they take the internal perspective. the reason i use the word hermanudic perspective is that that's all you really need for a test to occur. you have to be able to sympathetically understand others and understand their projects and be able to participate in their projects with that kind of sympathetic understanding. the question you want to ask is why couldn't the john robots question want to do that? after all, he's immersed in this culture. he is under the impression that he is a human being. he believes the hype. when he gets married, he

believes he's a human being marrying another human being. finally, you have the idea which is that in oshd torder to fit jurist, you have to understand, sympathize and use the norms of your community because that's part of the complicated relationship there dworkin's thought, a fit between what you want to say and the justification of those norms. >> here again, i had some thoughts. i don't think the point that is made in this paper, i think it's a bit too strong. first of all, once again, many people come to yale law school from many countries around the world. they are not americans. they have been exposed to american culture through

tuition, perhaps. and they're ab mere fact that y not share a community's norms does not qualify you making good, legal arguments. secondly, it's a very strange argument to come from two canadians. after all, canada is part of the british commonwealth. one thing we know about the british commonwealth is that british commonwealth exported colonial law. it was the law of the british empire imposed on other countries. the idea was when you do, that would become a law of a particular british colony. and even though the judges did not share much in terms of the norms and communities and ideas and values of the colonial powers. of the people in the colonies.

it was still the case that you could take appeals to the privy council. for many years, you could appeal. and the judges who would sit often had very little connection to the norms and 1rvalues of th community. i don't think that you can make a strong connection. and even if i'm wrong about that, it's hard to believe that john roberts robot doesn't share the northerns and is part of the community. he thinks he's human, he goes to american law school. he does extremely well there. he lives a life in the united states. he adopts all of the customs and behaves, at least, as if he's engaged in them.

it looks like he's a member of the community. john robert social securis is n lawyer. he has a great talent. the talent is the talent of persuasion. understand your audience and its needs. and sympathize with its norms and values. articulate in way that is rez nate with their values, norms and considerations. it almost would seem to follow that he has all of the

characteristics that they claire are necessary to be a fit jurist. they begin by saying in the hypothetical, that this robot, john roberts, could pass a touring test on steroids. that's their phrase. they then go onto say it's simply a behaviorist account. it may or may not be true. but i want to argue that the touring test on steroids is different. it is everything they could possibly want in terms of asking

whether or not the entity can participate in a form of life. it understands itself as being part of you. it develops the forms. dan sperbur wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that the human ability to reason was not developed to know the truth, but rather to persuade people and to get them to coop rate. if that's the case, he would seem to pass any test we devise. what are the features of living in a community.

that we think are necessary to be called human. those are the questions i have. >> grat. well, thank you very much. i'll just start with a couple of brief remarks that i hope go into particular the last point that is you made. we're all so confident that the audience will have questions to ask and it's appropriate to spend some time to address what jack has raised for us, but, also, at the same time, leave some space for others. i guess i would start off by just maybe speaking for a moment

about how to cast the hypothetical. one has to be extremely careful. the conclusion that is one can derive from that thought experience are as strong oar as weak as the thought experience itself. what we tried to do, which jack alluded to, was we really wanted to build a hypothetical that stacked the deck in favor of jrr. we wanted to do that. we wanted to do that with the goal of raising the question if there's no doubt to passing the

touring test, 245 we still might find reasons to say that even if a robot has reached this level of functional capacity, that we still might say at the end of the day that it is not adequate or not fit. for playing the role of a judge. as we go to say in the paper quiet clearly, very different than other human activities that involve rules, such as for example, driving cars, et cetera. so that was the task we set for ourselves. can we come up with a reason

that is not a slam dunk, but just to allow the robot to play the role of judge. one of the reasons why, at least from my long perspective, that i think that this is a worthwhile task, is because of the great emphasis that has been placed on the touring test. both formally for people who know that paper backwards but also informally. this idea that reaching a certain level of functional capacity would, in and of itself, convince us that we ought to treat the robots in particular kinds of ways. and so sort of with that in mind, a couple of responses that i would say at the outset, i just want to be very clear that the way i jotted it down, and maybe i jotted it down too

quickly, is that one of the appeals you made to us alongside the discussion of the skilled relater rigs, is that jrr understood itself to be among us. for us, it would be very interesting to find that they could have re-animated him. the mere fact that jrr understood being among us, the mere fact that he was a skilled relater rigs to be able to behave with goals, would understand jrr to have -- to be among the community of those who carry out these very

particulariz particularized kinds of human activities. those are things that show that jrr behaved in accordance with those rules. but the questions are up for grabs. that's the question before us, is to decide, for example, whether jrr was a rule follower. and so sort of with that in mind, as just one of the opening sets of things. i just warant want to say that the way that you put it was that our arguments revolves around a set of assumptions. we saw our project very differently.

we saw our project as not making those asumplgss, but rather thinking about it the other way around. what would be the lmts of proof. and i'll just make one more comment and i'm sorry for taking so long. but, for us, i think it was really -- it's important to see that the question that we're asking is not whether jrr is a member of the human community or whether jrr would be considered a person or would be raised in the final session of yesterday. ours 1 a question about whether jrr could, in a meaningfully, in any meaningful sense be understood to be in a position to carry out the 5:00 tiactivit

human judging: >> thank you very much. i don't have too much else to say, but i do want to say that it's important that we can see that certain ly at least in the appearance, you have legal arguments being made, you have decisions being rendered. we can see that from the outside set. but this paper is really focused on a particular practice. the practice of judging. what is it we expected of judges. what do they owe us? what is the relation shich? i, for one, and i think he would probably agree there's a relational aspect to judging in human society that we find extremely important. which is why we place

third-degree robot on this long and storied history as really being one of the defining actors in the history of a particular community. so it e's i fully admit there a intuitions. when con fronted with that, it's having to justify those intuitions, again, in a pure purely counter action offense. when jack was talking, it would be whether we had a robot comfortedble of that stature or

that policy as long as we were sure that the robot did consider itself human. would that be a pre-condition with certain kinds of authority. and what would that say? so we're not able to get into the whole con september of law as authoritative. it's ababsolutely about the deeper question. what is a robot? how does it relate to us? but it is very much about this particular practice of judging. >> you say it's not about whether or not a robot is humt. but at the end of the day, i keep reading this paper and imsay that's exactly what it's all about. i'll giver you an example. when jewish immigrants come from eastern europe and russia around the turn of the 20th century, they start to go to law schools.

