >> it was a d s management report. it hit and touched on diplomatic security, better position to

answer that question. >> they would be an agreed position to answer and next time we have this panel, if i had to do it over, i would put diplomatic security here as well. >> will the gentlelady continue to yield? just one question, mr. green, trying to get to the bottom line, security. when you did your survey, what exactly -- you talked to 100 people. can you tell us a little about that process so we can fully understand and appreciate what it was that you did and what you were telling these people and why you asked? that is significant. you went to people whose interests, whose interests would be to make sure they were secure.

am i right? >> we interviewed 100 people, they came in and spread it across the bureaus and the state department and some from outside. we interviewed people on the accountability review board. we asked different questions of different people. some were organizational questions. does the assistant secretary for diplomatic security have enough of a role within running the organization? there was a lot of emphasis on high threat posts post benghazi to establish a special cell, not all of the people we talked to did we ask about the relationship with bobo --oboe and others.

out of those questions came recommendations. we didn't make a determination that design excellence should be out the window. all we said was before you go a lot further with this, we recommend the state department do an in-depth analysis to look at the security implications of this program. >> it seems to me a lot of times we have departments, individuals, disputing issues in government. and people suffered. during the dispute. at some point we have got to

figure this out so that our people are protected. i think members of congress and certainly the public when they hear the debate, they are not necessarily interested in watching these things being made but want to make sure people are secure, the costs are reasonable and the facility is functional and we're doing what we do effectively and efficiently. sometimes it seems as if it seems like we have got to argue this and argues that but at the same time, people who need what we are supposed to be yielding, they are not getting a northern not getting it in a timely fashion. >> we focused on security. as i said early on, if someone

can show me that we could do it as inexpensively, just as fast using design excellence i will sign up tomorrow. >> thank you. >> i will recognize myself. i want to enter into the record the guide to design excellence, the message from you. without hearing any objections, who at the state department has approved this? >> the director of both b 0, before i was director, i want to make clear that this is a document that was widely briefed within the department with our colleagues and diplomatic security, was briefed on the hill, was briefed publicly and

provided widely. while it is within obo's authority to innovate and develop programs that help us build the best buildings that are cost-effective, that is the -- >> the question we have long term is diplomatic feelings about that. we will come back to that. in response to cbs news, state department put out this statement. there has been no evidence that excellence projects take longer to build. into the excellent initiative from fiscal year to occupancy, facilities will be delivered on the same if not shorter schedule. in response to cbs news, it says all facilities will be delivered on the same if not shorter schedule. there is no evidence to the contrary. help me understand then why is

this unclassified documents, help me understand what is going on mputo in? it started as a standard embassy design with an estimated development of 39 months and yet now it says on march twenty eighth 2014 they were changing to design excellence and it was going to take 46 months. >> i don't have the documents that you have. i would like to respond to that but i need to go back and look at detailed budgets and schedules. >> this is the frustration. we request this document formally. you play hide and seek, you don't provide it to us, you may call these representations that everything is ahead of schedule, everything will be shorter, and

you let everybody know nothing is behind schedule. why is that? >> i like to look at the case and the document you are holding to speak knowledgeably. >> do you dispute what i am saying? >> i am not sure what you are saying. >> in mputo you went from a 39 month project to a 46 month project. if you are in africa without proper security will feel the effects of that. >> i will have to go back and look at the details of that project. >> tell me about oslo? is that behind schedule or a have scheduled? >> oslo has a new contractor working on that project. >> is it behind schedule or an unscheduled? >> it is behind schedule. >> it is the design excellence project. >> it is not. >> what is it?

>> oslo was a project that was developed and could not be done as a standard design because many cities particularly in europe have zoning requirements that require us to develop buildings differently. that is the case in oslo. >> it seems very convenient you toggle between is it design excellence or standard embassy design, is it or is it not? we don't have that clear definition. there are a lot of people and some documents out there that say it is design excellence of help me with what is going on in the hague? is it ahead of schedule or behind schedule? >> i would have to look at details about the hague, it was a project that was developed, it had to be an adjusted design based on city requirements. >> based on design excellence? >> no, not based on design excellence. >> has the design been built?

