Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622

Discuss the future of television technology. A Government Accountability Office Report has found that construction of a new u. S. Embassy in kabul afghanistan, has gone 27 overbudget. Gao and state Department Officials testified about the project at a House Oversight committee hearing. Republican Jason Chaffetz chairs this three and a half hour hearing. Committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. I appreciate you being here as we have a hearing today regarding the Construction Costs and delays of the United States embassy in kabul, afghanistan. The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. I appreciate you being here. This is an important topic. We have so Many Americans who have given their lives in afghanistan, who have sacrificed away from their families to serve the United States of america and our interests there. We have a duty and a obligation to make sure that they are well housed, that they are safe, that they are secure, that theyre able to do their jobs and their duty. And yet after more than a decade of fighting and great work by our United States military, we are deeply concerned about what the state department is doing or hasnt done in kabul to make sure that our embassy facility there is in proper order. The state department has invested or plans to invest more than 2. 17 billion in facilities. It probably makes it the single most expensive facility that we have around the globe. And if not the most expensive, certainly one of the most expense expensive expensive. Is there a threat . Yes, there is a threat there. It is a very dangerous place. Is it safe . No, it is not safe there. Did we hire the right contractors to put in place to make this happen . Evidently not. Weve had to readjust contracts. Weve had to dismiss some people along the way. The budget that was projected has gone up more than 27 . Is this project in kabul on time . No, its not. It was supposed to be open last year. Now it looks like 2017. Is there a Strategic Plan . No according to the gao, there is not. Are there standards in place . No there are not according to the gao. Is this security plan for temp temporary facilities in place . No there is not. After more than a decade, this seems to be a fiasco. It is a mess. Did we learn what we were supposed to learn when we were in iraq . Evidently not. Keeping americans safe who work in the Foreign Service in kabul afghanistan is a constant challenge. Just last week, taliban militants attacked the nato convoy just 500 yards from the United States embassy in kabul. Theres an article in the Washington Post dated july 7th saying a suicide bomber rammed a car in an Armored Vehicle on tuesday. The second such attack against Coalition Troops in a week. The attacks come a week after militants targeted a Coalition Convoy killing two afghan civilians and wounding nearly 30. The week before militants stormed the Afghan Parliament in kabul in broad daylight in what appears to be a coordinated attack. These incidents make clear that we have to ensure that the men and women in these environments are safe. But after an investigation by the gao, are they safe . No, theyre not and thats not acceptable. Due to the mismanagement by the state department however, it is not happening in kabul. As a result american diplomatic staff in afghanistan are being exposed to unnecessary danger. Last july the Government Accountability office reviewed the construction of the Kabul Embassy facility and found the state department failed to acknowledge known risks. These risks include awarding a contractor work before the site was secured. Changes in the number of staff at the complex and changes in the design of the building and security requirements. Temporary facilities dont even have a security plan at this point. As a result of these failures construction would take more time, cost more money, leaving Embassy Staff less secure in temporary facilities. We would lay these out in even greater specifity but we would not want to give the enemy an attack plan, but there are vulnerabilities and we have to address those. Once again, the review identified a number of significant but preventable problems. The lack of planning by the state department resulted in cost overruns and delays. Construction is now projected to come in at least 27 overbudget and more than three years behind schedule. Part of the project was originally expected to cost 625 million. Now it is projected to cost 792 million. The state department is continuing to negotiate with its contractor, so the current cost overruns could become empven larger. One of these factors is the department failing to follow its own director to have strategic facilities plan. A strategic facilities plan outlines how a particular facility will be used. It is critical for facilities like kabul where theres a high turnover in personnel. One of the things highlighted in the gao report is there is constantly turnover in new personnel. So because the state departments poor planning in the u. S. Of temporary facilities where americans must live and work, they will continue indefinitely in kabul. In fact, amazingly the state department recently requested and additional 124 million for temporary facilities. It is unclear why the state didnt do a better job planning for permanent or secure buildings which resulted in the waste of taxpayer dollars. It appears at least to me, that the effort to move toward temporary facilities is a way to get around some of the requirements that need to go into good and better planning. The state has no standards for temporary facilities. The state departments own actions in kabul make it clear how critical such standards are. In its fiscal year state expressed to concerns to congress. As the gao pointed out, quote, the only secure protection measure specified in the contract was shatterresistant window film, end quote. Thats it. Little film on the windows. Im not expert, but i dont care shatterresistant windows can stop a bullet, a grenade, an rpg, and yet we ask our americans to live in this highthreat environment. This means that employees were safer working 24 hours a day rather than returning to their housing where they should be able to rest, relax, and be safe. When there are no standards or guidance, americans are unsafe. 