and when they go to law schools, many people say well, they're very clever. they're able to argue very well, but they don't really understand the angle of american genius behind our institution. and no matter how smart these jews are, they really live in eastern europe. they were never really understand our institutions. so when brand dice is no, ma'am nated as the first jewish justice of the supreme court, you get so mume grumbling of th sort of exactly what's there the paper. he'll never get it. he'll never really be a part of our community. and we really can't trust him with the authority of the community. there's an important way to disz ting wish. one is that they were human beings and that john rob erts robot is not a human being. but you don't want to take that answer, right? and if you reject that as the

justificati justification, then i want to understand the difference tweend -- or whether you accept the argument against. that's what i want to know. one way out is to say he's not human. as long as you're not human, we can't trust you with authority. >> i think it's been pretty clear to us, that the biggest challenge in this paper in answering this question is a way to respond to it that doesn't invoke some form of essentialism. whether it's human, et cetera. and, in fact, the path that we selected in the sort of cues and inspiration was with the hope

that vichtenstein and then hart to follow,was that those are ways of expressing why this entity might not be said to be fit to be a judge because there's no way in which it, a deluded robot, could truly engage in rule fol lot following. you pamake some points which ar difficult for that hypothetical. but in any event, if the aspects were our attempts to try not to debase the arguenment that fall from your example. functional capacity is not

enough. i don't know if you found it satisfying or not, but i found it pushed back against the example that you gave and said they right-hand turn the same thing. >> i have been uncomfortable with skirting of and sisessentiy fudging of the skirtish line. i would slightly take a different attack for me. one of the things that's raised from this paper is a lot of our choices around sooumuper-advanc

robots, and you can critique the politics. i talk in my brazen american constitutional law. i talk about the possibility in a state of full knowledge could invest certain kinds of robots. that's a very different kbe. and that is a political question that can be subjected to both political considerations. and also constitutional norms. i would say that i would agree with you and i want to push back a little bit on the slippery slope trajectory of skirting the essentialist line.

also to say that the politics around it would make, for me, would have appreciable differences with the motivations and the reasons and the justifications for taking the decision. i'm trying to find ways to simplify the ways that would be -- there's always risks, but one of the current debates that people who are interested in automation and robotics will look at a policy debate that's going on right now in universities is the idea of using these robot systems for

grading essays. so when that debate was going on, i was very interested in a response. his point was, in essence, it doesn't matter whether the robot can perform more consistently that ultimately, by allowing robots to grade essays, missing the point.

all the of these things are n s nested in the proposition. >> i actually think that this is an interesting point to talk about the recent controversy in canada over the voiding, the court held that the poimt of justice mark nadone was not interested with the ordinary act. and the issue there was that there's a special reserve of three seats, four judges, from quebec which has a civil law tradition.

it has always been considered as important. this was a depar schur from past precedent. there was a very interesting debate over whether it was right that it should be read in that way. there were many arguments that was unfair. and you were narrowing the poolt and you were casting certain kinds of aspurgss. the difference is that the appointment was challenged very soon. and so nadal had never participated in any cases. and, in fact, rather dramatically, the supreme kourpt issue add release saying he

would not be allowed in the building and that they would not be talking to him until this sort of quasi banishment. it was taking a hard line about a particular statutory provision that did draw a bright line that some people would regard as not very senseble. but that you needed the bright line no order to cabin and constrain the appointment process in a way that was predictable.

so, again, the court said, ultimately, this is not about this individual. this is about maintaining a routine and predictable route for appointments for these seats which fulfill a particular purpose. >> michael asked me to face a little more this way. my name is ryan, i am a law professor at the university of washington. and i just so greatly enjoy in this paper, and i really, also, greatly enjoyed your comments, jack. a couple different things that i noticed about the paper. jrr is a robot, but jrr is a very specific robot. jrr is a robot, but jrr is a very specific robot. right? the fact d-- he's made by a

corporation, which explains a couple things. but he's made by a corporation and the point of the matter 1 he lives for a particular period of time in a particular community, right? but that is contingent. so all of these things are con tin jent. and then at the margins we can sort of re-examine through various filters. the second thing i would say, i just loved 2 comment about hart and dworkin. but i thought the player missing in my mind was ron fuhler. it really kind of -- especially as dworkin lays it out, it actually flows from, right, a

couple of different aspects to follow. there is a law distinction that he lays out there. and even though it's not quite as developed as d wrksz orkins. it is so much more steeped of something. with dworkin, i think to myself well, hercules can do some of this work because there's these principles out there and he can gather them and zint size them.

maybe he can't do what fuhler wants to do. >> can i just make sure i understood the first question? i have understood your point about the idea that jrr's specificity is, in a sense, contingent. you sort of threw in the comment on the iterative approach. >> i just mentioned the way that we decide whether or not -- this is really responding to jack's coloring of everything. is it sufficient for what we have in robot social security an opportunity to exquisitely ma nip late certain aspect that is

we can't do with people. you can ask whether et's the beginning of life or you can ask questions about memory or the nature of identity. if there's an exact robot replica, then is that enough? in other words, somebody was a member of the relevant community, right? and they got steeped in revant community. and then they were copied exactly by -- so for me, it's the potential to exquiz sitly

manipulate the robot here that lends some. and i wonder whether you thought about maybe doing some of those manipulations and then applying your same tasks. >> so, on that point, ryan, one of the things that i learn from this project is you looked to all of the great thought experience which have been successful in philosophy. you really see how it is to build a successful thought experimentment i think one of the things that was happening with is we were sort of, ochb the one hand, wanting thought experiment to have sufficient realism. we imagined the idea of a robot coming into being as a research and development experiment, et cetera, et cetera.

one of the realities is we don't raise every robot from earth. they don't have the normal human span of life. that part of the hypothetical, i think, maybe worked to our advantage a little bit in that i think it would be harder to answer jack's questions about well, why can't we say the robot had prescriptive training if it had brn born or raised as a child. the fact that we chose to go into realism stacked the deck. believe me, we thought about different ways to cast the hypothetical in that way.

but i do think to the extent of living with the hypothetical that we did, that this robot is deluded into thinking it's human. it didn't have a child. all of these kinds of things does make it harder for us to understand it. to be in any sense, a member of the community, let alone a full member of the community. >> i'll speak to the second point, ryan, thank you very much. so i realize that we could have been sneakily inserted. we do think that there's an organic trajectory. and we have this opening provided by one of the few people that we find could address the legal reasoning of ai and mention dworkin.

as we tried to articulate there the paper, we felt that was a nice contrast. one of the first wrds i jury trialed down was hercules. now, we have said, i think, in the pher, that we're not in a position in the paper to do all of the work to justify ur selection of dworkin. that being said, absolutely. and i love lan fuhler. >> before, jack, john if you want to say anything in response to ryan's question about fuhler and its value here.

hercules jumped out at us because he's not a robot, but it shares a lot of same features. thafgs one of the reasons why he found his place there, for sure. >> just one more point. for us, what we hope was part of an interesting contribution with this paper was that people who are commenting in this field and sunstein has a good example of that. have been so focused.

and the debate is a question of will we ever get there. what we warranted to do in this paper was to asumt let's say we get there. and then really sort of ask, does that mean it's a slam dunk in the way that touring seems to suggest it is. and we think no. >> can i just say something? i, quite frankly, don't care whether you use hart, dworkin or anyone. when i read your paper, what i think your paper is about is a deep question. the deep question is under what circumstances can we say that an entity has sympathy for others,

understands their lot with another's lot. understands himself to be a part of community. it's a question of reciprocity. even though you phrase it in terms of jurisprudence, that's the reason that i thought your hypothetical is a real problem. you've structured it in such a way that it looks like you have con dilgszs. that's why i talked about the history of rhetoric. rhetoric is about these qualities. the appeal to ethos or pathos. and not just logos. so you've con instructed this entities. one toggle that i would turn off

is does he understand himself to be human? if he doesn't, then no, i don't address him with authority. he does not umpbs himself to be part of the community. what are these institutions and the rules that we have. what is the meaning of this to you. and then the text says by saying you, he excludes himts. he denies a fundamental proposition.

he says what does it mean to us. >> there's sort of an interesting irony, though. one of the mine reasons we made the kois for jrr to not believe -- i'm sorry, to believe it's human. to not believe that it was a robot, was precise ly to avoid anything in the scenario that would discount jrr as a judge because there was any level of deception. but if you believe you're a member of the community, if you believe that these people you call your children are actually your children and will be affected by the decisions you make, if you believe your femme el loe citizens are something that you care about wharks more do you want from the guy?