>> i believe that the hague is designed and built because the requirements in those cities force a very extensive development of the project in a way that indicates that design is the better option. that is a condition we find in many cities in europe in particular. we had it in oslo and behavior. those are projects that were started before the excellence initiative. the way in which they were developed may very well be responsive to the environmental way they excellence initiative -- >> let's go to kiev in the ukraine. we needed more seats, more personnel. what did you do? >> usaid added and an ax. >> more than 100. more than 100 seats. >> i don't have that.

>> standard embassy design and we added a hundred additional -- >> we added and an ex. >> so you were the one -- in your testimony here, if it takes longer to build an embassy, we have people in harm's way and it takes longer to build the d think that puts people in harm's way or not? >> in the case of porche moresby, we have a significant increase in the number of people who would be located on site and the addition of u.s. marines. >> for those not familiar with that we had 41 personnel, the

number will go up to 71 personnel. >> we are required to colocate and not be able to do so have we only build the building for 41 people. >> there is a way to build standard embassy design increasing the number of personnel. why was the number of personnel increased? >> we started with what was essentially a standard embassy design. it was the mini standard design. when we got the increased -- we were -- >> when did they -- what did you get out of it? >> in march of 2013. >> you have documentation? you can provide that to the committee? >> we provide the documents

among that. >> there are no marines there now. the public in general has a misconception as to what the marines do and don't do. they don't go outside, they are there to protect classified information. there is an exxon mobile project that has been developed to support the chinese. the chinese have a 20 year contract so i don't fully understand or appreciate. don't want to put you on the spot. nevertheless the occupancy date for porche moresby was going to be may of 2014 and the cost of that embassy was estimated to be what? >> the cost of the original facility was to be around $79 million. >> i understand it was going to

be less than $50 million. >> the cost to construct the facility was 49. that includes the number of ideas of site costs. >> we have the site, whether it is standard embassy design or design excellence. the chief has no clue that this is going on, none of the discussions, still anticipating i understood there was a delay but still fought during this tenure, what is the new date for port moresby? >> it will be in 2018. >> what is the estimated cost? >> we don't have the completed design. >> it is not a standard embassy design, correct? >> that is not the issue. >> are you telling me that this

is not design excellence? this is under standard embassy design? >> what i am saying is the compound in porche moresby began as a standard facility. experienced a significant increase in staffing which prevented us from being able to use a standard design. the facility was not capable of being modified because it was so small. it required and an ex and it ne the addition of the people -- that is the fastest time annex the addition of the people -- that is the fastest time we are able to get folks from that mission code located on the ground with the marines.

>> the paperwork i have not from you but the paperwork that i have said that this facility costs in excess of $200 million. we are going to spend $3 million per seat in porche moresby, papua new guinea, average per-capita income is $2,500. >> i would like to take some of these questions. >> i'm not asking you. i am asking mr. jones. i will give you plenty of time. we will spend $3 million per seat and they are not going to be there for four years. you don't have a final design. what are they supposed to do for security for the next four years while they wait? >> we are attempting to get safe and secure facilities on the fastest time schedules that we can.

we are doing everything in our power to ensure we're delivering safe, secure and functional facilities to the mission as expediently and efficiently as possible. >> i share this with the ranking member, we added 105 to the ukraine. we are talking about 30, it cost $24 million and now we're looking at a project that was less than $50 million to build, estimated to go north of $200 million in papua new guinea. the consequence of this is they are going to be in harm's way, we have less budget and less money to build other facilities in other parts of the world. it is behind schedule. and fees poor people are working in difficult situations. when i was there there was an attempted carjacking of u.s. diplomatic personnel while i was

there. we had two people who showed up at the door trying to represent themselves as somebody who wanted to see me and this was on a saturday, dressed in dark that represented that they were there in the embassy. very close at the pharmacy. there is no communication by that facility there, but she said mission should not be getting that admission from me, that is for sure. >> i think you want a second. >> i wanted to point out as we explained earlier the forces causing the change, the design are outside of a bureau. we talk about iraq earlier. in the environment where things are changing rapidly, you have to adjust to those changes,

there are costs related to those changes. decision was made two years into destruction contact, to add marines to the facility, to add significantly to the staff, to add classified capacity, that adds an extraordinary amount of expense in an existing contract. when we have detailed information it you have received detailed information we can go over those costs, but given the location of papua new guinea or that we learned that all materials and labor need to be shipped into papua new guinea given the environment, the discovery of natural resources there have led to greater competition and a small market, those costs increases can be explained with that mission doubles in size.