2 billion and youre still requesting temporary facilities with no standards, no protection. We did not learn the lessons in iraq and that is a crying shame. We look forward to having this hearing and hearing the answers and responses of that but now i would like to recognize the Ranking Member, mr. Cummings, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, as i listened to your statement i sat here and said to myself, were better than that. Were better than this. Listening to your answers to the questions that you presented i think theres a lot to be discussed here this morning. So im glad that youre holding this very important hearing on u. S. Embassy in afghanistan. Id like to make three main points that i think we all can agree on. First and foremost, the safety of United States personnel serving overseas is a Top National Security priority and its critical to our countrys interests around the entire world. Second, we recognize that the urgency of rapidly securing u. S. Facilities abroad may cost more for faster results. However, cutting corners may have the opposite effect and careful, very careful stewardship of taxpayer funds is critical to maximizing the protection of u. S. Personnel because any dollar wasted is a dollar that cannot be used to protect our personnel abroad. Kabul is one of the most dangerous places on the face of the earth. The state department ranks it as one of the most high threat, high risk locations for United States personnel. The men and women who serve our country in afghanistan recognize these risks, and it is our job to honor their service by taking all appropriate steps to provide secure facilities for their work. In 2008 and 2009 the United States rapidly increased the number of personnel in afghanistan to meet our nations military and Foreign Policy goals. First, under the Bush Administration and then under the obama administration. This and i quote search, end of quote required facilities for United States troops and civilian personnel, including those working side by side in reconstruction. Both republicans and democrats supported this. For example, Senate Services Committee Chairman John Mccain Argued that it was vitally needed in afghanistan and that delays would put american lives at risk. This dramatic increase in personnel created a difficult challenge for state Department Officials planning for facility and security requirements. On one hand they had to increase United States footprint on the ground in a safe and secure way. On the other hand, they did not want to repeat the same mistakes that were made in iraq. When the United States compound became a massive expensive fortress, even as u. S. President s subsided. According to the Government Accountability office, which has an official testifying hear today, and i quote, the dynamic and unpredictable operating environment of afghanistan has produced changing Facility Needs that have continually outpaced existing existing capeabilityies at the posts, end of quote. A Department Official will explain the effects of this rush to accommodate the surge. The state did not fully follow its cost and risk policies in part of the Facility Needs. Despite in you areurgency, gao also found that the state department could have and should have man planned better. Could have and should have but didnt. The state department contributed to construction delays and Cost Increases by failing to follow its own Risk Assessment and planning policies. Theres something awfully wrong with that picture. Gao also found that the departments original contracts did not include Adequate Security measures for temporary facilities. This led to inconsistent security measures, more contract modifications, increased costs and further delays according to gao. Finally, mr. Chairman i want to thank you for agreeing to my request to invite here today. The people we hire and train to protect our facilities are just as important to our security as the walls we build. This Company Provides security at our facilities in afghanistan under a contract that is scheduled to run through 2017 at a projected cost of 723 million. In october 2014, the state Departments Office of Inspector General issued a report with some very troubling findings. Egis lacked required documentation showing that its personnel underwent mandatory investigations and training. Egis billed the government for more than 8 million in questionable costs, including through the use of prohibited invoices. I am curious to learn what has egis learned about billing and what personnel they have in place considering theyre getting 723 million of hardearned taxpayer dollars. The ig also found that egis held the passports of third Country Nationals longer than necessary, raising concerns about the companys compliance with regulations about trafficking in persons. That is of great concern to me. In the past, our committee has investigated the actions of private security contracts in iraq where we witnessed shocking fraud and abuse. The current ig report does not include findings of nearly the same magnitude but these are important areas that we would like egis to explain and explain thoroughly. We understand that some of these issues may have been addressed and we thank them for being here today. Our goal is to make sure that we Carry Forward our past oversights to make sure those lessons have, in fact, have been learned and anything that needed to be corrected was corrected or is being corrected. I thank you again for this hearing. I hold the record open for five legislative days. Will now recognize our panel of witnesses. Were pleased to welcome mr. Michael courts, director of International Affairs and trade at the United States Government Accountability