>> is this is great stuff, but as conference chair, we've got about 15 minutes and a very held think and anxious queue. >> neil richards, i don't know whether i'm healthy or anxious or both. but two small points and then the question. one, i would call them justice robots. that's just better. it doesn't make you think of dworkin. on jack's point, the council does receive appeals. the question is -- you know t paper on the discussion reminded me as ken anderson ice point and his sort of cognitive buff.

i love the thought exz permit. the law is not fully determin t determinant. and there are unsettled questions, divisions of thourty. inconsistent legal rules. they have to organize high political judgment. many of us would 5:00 september for an ultimate traffic section,

you could have an automated system. the question would be at what point do we get into the model doubt of justice robots. how fard would you be willing to 5:00 september automated or al go rhythmic decision-making: >> neil basically asked my question. i'm sorry, i'm woodrow hartdog. you talk about jurjing with a capital j. what about things like

arbitration? >> well, just starting off, so we tried to be clear in our second section, which was called other possible worlds at recognizing that, you know, what's so fun about this example is it jury rooms straight to the top. but the reality of how things are going to go and we a hundred percent agree with her. ai in the law where the goal is to develop applications that, in some way, manifest themselves in legal practice will be small increments. we already have as muches in place where ai is being used to divide property and match ri moan yal disputes. and those kinds of things.

we decided what are the social imply cases of seeding or dell gating these inkrechltal steps to the machine. what is the significance of that that one way to think about it would be, instead, just asking particular questions about each system as it arises and whether that delegation would be permissible or well informed. instead, we would ask the big question. but i think it's practically indisputable that those things are starting to happen. and i don't think any of the considerations that we're making in our paper seek to speak

against those things. >> just very briefly,i think in terms of that kind of processor or entity being available for something like arbitration, something where, for the most part, you can see it as a private contracting of a particular dispute resolution mechanism. it doesn't raise the same kinds of commitment judging. >> i'm david post from temple law school. sorry, i've been waiting patiently to ask my question. central to me has been this

question, and i think jack is saying that it is central to this discussion, it's a question whether jr, the robot, believes that it is human, understands itself to be human. i think someone sort of said considers itself to be human. i'm having a very difficult time getting my head around that con september. i really am. i don't understand belief in this context. and i agree with you. it does seem to be really critical to whether i trust it. >> well, i think to tow a hardline, we would also be inclined to say that that statement is nonsense. that's -- that's what --

philosophy begins. when language goes on holiday. but i guess for practical purposes, one way of translating that without getting into the internal states of the robot, which is, you know, we're not trying to do, is simply we wanted to construct the example in such a way that the robot didn't proceed through the operations of daily life. but then it becomes the sticking point. >> am i right, jack, that you, on the other hand, have to answer that question? >> it's unavoidable. >> so why aren't you fighting with each other now at this point? the two of you?

>> jack would say it's because we're canadians. >> and the actual sense is it was programmed to think it was human. >> susan calvin, robo psychologist in the flesh. i love this parp. i think this will be cited by many other areas such as psychology. this is great for robot corporations that are building robots. i just made some notes. number one, i want to offer jrr free therapy. the first thing we would do is see the movie bicentennial man. i know he's read the book, but it's very important to see the movie, as well. u.s. robots, mechanical men, own jrr, regardless of their intent.

and this relationship of owner is a responsibility to technology. instead of touring test n the people might think it's been passed by various ai or robotic technology, i would like to suggest that we use for the future more of a mazlow's hierarchy, where self-actualization has to be one of the variables of all the

other humans are just going to be human. lastly, i wanted to know if his wife knew that she couldn't have -- he couldn't have children, and if it was -- i mean, obviously i was curious about his organ, but if he couldn't have children, i mean, maybe by ann's paper, yesterday, you know, why not. >> we were deliberately vague about that. and we don't know. >> part of the art of that narrative was meant to leave things open as to even whether she knew. did he succeed -- did the robot succeed in fooling his wife or not? and we're not left with any of

those details. it happens to be an interesting coincidence that the real john roberts and his wife adopted children. for those who have read the short story "evidence" from irobot, very reminiscent of steven baerl in that respect. you have a string of things. the one that stuck out in my mind to sort of address was the question of what would we now say about the corporate entity that owned the robot. i think that raises some very interesting questions, particularly one could imagine different hypotheticals where they decided for whatever reasons that they wanted to decommission the robot while jrr was still on the court. or they stepped in at the moment of the emergency and said, dnr. or maybe even more controversially if they had came in afterwards and reanimated the robot, and jrr came and said, i believe i'm still a justice of the supreme court of the united

states, and what would ensue. i mean, a lot of these things were intentionally left open to provoke thought. and certainly one can't, you know, nor would one try to offer answers to each of those kind of things. >> yes? j hi. this is kind of snarky, but i can't help but ask it. i'm holly glazer. i'm a gas specialists. that's mapping with computers. in answer to you, are you part of the community that you judge? what do you say about the rules about forbidding abortion for women which seem to be entirely passed by men? should we obey them? are they legal? >> you realize at this point i was making that you don't have to be a member of the community to be a judge. that's the point about the privy council. >> i missed that. >> okay. but your point is, as a matter,

we should try to make sure that people who hold the power of life and death over us, share something with us, and sympathize with us, and understand our concerns, right? >> no, i think that they should have to obey the laws that they make. i mean, that's the easiest thing, to make sure that they won't make oppressive laws. >> well, but i take it the case you just gave is a situation in which you argue the laws are oppressive. the reason they're oppressive is the men on the court don't sympathize with the women who are affected. >> not that they sympathize, but they will never be in jeopardy of having to face that law. >> most judges will never be in jeopardy of the same problems that criminal defendants are in. so do you think no judge could ever sit in a criminal defendant's case? >> no. i think that decisions about women's bodies ought to be left to women. who have to face the consequences. no man will ever get an abortion, until robots that can

give birth in our men are created. >> i think that's a good point. it does have the effect that roe versus wade could never be decided because there were no women on the court at that time. >> we have a question in the back. how many people are still waiting to ask questions there? okay, one. this will be our last question then before the break. >> i want to provoke some thought about the idea of bias and objectivity. >> tell people who you are. >> i'm sorry. kevin bankston, new america's open technology institute. it seems in certain ways a robot judge would be vulnerable to bias. in particular, it seems one of your key criteria for whether jrr would be a good judge is enmeshment in the human community, yet that seems that could actually be a great feature of a judge rather than above. second, there's the question of the biases of the people who