>> more on this issue, recognize the ranking member. mr green. where do we go from here? >> i think unfortunately where we go is we need to see the dollars and the time that it is going to take to do design excellence. we don't have that. we are comparing apples and orangess. i am not so concerned personally with the appearance of embassies, the state ig did report in 2008 and the key findings were essentials lease that people were happy with the appearance and the host countries of those 12 embassies they looked at were happy with the appearance. what i am worried about, from

the security standpoint, is can you actually produce these things in the same amount of time at the same costs and until we know that, and i don't know how we do that but the chairman raised an issue, what is cost her desk? what is cost per does understand embassy design? we have some good figures on that i am sure? what is cost per desk under design excellence? >> until we can compare apples and apples, there is going to continue to be a lot of skepticism that you can do this as fast and as cheap.

>> i have listened carefully and i am concerned and we all should be concerned when we don't get documents. time is valuable. i at this and to admiral mullen when they talked about the report. it was some of the most --d hap

else. i am trying to put this in simple language for the american people. in a country where there are some unique situations, you may have some idea requirement or whatever but still using the basic, same model, if i am using the same model, it is logic, it would be quicker if i didn't go to another country and use that model. is that what you are saying? >> that makes sense. >> and so the state department, it becomes a difficult argument to sell not only to us but to the american people because the american people don't know

everything that you know so you have got -- it is easy for us -- it is your expertise, what you all do, but sometimes you have to break this stuff down so that people get what you are talking about because to them it makes no sense. i am not saying with limited knowledge it makes no sense. with all of your information it makes a lot of sense and so we find ourselves in a situation where you have what you are saying and mr. green was saying but the bottom line is going back to what mr. green has said, if he had the data to show that we could get the same security costs in time, all the factors

pretty much the same, he was out of line. why can't we get the information? this seems to be some reluctance. i don't know why that is. can you help us with that? because one of the things that happens here. i have lived long enough and been up here long enough, we keep getting distracted from the mission by getting caught up in -- i am not saying we don't have to deal with those issues but it doesn't allow us to do what we are supposed to be doing and that is providing security. they are legitimate questions but at the same time, that is a time to be taking our energy and focusing on making sure our folks are safe because that is what the american people want. >> i think that is absolutely

right and i would be happy to explain in more detail why it is that if we award 100% design the period of performance is shorter and we could have people in safer facilities faster. it means if we know our appropriation is fixed, we know which buildings we are doing it might take us longer to do the design. we are going to look closely at the requirements. what are the materials that going to work, how do we put that building to get there, from the date of the award it won't include any design time, it will be no longer than it would be with the design build a standard embassy design and it will likely be shorter. i could go into more detail -- >> one little of thing, rewind, there is one middle finger that

bothers me comment and that is, why? in other words, if i have got my model, it is working, i know what it will cost, i know how much time it will take. am missing something? did i have to go to something else? let me run and do something else when i have already got it, finally. >> it is a fair question and what i tried to lay out is the standard embassy design was a fixed solution based on an average hypothetical side. we build embassies and consulates in every environment, whether that is -- whether it is cold, whether some systems are going to work there on the seafront and other systems won't work in a completely different environment.

they're looking at the real requirements of missions and thinking about how do we build the best buildings for those missions. standard embassy design was a good solution but required us to build freestanding warehouses regardless of the location. there are some places we don't need a warehouse. why build a warehouse -- >> then you take it off. you take it off. if i don't need a garage and i suddenly don't need a garage i take the garage off. by the way, it is not just one design, there are several designs. so you take the garage off. >> all of those things taken together, if i could try to describe the initiative in that nut shell is really to say that we are taking those lessons learned from the standard embassy design. we are taking those modular pieces of it but providing a lot more flexibility and how those