program jrr. are those more or less relevant than the biases programmed into human jr by his human parents. and third and finally, i thought it was worth noting the potential biases injected by someone who haks jrr. unlike a human judge -- i mean, like a human judge actually, this judge, too, could be corrupted. we deal with that with human judges by giving them lifetime tenure. how might we address the threat of a judge being hacked? because to me, i'm much less concerned about a robot judge's humanness than i am -- >> i think it happened last week. >> huh? i'm much more concerned of it actually getting hacked. curious about your thoughts on potential bias or lack of bias when it comes to robot judges. >> sure. well, one of the things you will have noticed about this is the

reason you asked these questions is because we didn't address the idea that jrr was any more or less biased than any human being. and i think that we would both take the same line as jack, which is to say, jrr -- any programs about -- to the extent that there's any programming of biases, at least in the very strange hypothetical that we've imagined, is no different than anybody else who was a classmate at harvard law school. so those didn't enter the thought experiment in any way quite intentionally, because we thought there was enough to address there. i think, for example, when you drill this down to the level of smaller incremental ai and the law type applications, we'd be very concerned about those questions, about programming, and so in other words, i don't discount the bias questions here. but i -- one of the things that i know chris and i discussed

quite a bit, and people who anecdotely would have heard about this paper would say, it's interesting, we think there's probably a lot of people who would think that, you know, this isn't such a controversial thing, that judges of the u.s. supreme court seem robotic in any event, and judging is really a means of masking bias through technique anyway. writing written decisions. so those kinds of things weren't foreand foremost amongst the problems that we addressed. the hacking issue, of course, is a really interesting issue. and it's a different kind of argument one might have. most likely against judges. if it raises -- if there are security type issues, that there are vulnerabilities inherent in robots that aren't inherent in humans, that would be a different kind all together. but i think if we were getting to the level of asking questions about whether, for example, we

might have a system, whether it's an arbitration system or something, we would want to ask all of those questions you're asking, absolutely. >> and we're open in the paper, at least we acknowledge that we don't address the degree to which he has a unique individualized experience. right? from his interactions over a number of decades. and we just don't know how that's impacted on him. like it has been impacted on him in some way, just in the way that a human judge is the product of a realm of, you know, in-depth experience, and interaction. >> i just wanted -- those of you worried about bias in the supreme court, related to your question, i just want to assure you all that the current supreme court is sworn to uphold the law equally between the rich and the very, very rich alike. >> on that happy note, please join me in thanking the panel for this discussion. we're going to try to stick to

our schedule, which means your break shrank by about two minutes. we'll come back at 10:00 sharp. see you then. thank you. coming up tonight on c-span3, a look at new more secure models for u.s. embassies abroad. then a look at the impact of federal and state intervention in reducing poverty. later, remarks by attorney general eric holder on addressing security threats in syria. next, a hearing on the cost and security implications of the state department's new construction model for u.s. embassies abroad. this hearing of the house oversight and government reform committee is 3 hours and 10 minutes.

>> the committee will come to order. today's hearing examining new embassy construction questioning our new administration policies putting americans overseas in danger. the committee on oversight and government reform exists to protect two main principles. that the money washington takes from the taxpayers is well spent. and effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. it's our job that we're tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to protect these rights, and to deliver the facts to the american people, and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is our mission statement.

today we are examining the results of a department of state 2011 decision to transition from a successful program of standard embassy design, which stresses security, functionality, to a new undefined, loosely defined design excellence program which has led to untimely delays in construction as well as increased costs. these delays put american diplomats and their staff in an unnecessary risk. keeping them safe should be our primary priority. in response to the 1998 east africa embassy bombings, the state department implemented sweeping reforms in the way it constructed new embassies and consulates overseas. among these reforms are the development of a standard embassy design that could easily adapt for size and location. the use of design built contract

delivery method. the implementation of performance management and strategic planning principles. these reforms produced an impressive record of successful overseas facilities, construction, leading to embassies and consulates being well built, on time and on budget, and offering superior security. in 2001, the government was only building an average of one new embassy per year. one new embassy means 200 years to replace all our embassies. and consulates. by comparison, in 2006, following the implementation of the new reforms, the state department bureau of overseas building operations, known as obo, opened an unprecedented 14 new facilities. that same year, the independent government accountability office, known as gao, found that

the construction time for embassy projects had been reduced from 69 months, basically six years nearly, to 36 months, three years. in addition to reducing the amount of time required to build new embassies, gao also found that the majority of standard embassy design projects it reviewed ended up costing significantly less than state department cost estimates. the embassy construction program with standard embassy design at its core went on to move a total of 32,000 overseas employees into secure facilities by 2013. starting in 2011, however, the state department decided that a working and efficient program wasn't good enough. and although they will report that they maintained these tools in their toolbox, they've gone to a program known intermly as design excellence.

state maintains that the new initiative will incorporate a success of standard embassy design, while allowing for more flexibility to adapt its buildings to unique environments. in reality, however, the committee has learned that under the current management obo, has decided to transition away from standard embassy design program, in favor of a unique architecturally sophisticated and more expensive embassies. embassies look better, and cost more. through this move, this may be visually attractive. the new design process does not prioritize security, it prioritizes appearance. the new standards view security and safety as something that must be designed around and

disguised rather than the first priority. i'm now going to play a short video featuring architects, that was produced by the state department about the design excellence program. please play the clip. ♪ >> within that, we find different ways by which we can disguise the lines of security that are so crucial. >> i think the very first thing you have to do is make a building that actually doesn't feel hostile to its context. it has to really work with its context, and welcome the population there. >> balancing the security and the openness, that's one of the

most exciting challenges. i think those are the kinds of things that good architects, great designers can do. they can do both things. security and openness. >> i'm sorry to have to say this. but were our diplomats in benghazi murdered because their building felt hostile in its context and didn't welcome the population there? they were vulnerable because they were in a non-standard, non-secure building. a building in which the refuge point was not designed safely, and chris stevens died likely of asphyxiation as a result of buying, renting an off-the-shelf facility for a consulate safety facility. did americans die in the african embassy bombings because the

buildings didn't do enough to have enough openness and balance of security? are disguising security measures really a good strategy to deter terror attacks? in the post-september 11th world, is it disconcerting to hear state department pushing these arguments. the answer is yes. in may of 2013, an internal state department panel on diplomatic security organization and management which arose out of benghazi's review board recommendations, issued a final report. in the report, the panel, which was chaired by former undersecretary for management here today, grant green, raised concerns about design excellence program. the panel found no evidence for a business case or cost benefit analysis supporting design excellence program. the panel also expressed concern that under design excellence,

fewer facilities can be built over the same time frame which could leave u.s. government personnel exposed for longer periods of time. losing momentum in construction of new or more secured facilities on time, and at a reasonable cost, would leave u.s. government employees in harm's way, and expose taxpayers to unnecessary fiscal risk. obo received $2.65 billion in fiscal year 2014 for embassy security, and construction and maintenance. a significant increase over prior years. but how many embassies you build is how many large a figure you divide into that amount. when the department requested and congress granted a budget increase, it was based on stated need to construct new secure facilities, not to produce more architecturally pleasing ones.

today we are conducting oversight of the state department's design program. though we have made meaningful and very specific document requests to the state department to date, the department has delivered -- has not delivered a single document. and this is unprecedented. today we are -- we are today here to examine whether obo has proper management and program in place to preserve the tremendous gains made under the standard embassy design program, in securing u.s. diplomats and their families overseas at a reasonable cost. in closing, you are not the people responsible, but people who are listening today and watching today at the state department understand they have stonewalled our request. they have even used mail to disguise -- ordinary mail to

disguise and delay responses. and this is contemptible. this is serious oversight of the congress, over the very lives and safeties of state department employees. this committee is reaching the end of its rope, which state department is stalling. you stalled on benghazi. and two years after the tragic death, we only learned that in fact state department was complicit with the white house in attempting to disguise a false narrative as to how and why the consulate was attacked. you were not the messengers that will be shot, but understand, you may very well be back again and again as the documents that were requested finally come in. for that, i am truly sorry that you may come back here again and again. but if we do not receive documents that were requested in plenty of time, then much of your testimony today will be a

first round, and not in fact the definitive oversight that we expected to have. with that, i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this very important hearing. and i thank you, all of our witnesses, for being with us today. the bombings of our embassies in kenya and tanzania in 1998 were a watershed moment for our nation. following those attacks, the state department reported that 80% of its overseas facilities did not, i repeat, did not meet security standards. congress authorized billions of dollars to expedite embassy construction around the world. as part of this effort, the state department's bureau of overseas building operations

launched the standard embassy design initiative to promote the use of standardized designs for small, medium and large embassies. this program has been very successful in achieving its goals. since the year 2000, the state department has constructed 111 new buildings, and more than 30,000 u.s. personnel into safer facilities. the program also has its limitations. the program, for example, it typically requires large parcels of land, which sometimes result in buildings being constructed further from urban centers. critics contend that this impairs u.s. diplomatic efforts overseas. it makes it harder for officials to conduct their work. as one commentator noted, the standard embassy design

initiative was, quote, an expedient solution to an urgent problem, the one that narrowly defines an embassy as a protected workplace, and overlooked this larger representational role, end of quote. so we commend the tremendous progress made under the standard embassy design initiative. but we must always ask whether we can do more. we must ask the question, whether we can do better. on this committee in particular, we must ask how to make this program run even more efficiently, and even more effectively. to me, there are three basic factors we must consider. one, security. two, cost. and three, function. in 2011, the department launched a new embassy construction effort called design excellence. as i understand it, this effort aims to provide the same, or

better security, at the same or lower costs, while improving the ability of american officials overseas to do their jobs. this program seeks to achieve these goals by being more flexible than the current program. for example, by incorporating more customized designs rather than standard designs, the department may be able to build on smaller or irregular lots. this may allow more embassies to be located in urban centers, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our missions. these more flexible designs also may reduce costs, lower initial construction costs and long-term maintenance costs. for example, the new u.s. embassy in london, although not

constructed entirely under this new design excellence concept, shares many of its principles. this new facility will be more secure than the existing embassy. it will be more functional, and effective for our diplomatic missions. it will be completed on time. and it will be built at no cost to the united states taxpayer. this entire project is being funded through the proceeds of sales from exist iing propertie there. the challenge with this program, however, is the lack of data. no embassies have been conducted to date based entirely on this new concept. the new embassy in mexico city will be the first facility constructed from start to finish under this initiative, but it will not be completed until 2019. according to mr. green, who is testifying here today, the department has not put together a comprehensive business case

that analyzes the potential costs and benefits of this new program in detail. we all know that what can happen when the lack of adequate planning, under the previous administration the new embassy constructed in iraq went wildly overbudget, came in well after the deadline, and was plagued with corrupt contractors. it ended up costing the american taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more than it should have. and that money could have been used to secure other u.s. facilities and american personnel throughout the world. so, as we evaluate the merits and drawbacks of this new effort, we must keep one goal at the top of our list. the security of our diplomatic officials serving overseas. mr. chaffetz, who serves as the chairman of the national

security subcommittee, has asked whether this new initiative to customize diplomatic facilities, could delay their completion. in other words, if customizing is slower than using standard designs. does that keep our people in harm's way longer, as they wait for new secure buildings. i believe this is a legitimate question, and a legitimate concern. i want to know from the department what their answer is. our diplomatic officials deserve the safest embassies in the world. and they also deserve facilities that help them conduct u.s. foreign policy in the most effective and efficient manner possible. i truly believe that every member of this panel feels the same way. and with that, mr. chairman, i anxiously look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. cummings. i'm pleased -- >> mr. chairman?

>> yes? >> prior to that, can i ask consent to introduce into the record a number of items? >> without objection, at this point, do you want to go ahead and state your -- >> i'd like to introduce into the record the gao report on embassy construction dated january 2001, another gao report from november 2004, regarding embassy construction, an additional gao report from june of 2006, about embassy construction, the july 2010 gao report, new embassy compounds. i'd also like to enter into the record a letter that chairman issa and myself sent on june 23rd, 2014, to secretary kerry, requesting a series of documents that we have not yet received. i'd also like to enter into the record the response from the state department dated july 3rd, which we actually received on july 8th of this year.

and then the final document is the u.s. department of state bureau of overseas building operations fact sheet, cbs news, are u.s. embassies becoming too costly to build. a response to a couple news programs. i'd like to enter that fact sheet back into the record as well. >> without objection, a request is agreed to. and now i'd like to recognize the gentleman from utah for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to be clear. this is beginning of a series of hearings that i think are essential to figure out and get to the bottom of the truth of a situation that is -- thousands of americans are facing with their mission and their service overseas. the bureau of overseas buildings operations corps mission is to

place americans overseas in as safe and secure facilities as fast as possible. i would note for the record that the state department budget, overall state department budget since fiscal year 2008 has increased more than 58%, going from $17 billion to over $27 billion. and that security funding from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2014 has increased more than 100%. prior to 2011, and design excellence, the bureau seemed to be fulfilling its core mission, constructing secure overseas facilities. they were doing it on time and on budget. yet in 2011, obo decided to take this rare government success story and replace it. the new program focuses instead on constructing fancy buildings to enhance the u.s. reputation around the world, all the while many americans are still waiting for their new secure facilities. the design excellence, the bureau subscribed to a view that fancy buildings equal successful

diplomacy. that officials serving overseas, those whom they serve, care first and foremost about aesthetics, and that aesthetics alone can further u.s. diplomatic relations. since the bureau initiated the major overhaul of the overseas construction program three years ago, embassy construction has slowed significantly. while construction costs have skyrocketed to millions over price tags. long awaited facilities and less than secure cities have been delayed for years, while american officials overseas who devote their lives to furthering u.s. interests abroad must remain in undated insecure structures. earlier this year, i traveled to new guinea, where i saw firsthand the new design initiative. there i saw an embassy construction project that was originally slated to cost $50 million. yet this is ballooned to a price tag of more than $200 million. all in the name of aesthetics. during my short visit, there was an attempted carjacking of an

embassy staffer. this event along with my conversations with foreign service officials stationed there allowed me to see firsthand that having a fancy building is not high on their list of concerns. no one told me, quote, what we really need is a building that represents innovation, humanity and openness. they wanted a facility that offered safety and security for themselves, their families, and many visitors. why the department allowing foreign service officials to remain in unsecured dilapidated facilities at the price of aesthetics is beyond me. we had a mission there who was trying to secure his people. they're in an old bank building. it is not secure. those poor people work in an office, they have to have an armed guard take them from their living facilities to the embassy itself. the facility that by any standard is not properly secure. in a may 2013 internal state department panel, a diplomatic

security organization which was chaired by former undersecretary grant green, issued the final report. the panel found no evidence of a business case or cost benefit analysis supporting design excellence. in short, the program is yet to produce results, but introduces significant risk to constructing facilities on time, on budget, while moving officials overseas into secure facilities. despite requesting -- and to my ranking member and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we cannot do the work on either side of this aisle unless we get the documents and operate from the same set of facts. we issued a letter, the third week of july -- i'm sorry, the third week of june, asking for a series of things. in preparation for this meeting. i have been working with the state department for months. they've known that i've been curious about this. i've traveled overseas. i've visited a number of facilities.