could be put together in a way that is meaningful. you build a very large embassy, having these two bars is not efficient. you are putting two buildings as opposed to one, securing two buildings as opposed to one. so i think that using architects, engineers, folks within the department, security professionals, with the beach case and come up with the best and most efficient solution. in many ways with the excellent initiative is doing is what you are suggesting. it is taking a baseline, and modifying that baseline in a way that is sensible for the mission. right now the standard and bessie design or the standard embassy designed so we are moving forward from was a very thick solution, very horizontal. ten acres, warehouse. that is not always the best solution in all of the environment's. i would like to state the cost

per death, they develop our budget estimating in our bureau when we build the budget whether it is standard embassy design budget excellent initiative project they tell us historically for this many people in this environment, that is what your budget is, we're going to work to the same budget and the excellence initiative, or under the standard embassy design. >> sally -- in other words, what you are going to say is circumstances change, we have new technology.

and better materials, all of those things, i don't know anything about buildings, it was changing but box. you may look at the box but you are forever changing -- you don't take into consideration but it may be changed substantially. you are talking about a brand new box, period. >> i would say that it depends. for looking at a large mission, to have the standard embassy design and could that in place would not be efficient. london is a bit example in the case that not only are we building a cube which was more efficient than two separate boxes that required twice as much, we are using materials

that make the building significantly later, reduce the size and expense of the foundation that needs to be put down. the turn wall reduces the weight which influences the foundation and it is all labeled to go up faster than a traditional concrete building would have been able to go up and those materials and based building in certain situations. >> you anticipate being able to take a box, london is very unique. another box, something you can use in more than -- are you following me? >> i think i'd do. when you build an embassy, and

security, time, everything is great, do you anticipate being able to use that model, a model like that somewhere else, are you following? >> let me use an example that may be too, and that demonstrates the point. there was a time when most people who drove data models he. it was a simple car. as we evolve cars got better. they evolve and separated it out into different types of cars said today rather than going with a model t of the bill of the version that is much more secure bet you could choose to have an austin mini and you could go with an suv but those things depend on where you are. you want to be in a smaller environment, your small mission you could go with the smaller size and still meet your

requirements and be more efficient to run but there are other times you need the larger solution, you need the suv but being able to put the appropriate solution with the mission and consider those things and make sure we are appropriately spending money the taxpayer gives us and consider not just first costs but long-term costs that is what we are talking about doing. >> thank you for being here. >> recognize the chairman of the committee. >> thank you ranking member cummings, i appreciate your questioning. i came back him just-in-time to have you talked about mobiles and i agree it sometimes i don't think the fiat 500 is appropriate from a safety standpoint for our men and women in the state department but

having said that i understand the difference in size and scale and some of the urban versus rural consideration this but mr. green, those considerations really are not what we are asking about today. what we are asking about is do you to the greatest extent possible use a mass production concept which is what standard builds is? do you build a one in a kind formula race, that is beautiful, fast and has unique characteristics and each one is different? the secrets are not shared between formula racers or do you build the toyota camry in order to get a ford focus or ford 500, do you build a mass produced consistent reliable, bugs worked out repeatable products those that you get a highly reliable

product that can be maintained throughout the system, standard windows and other characteristics in order to get a good product at a better price? i switched to forge quickly when i realized it is about henry ford's model of greater value for less cost, isn't it? >> yes. it is like standard embassy design might be the chevrolet suburban but when necessary it becomes the escalade and there are options. one of the other questions. it is all about security. >> i'm not as familiar, the program was over long before i came in. >> let me tell you what i was

told when i came in and started going there as a member of foreign affairs. we didn't used to think of embassies in the same security sense we do now. what we discovered, the beirut barracks, the marine barracks and the beirut embassy bombing and others talked as there is no substitute for set back. do you understand that as the person making these decisions? >> absolutely. >> when you talk about urban rivers is a whirl and location and i was just in britain where setback is highly compromised and they are compliant but they made a five a good decision and when vertical and did the best they could including the famous note end crash considerations, those safety considerations, any time you give up set back you have to trade higher costs for that set back.