yet despite that, we have not received a single document. i've got one page that said we will get this to you as soon as possible. and if you look at the document request, to have nothing coming into this hearing, is inexcusable. how can you provide us nothing. we don't have documents that mr. lynch, or mr. welch, or myself, or mr. walberg can look at. how can you do that to the congress? it's a waste of time and money and effort. and we'll bring you back. we'll do it again. but you cannot come to the united states congress when we ask you for these basic documents and provide us nothing. our staff worked with you and said, if you have problems with one or two or three of the documents, whatever, just give us on a rolling basis what you have. and we got nothing. and i think on both sides of the aisle, that's a fair criticism. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also

will help us with that. >> will the gentleman yield for one second? >> sure. >> i agree that -- and i'm hoping, mr. chaffetz, that the witnesses will provide us with reasons as to why we have not gotten what we need. you're absolutely right. in order to do oversight, we have to have documents. so i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. let me give you an example. one of the documents is the report on diplomatic security organization and management. it's on the al jazeera website. our own state department won't give it to us. i printed it out on the al jazeera website. why do i have to go to al jazeera to get the information that you have? and that you're withholding from congress? i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. let me recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney. i'm sorry, mr. lynch. >> we all look alike.

>> mr. tierney is the ranking member, he's not here of the subcommittee, but mr. lynch is here. and you're given five minutes. >> i'm sure mr. tierney would take offense. >> i'm sure he would, too. you're much better looking. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. let me just say to begin with, we really do need to have prompt, accurate response as an oversight committee regarding these matters. it helps no one to have the allegation of obstructionism cast back and forth here. so i think that some of the gentleman from utah's complaints are well founded. about the responsiveness of the state department to our request. so we need to do better, okay? and that's from everybody up here. this committee is coming up on

too many instances where it has been a long delay in providing information. things blow up. and then it looks like you're being less than honest, and less than forthcoming. at least with respect to the conduct of this committee. i will say that like the gentleman from utah, many members on this committee, i've spent a lot of time at embassies in some of the tougher spots around the world, and we've had an ongoing debate about how to secure the personnel at our embassies. and it's a difficult problem. i don't think there's any cookie cutter approach to this. and i know that there was an earlier -- before the more creative design initiative was adopted, we also had during the 110th congress, this was during the bush administration, we conducted an extensive

investigation to report the rampant waste, fraud and abuse around the construction of the new embassy compound in baghdad, iraq. and i've spent many nights there. the old embassy, the new embassy. that was a huge expense. going to be very difficult to staff. it's got more staffing requirements than the white house, to be honest with you. i think 3,400 people as opposed to 1,700 at the white house. it's just -- you know, it's just unreasonable to expect that that is suitable to our requirements in baghdad. you know, we've had situations in yemen. i'm happy to hear that -- and when i was there, we had reconstruction efforts and strengthening efforts there in yemen with good cause. we had fruitful discussions up to a point with the syrian bashar al assad about relocating

our embassy there in damascus. we don't have it there anymore, it's not staffed. we have to get around to relocating that. it's too vulnerable to car bombs, right there on the main street. and i do support having a more remo remote -- not necessarily remote, but a little bit of a setback for our embassies in and around the world. and that goes for not only damascus, when we eventually get back in there, but also beirut. but there's been a profound lack of oversight in the construction process of one of the things i used to do. you know, i was a construction manager. and that's what my undergraduate degree is in. so i've had an opportunity to see how we're going about this. and there is -- to put it

bluntly, there is great room for improvement here, in terms of how we're going about spending this money, and the -- as i said before, the sort of cookie cutter way that we've tried to approach this in the past. i'll be very interested in your answers to a number of questions regarding some of these arrangements. i know that in the case of the baghdad embassy, we had $130 million plus in questionable charges by the first kuwaiti corporation that was allegedly engaged in a $200,000 bribery and kickback scheme in order to obtain subcontracts. we've had flagrant oversight lapses on the part of the state department, that had been previously warned by the defense department audit agency. and it's just been a series of missteps on our part.

and underlying all of this is just a new world out there in terms of the risk to our people in these embassies. ben dpauzy is one example, although that was not an embassy. still, it -- you know, it shows us what can go wrong. we have a real obligation here to reassess the defense protocols that we have at our embassies, and that obviously includes how we're building them and what kind of apron of security that we provide for these facilities. so we've got to get smart about this in a big hurry. we've got to be more effective with our architectural design. and we've got to be much more wise with the expenditure of taxpayer money in support of these efforts. we can't afford to fail. with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i thank him for his important comments. the and mr. lynch, i thank you

for your being a willing traveler to tough places over the years. you and i have had the privilege of going to some of those places. >> thank you. >> we now welcome our witnesses. miss lydia muniz is the director of the bureau of overseas building operations at the united states department of state. and again, obo as it's known. mr. casey jones is the deputy director of the bureau of overseas buildings and operations at the united states state department. and the honorable grant s. green jr. is the former undersecretary for management at the department of state. lady and gentlemen, pursuant to the committee rules, would you please rise to take the sworn oath. and raise your right hands, please. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? please be seated. let the record reflect that all

witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow sufficient time for questioning, and answers on both sides, i would let you know that your written statements are already part of the record. and so please use your five minutes either to read a portion of that, or to other comments as you please. ms. muniz? >> thank you. chairman issa -- >> and i must tell you, these mics really want them closer to you, rather than further away. if you will pull it significantly closer, it will make it easier. thank you. >> chairman issa, ranking member com, and committee members, i appreciate the opportunity today to discuss the state department's program to build safe and secure facilities. for u.s. government staff serving abroad. i'm lydia muniz, director of the overseas building operations. i've been with obo since 2009 and came to the department with

nearly 20 years of government and real estate development experience. the state department is deeply committed to the safety and security of our personnel overseas. every new construction project that obo undertakes must and will meet the security and life safety standards required by law, which our colleagues in the bureau of diplomatic security, and by obo. security is the cornerstone of our building program, and because we have an obligation to the american taxpayer, to be efficient in constructing our facilities, we're committed to ensuring we neither compromise the speed in which we can deliver safe facilities, nor incur unjustified and unnecessary costs. obo facilities serve as the overseas platform for u.s. diplomacy. they provide access to consular services and ensure food and product safety and implement programs critical to our national security interests. since congress enacted the secure embassy construction and counterterrorism act, or seca, in 1999, obo has with the

continued support of congress completed 76 new embassies and consulates, with 16 more under design and in construction. we have moved over 31,000 employees to more secure facilities with plans to move another 14,000 within the next five years. after ten years of a successful building program, we examined our work, and instituted the initiative that deployed the lessons learned over the years. this includes the requirements of the missions abroad, most critically safety and security. but also durability, efficiency, flexibility, proximity for personnel and visitors, and a platform that serves the needs and mission of america abroad. we know that security, safety and excellence are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. the standard embassy design standardized facility requirements and the way in which they were met and created a discipline within obo to

deliver those facilities. using the standard embassy design, obo came to better understand the common requirements of missions like consular sessions and specialized office space. we also learned that while embassies and consulates have things in common, they also vary widely. their missions in dense urban environments and in rural areas, posts with as few as three staffs, as many as 2,500, some have sections with one windows, others have more than 100. so while the s.e.d. provided consistency, they need to meet the needs of the mission and deploy taxpayers dollars in the most effective manner. we learned we should take into account local conditions and materials in order to have buildings perform better in the long term and consider not only first costs, but long-term operating costs. and we recognized that our facilities not only meet the functional requirements of our missions, they represent the

united states to the rest of the world. our embassies are the most america that many who live around the globe will ever see. at a time when it is increasingly important, that we provide for the security of our citizens at home, through diplomacy and engagement with people around the globe, embassies that convey u.s. values, culture, strength and know-how can be instrumental in that effort. all of this can and must be done meeting all of the department's security standards and without compromising on schedule or cost. we must protect our staff abroad, and using the lessons learned over the decades, we can design and build embassies and consulates that serve our missions and value to the taxpayer and make better use of scarce resources, in the short and in the long term. i would like to thank congress for their consistent support of obo's building program, including an fy 2013 providing increased funding to help our program keep up pace with inflation. in these uncertain times, we

know that our facilities must keep our staff safe and secure. the excellence initiative will ensure that. we'll meet the needs of our missions and provide the best value to the american taxpayer. >> thank you. mr. jones? >> good morning, chairman issa, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am a deputy of director in the overseas building operations in the u.s. department of state and have served in this position since october of 2013. the safety and security of the individuals who work for the u.s. government agencies overseas in creating and maintaining safe and secure facilities in all parts of the world is critical to the department. i know firsthand the reality of living in a high threat environment is part of a foreign mission. as a child, i lived in pakistan through periods of martial law and civil unrest. we lived on the grounds of the embassy returning to the united

states months before it was stormed in november 1979. this experience had a profound impact on me. security has been obo's top priority since the 1998 bombings of the american embassies in salam and nairobi. obo executed a successful building program utilizing a standard embassy design. this work is now being enhanced by our excellence in diplomatic facilities initiative which will build the next generation of safe and secure facilities. i want to assure you that the excellence initiative does not diminish the safety and security of new embassies. every office within obo, real estate, design, engineering, construction, facilities cost and security was involved in developing the initiative. as well as collaboration with other bureaus in securing diplomatic security. briefings on the improvements were provided to the department, congress, and the industry at large. the excellence initiative is about constructing

cost-effective buildings, buildings that meet all of the requirements for our mission, safety and security chief among them, flexibility and efficiency. ds and obo worked together throughout planning, design, construction, and day-to-day operations of diplomatic facilities. i also want to assure you that the excellence initiative does not lengthen the delivery time of new embassies and consulates. obo uses two common delivery methods for its projects. both methods have time, cost, design control and risk implications. that must be evaluated. the choice of which to use depends on the unique conditions of the building project. under excellence, obo will utilize which method is most cost effective, expedient and reduces the most risk. i want to assure you that excellence does not increase project budgets of new embassies and consulates. obo salvaged the project budgets whether for excellence project or standard embassy design, that

are based on scope, local conditions and prior cost information. obo has a depth and breadth of data that allows us to be very accurate in setting project budgets for new, safe and secure buildings. obo cannot anticipate every potential impact. real world events, unforeseen cost increases in materials, civil unrest, currency fluctuations and natural disasters can affect our projects. we are also not immune to policy changes. if the u.s. government decides it's in the nation's best interests to significantly increase or decrease the size of a mission, or change the functions located at a post, the cost of our projects are impacted. sometimes significantly. an example of this is the new embassy compound in por morrisby. in 2011 obo awarded a contract to build a standard lock and leave embassy. in spring 2013 with construction well under way, the u.s. government made two policy decisions that significantly changed the project.

first, a marine guard detachment was added and second, staff population was increased by almost 75%. the cost benefit analysis conducted by obo concluded that the additional requirements could not be accommodated in the existing contract. without incurring an additional $24 million over the scenario. as a result, obo stopped the remaining work, and will recompete a modified project with the additional requirements. this option utilizes but has already been built on site and yields the best end product. continuing with the contract as is would not have provided safer, more secure facilities any faster. as deputy director at obo, i want to emphasize that i take the responsibility to provide safe and secure facilities very seriously. and that there has not been nor will there be a move away from that critical mission.

diplomatic facilities are an essential function of our national interests. the individuals who represent the u.s. deserve safe and secure workplaces. and as good stewards of taxpayer dollars, it is our goal to see that those resources are invested wisely. thank you. >> thank you. mr. green? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i'm pleased to be here this morning to respond to your questions related to embassy security. my background, part of which has been mentioned, i served as undersecretary of state of management for four years under colin powell. i subsequently served as a commissioner on the commission for wartime contracting in iraq and afghanistan. and most recently, chaired the panel that's been talked about here, which looked at the management and the organization of diplomatic security.

this panel grew out of the accountability review board following benghazi that was chaired by admiral mullen and mastery pickery. as we on the panel progressed with our deliberations, we looked at one thing, and we looked at many things, but one thing we looked at was the relationship of diplomatic security to other bureaus and organizations both within the state department and across the government where appropriate. obviously obo, a close partner of diplomatic security, was included in that. as we talk to many ds employees, and others who are familiar and certainly concerned with security issues, it became

evident that they had security concerns with certain aspects of design excellence. we can -- you know, we can talk about the importance of security. the president includes in his letter to all chiefs the submission. secretary kerry has stated publicly that that is his most important mission is to protect the people working for this country overseas. but when we hear from people who are close to ds, obo operations, and they have voiced concern, then we were concerned. and as a result, we came up with a number of observations, and a recommendation. it wasn't to throw the baby out with the bath water. it wasn't to say, do away with

this crazy scheme. and go back to standard embassy design. all we said was, state department, you need to take an in-depth look at the security implications of this program. so with that, mr. chairman, i conclude my opening remarks. and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. ms. muniz, i just want to go through briefly one embassy not including the ones that were primarily here. on a bipartisan basis, with staff on both sides, i went to london and i looked at the facility there. and we understand that's an iconic facility. the justification for a glass curtain wall building. and a stunning appearance. and even a moat. it has a great deal to do with our relationship with our most close -- perhaps our most close