>> you do but we are not suggesting under this program to trade set back. >> when you talk a large footprint the truth is, i go back to mr. green for part of this is about starting off with a footprint sufficient for current and future embassy consideration including possible ons in a country that we can make a 50 year decision on sovereign u.s. soil. >> yes. >> i apologize, i did the democratic staffer but none of my counterparts were able to attend because it was short notice. i was struck by something of want to make sure was in the record today. was talked about in papua new guinea, changing characteristics, when they were talking about and flew in people

from offices in london, they started talking about it is individual and we have to work it out and i suddenly realized what you are doing is you are custom building more and more. instead of saying state department will plan including excess space, we plan for the 50 year necessary facility, and one group might need one more group here, and the current according to what we told, talking to the current people in an embassy, the current ambassador, the current staff in order to find out what they want as part of this design characteristic and that is something i came back concerned about from the trip to

london. not the london facility at half a million square feet, there's a lot of room but when you are looking at embassies and starting to ask should it be plus or minus based on current characteristics, aren't you inherently creating the downstream problem you are designing based on what an ambassador and their staff one, not based on a plan that looks 50 years in the future and i want you to answer that to the extent you can. >> it is a great question that addresses one of the enduring challenges of the department, trying to build links for 51100 years and things change go through that time period. where we can financially based on the urban environment where we are building, we try to buy larger sites and we make a deliberate effort, this was not always done with standard embassy design, we cite the building in such a way the we know where the annex will go. for years, maybe forever it will be a law on the we know in advance how we might use that

space so that it gives us that flexibility. the other thing we have done under the excellent initiative is something that is meaningful and reduces costs in the long term so we're looking at things like using raised floors, partitions, making sure infrastructure works in a way that within a given under a low you can have a significant increase in staff with very little cost but that wasn't true with the older model. the standard design taught us a lot but we can improve on it in meaningful ways that give us more flexibility for the long term. >> as you respond to that question on want you to include from your committee's activities, isn't that what standard build is supposed to do? to include that?

mend it, don't end it, it didn't include future expansion in their consideration. >> it is continuously moving standard that is done. let me respond to your earlier question. what do we need 50 years out? the ambassador wants the bigger latrine in his office or 50 windows instead of five. that changes all the time. we saw it here today. it change in papua new guinea. you plan to do something and the department says no, we need more for for whatever reason. there is right sizing that goes on constantly in the department, much sub -- publicized but not sure how much it is occurring, the pivot to asia.

what does that mean for those embassies in asia, more people? five years from now it might have it somewhere else. i don't know that we will ever reach the perfect solution to say the weak and build something that is good today and it will be good even ten years from now. >> mr. chairman, the point your research and what we are hearing today is all about is as use standardized and drive down the cost per square foot the ability to build a few extra square feet and the flexibility is inherited as you drive up the square foot cost, and smaller and tighter and that is not what we need for flexibility, it is right side in with a plan to expand or at in and continue their research, we begin seeing standard build to do just that. i thank you for your indulgence

and yelled back. >> we now recognize a patient member from michigan, and the 11 for two minutes, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked a very important question, when it came time, when we were discussing -- it is going to cost $800 million, we don't look at how many employees it is going to house, you call the dust. is that correct? how many in the london office embassy? how many? >> at least 644. >> what does that work out to? 800 million, how many did you say? >> 644 desks. >> $1 million a desk. >> some costs are very high.

>> $1 million, but i understand the risk in one, is it meters, do you know the breakdown, how much it cost per meter and square foot? >> for london i don't have the square foot costs. i would like to add for london for those members -- >> you're selling property, selling cost of the $800 million embassy. you did say that. these old buildings now, am i correct? >> the same buildings as the embassy. >> if it runs over the london building, takes longer than expected, what will it cost to house our employees in older buildings? >> we are not expecting that to

happen. >> for the life of me, i am sure there have been one or two government contracts that didn't go over budget and didn't go, came in on schedule. let's ask you this. how many work orders or change orders are pending or in process in the london embassy? they do delay a project, don't they or do you add that? it is a change that will take longer, the completion date. >> over 200 projects in construction, i don't have the number of changes in london but what i would like to make clear is while the latest, a certain amount of risk, the department made the decision in 2006 many years before in the different