ally, is that correct? >> yes, i think that's accurate. >> it's not part of the standard design, or design excellence, it has its own purpose? >> that's correct. >> let me ask -- would you turn your mic on when you answer, please? >> yes. >> but i have one question. which is, do you believe that it is a good policy for congress to ever say, you can spend all that you get from the sale of other buildings, not a penny more, and no encouragement to spend a penny less. that's really a yes or no. do you believe that is a good poli policy? because that's what they're doing there. >> i think that -- i think that, as you noted, london is unique. >> i know, but i really want the yes or no, because i want to get on with the rest of the time. the congress made a decision and state department is spending every penny adjusting up or down

based on how much money they have, they're spending every penny they got from all the revenues on there. they're not spending any more because they're prohibited by congress. but they're not spending any less. do you believe that is an appropriate way to design any building? yes or no, please. >> i can't answer yes or no. these are unique circumstances. >> ma'am, yes -- no. my time's limited. do you believe that that is appropriate doing it that way? first of all, do you disagree that that's what they're doing, they're spending exactly what they got from the sales, yes or no? >> they're spending marginally less. there should be income coming from the proceeds of the sale back to the government. >> i wish that was so. that was not the report we got on a bipartisan basis less than two weeks ago. i'll consider that you're not going to answer the other question yes or no. but i'll answer it for you. no, it is not appropriate to say, spend all the money you can

get. they could have spent $200 million less, and we could have built two other embassies. if they needed $200 million more to do it right, we should have considered that and made a request. that is not how the it is not a part of it here. mr. green, basic, basic question that you found in your study. standard embassy designs have a certain look which have been modified quite a bit. is it fair to say that what they look like to a great extent is like -- industrial commercial office buildings all over america. what's commonly called class b or concrete tilt up buildings that are made to look nice but they're ultimately fairly industrial? >> i don't think so. i think when -- when we adapt the facade of a building, the goal there was to fit it in with

the -- with the culture, the country, to make it -- as -- as unattractive as we possibly could. and in my time at the department i visited more than 100 of our posts overseas. >> how about -- how about -- >> about which? >> prekinofasso? >> scan we put one of those up. it is important. quite frankly design excellence seems to be pretty look. see the two buildings. now, the state department hats not given us any of the information for us to evaluate the cost per desk or anything else. which makes it very hard to do some of the assessment. but your study shows us that they're not cost justifying the

building on the top is, is made with nonlocal materials that are only made tlin plain three place world. this concrete facade. it clearly is an architectural design rendering to a great exte extent, not necessarily all functional. not a standard build. it costs a lot of money. and it is an area in which there are more security guards than there are embassy personnel at desk. it is a high-risk area. is that justified versus a standard built in your opinion. if i need 550 people to provide security for 400 embassy personnel, do i in fact have a place in which the priority should be i'm looking pretty for the population so that they can be happy with us? >> not in my opinion. >> security, if it takes 550 people to protect 400 people is that a place in which there is any question about what the priority should be? >> priority is -- has got to be

security. in the department there is always this are gaumegument whe be with embassy construction or anything else. or housing for example. we used to have those who would say, we need to be out in the community. we need to live it out in the community. i don't want to live out there because of the hazard. i want to be on a skom poucompo. if you pin people down, security is most important to them. >> let me ask a closing question, i have picture after picture, cost after cost, we'll have some people back here when the state department delivers the arithmetic so we can evaluate it. i know you were above the folks here so. you oversaw people doing the jobs of, monets and jones. from a construction standpoint.

from what you were trying to achieve. during your tenure weren't we eventually making a decision to cut out architectural fees and changes that made embassies dissimilar versus similar? >> i don't know that we were trying to make embassies similar. but we were trying to stay within a fixed amount of money so we could build as many embassies as we could to get as many people out of harm's way as we could. if they weren't as beautiful as -- as some body might like, that wasn't the main factor. the main factor was get embassies built. as you mentioned -- there were -- after the report, after the beirut bombing, we had 120-some-odd embassies that were rated unsatisfactory. and what we want to do was -- was get as many of those fixed as we could. and -- and, you know, i have, as

i said, i have been to 100 of our posts. all of them beautiful? no, they're not beautiful. i think, in fact i opened the embassy in nigh rairobi, and th fine. >> i want to give you a chance to answer. but i want to get two things into the record. first of all, the pretty biflding on tbifld i building on the top is in the 19th most dangerous priority area. an embassy need to be built sooner rather than later in which security its clearly one of our greatest concerns. secondly lly i want to mention trip to britain was interesting, in that the ambassador and went through and explained how all of the embassy was and how we needed to replace it. he reminded me the disfunctional building was designed by the man

who designed dulles airport. at a time when gorgeous buildings were in the modernist eye of beholder. that we were building them all over the world. in fact, design sx lenexcellenc like a designer's suit it ages more quickly than the industrial look. if you had any other answers. i wanted to mack sure i gave you the opportunity. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what i would look to add, go back to really when talking about this project is that as my colleague, casey noted. we base our budgets on the embassy budgets. number of desks, the distance to get materials, we fix that budget and we work within that budget. so the building that you see that might be more attractive, might be more tailored to the missions in question -- >> when we have the numbers d - drn --- >> would cost no more. >> when we have the numbers.

we can have the discussion. since the state department has refutzed to comply with a lawful request for any data. even one shred such it. we only have, if you will, sort of the whistle blowers side of it. we don't have your side. but i will say that, to fly in concrete from europe for the top building to me is a questionable item that i am going to want to see why those materials were chosen over materials that could be provided more locally. mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as i am sitting here, i want us to, to -- to take a deep breath. and focus on, what you said, mr. green, security. when all is said and done -- a lot of these buildings will be in existence when we are dead and gone.

and this is our watch. we have a moment in time right now to get this right. not just for -- for our present diplomatic corps, but for generations yet unborn. and i want us to stay focused. because i think we can kind of drift off and not zero in. that's why i think when mr. tavis' comments about the -- the data that we have asked for is so important. so that we can try to figure this thing out. using the best information that we have. in the time that we have. so, with that backdrop, i want to go to you, and let me start by, you know, tavis' -- serves as the chair of the national subcommittee, raised a legitimate question whether new design excellence initiative to customize diplomatic facilities

could delay their completion. mr. green you raise a concern in your report which said this, i quote, despite scheduled cost assurances from o.b.o., there is concern that fewer facilities, and you just said this is a minute ago too, embassies consulates can be built over the same time frame leaving more personnel exposed in, in that inadequate facilities for longer period of time. mr. green, can you elaborate briefly? and what are some of the challenges with customizing versus using standard designs and you said, a moment ago that you didn't say -- throw the baby out with the bath walteter. you said certain recommendations. i assume that you were saying, look, we just want to be practical, to get back to that security thing, cost, function. so that we can be effective and efficient in what we are doing.

so, could you comment, please, sir? >> sure, yes, sir. the observations that we made and this is -- in the report -- and certainly not all inclusive. we didn't, this wasn't six smart guys in the mess hall that dreamed these things up. these were based on comments we got from security experts who work with o.b.o. on a daily basis. i, i would tell you for one -- if you can build a beautiful embassy under design excellence and do it as fast and it doesn't cost any more, i'm all for it. i don't care. i don't care what we build. but -- what i am concerned with, it's just not logical to the people we talked to and frankly to me, that you can -- build