administration. i think it was a great decision. for $50 million more are getting a brand new embassy that meets all the security standards in exchange for property that we had been in for years. >> all the security standards in blunden versus the -- all of these other countries, soon to be looked to me in the future a greater threat. let's talk about that threat. this secretary of state, people tell us they don't do a risk analysis countries that our house, and what is happening, a lot of americans -- do you do a risk analysis everyday, and with

the dangers are outside the embassy, no matter what country you are in? i just answered my own question. you don't do that. what you do is in places like london take every risk imaginable. and $1 million per desk. i am just thinking about the soldiers in iraq, the risk out there, if you thought the risk was greater they shot rockets at us, we put these concrete barriers in front of us, sandbags, and we can do those things a little nicer and fancier and put every single building including a modular cookie cutter design and add to that building outside to address

any risk, if you actually look at the risks outside your embassies and addressed them you could take proper precautions but i will say -- i know my time is running out but you have always had at every embassy in the world the best security system you could possibly by. it is called the united states marines. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i will recognize myself in consultation with mr. cummings. a couple quick things and then i promise we will end. i have a question about london. london is unique, beijing was unique. there are some iconic properties, amazing relationships, security needs,

that is understood. there has been a suggestion you are still on time in london and on budget in london. what is your current assessment of where we are in london in terms of budget and time? >> that is exactly my assessment that we are on budget and successful. >> what about the vast the shoe? where are we with the vast issue? >> i want to keep them limited because our conversations with our counterparts in britain are sensitive but i would like to say we are making good progress and we are comfortable that we are within the budget. >> i want to see that as a potential threat, it is a 20% v vat. i had the opportunity to visit

dubai. what do you find wrong with the facility in dubai? >> i don't know that particular facility so i wouldn't be able to address it but there are many standard embassy designs that work well for their missions. there are some that could work better and this initiative is about improving on something that did a lot of good. i could look at dubai more closely but i don't have any particular comments without knowing it in great detail. >> the general concern here is it doesn't make common sense to me, it is not common sense to suggest the we are going to spend more time on design and ultimately that is going to take a shorter period of time. to follow up, we have been talking for hours now but as a

follow-up, this is conceptually i just don't understand it. there have been suggestions that standards embassy design was 1-size-fits-all. that has never been true. we built 90 different buildings and one thing that drives me personally and i share this with mr. cummings and others, you have multiple reports and an inspector general report that says my goodness, standard embassy designs going faster and coming in under budget. we never get reports like that. we are going to totally scrapped that and go to a different design. and focus on architecture because architecture is diplomacy. you can shake your head no but that is the video the state department put out. that is the video that was put out, you're shaking your head. >> we are committed to being on the same budgets, we are

committed to meeting security requirements. i just know that we can build even better buildings. what we're doing is what we should be doing, what bureaucrats should be doing, we're trying to improve on a good product. the standard embassy design did require modifications. we are taking that step further and making sure that it is not a fixed on followed, that it takes all the lessons learned from that and allows us to modify our buildings in a way that is smart for the mission, smart for the taxpayer and smart for the long term. >> i challenge those assumptions. it will play itself out. i don't believe they will be faster. we have evidence is taking longer. the consequence is it will cost more and the other consequence is we will have more people in harm's way. if you thought people from papua new guinea lined up and had them raise their hand and say which design would you like, they just

want to be safe. they just want to be safe and secure and it will be the most opulent and extravagant building in that country under the standard embassy design and those modifications could have been there. i appreciate the dialogue. this is the general concern you said in response to mr. cummings, the design portion will get longer. more people in harm's way, it will take longer, it will be more expensive and we will have ongoing security concerns. i really do appreciate your participation. i have no doubt of the sincerity of wanting to come in under budget and on time but i don't think you can get from here to there and very few people agree you can get there. that is why we need the documents, that is why we will push the inspector general and the gao to look at this.

i appreciate your participation. i know you care deeply about your country and the work that you do and you are passionate about that. we want people who are passionate about that but we also have an obligation to have this back and forth, what the congress is all about. it is part of a process that makes this country unique and better and the greatest country on the face of the planet. thank you for your participation. we look forward to getting documents from the state department sooner rather than later and this committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] .. >> booktv visits des moines, iowa, to interview several of the city's authors and tour its literary sites. and you'll