office. Appreciate the work you and your staff do. Were pleased to have lydia muniz. We appreciate you coming before our committee again. The honorable Gregory Starr assistant secretary of the diplomatic bureau. We appreciate your participation here today. Mr. Blanc. The honorable donald hays Senior Inspector at the office of Inspector General. And mr. Michael gulino. Welcome all. Witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so if you will please rise and raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. We appreciate if you would limit your testimony to five minutes. Your entire written record will be made part of the record. With that, we would like to begin with mr. Courts. Youre recognized for five minutes. Good morning, mr. Chairman. This testimony is based on a gao report dealing with a subject that we issued in may of this year. This work is part of a series of gao engagements to review the states efforts to manage construction and the efficiency and other aspects of its operations overseas. Gao was asked to testify this morning. The primary message of my testimony this morning is that costs have risen and schedules have been extended significantly for two Construction Contracts that the state awarded in 2009 and 2010 and further Cost Increases are likely. It lacks specific Security Standards for facilities. Further states lack of facility planning has led to coordination challenges and could lead to further problems. My first point is that costs for the two Construction Contracts have increased by about 27 from about 625 to almost 793 million. The projected completion of these projects has been delayed by over three years and is now slated for the fall of 2015. State didnt follow its own policies. When these risks, such as delays in the sequencing of the two contracts, materialized, it led to increased costs and extended schedules. My second point is that state has billed over 100 million in temporary buildings, that it has no Security Standards that are specifically specifically tailored to these type of facilities. State applied alternative security measures that resulted in differing levels of security for temporary offices and housing. The state took corrective action that increased cost and extended schedules. The post current Facility Needs include changes in the security situation and new capabilities that will be required as a result of the draw down of the u. S. Military there. While stake holders within state are working to identify and prioritize Facility Needs their efforts lack a facilities plans approach. In summary pursuing multiyear construction on a multioperational facility compound in a dangerous environment such as afghanistan presents distinct challenges and considerable risk. Addressing the challenges gao has identified should be a high priority. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member cummings, this concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you. Ms. Muniz. Am i pronouncing that right . Close enough. Chairman chaffetz i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the state departments Construction Projects in kabul afghanistan. From the beginning the goal has been to deliver secure facilities in those working in afghanistan. Use in 2005, obo completed a new office buildings, three new residential buildings, and support facilities to support the needs of the facility. Obo awarded two contracts to provide additional capacity. The projects included additional classified and unclassified office buildings, residential and support facilities as well as security and infrastructure upgrades. They provided nonpermanent facilities. The total project budget was 881 million. In spite of fluid conditions in managing a construction project im pleased to report that the unclassified annex will be completed this month. In october 2016 the classified annex will be completed and the following october will see the delivery of the final two residential facilities with 432 units. When completed, the Embassy Compound will have the capacity for nearly 1500 desks and over 800 residential units. These accomplishments will continue to be achieved. These include the termination of the fiscal year 2009 contract and the fiscal 2010 contract. An increase in scope. Additional security requirements as the security situation in afghanistan deteriorated. Modifications to the old chancery building to make it more functional for posts in the short term. And the closure of the Pakistani Border from november 2011 to july 2012 temporarily eliminating the projects most direct ground shipping route. The gao report on afghanistan suggested that the costs and schedule that the project increased. While these are important tools i reject the notion that more thorough assessments would have an impact on the kabul project. The material changes and challenges to the projects were not known and could not have been anticipated at the time of development and award of the projects. Cost increases and delays were unavoidable. The gao report also suggests that the kabul project was not appropriately planned for the missions needs. I also reject this notion. The kabul project was planned, designed, and awarded to provide the office and residential facilities as well as all necessary support and infrastructure required at that time. Afghanistan is a fluid environment and differs markedly from normal operations. Periodic reviews during and after the project are essential to ensure that the missions evolving needs are addressed. Afghanistan construction is critical to the state departments mission. With every day and with every decision, we do our best to deliver a platform that enables staff to perform their duties safely and securely and well continue this effort until our work in kabul is complete. I look forward to answering your questions. Mr. Starr, youre now recognized for five minutes. Good morning. Thank you for your invitation to appear today to discuss security and construction developments of the u. S. Embassy in kabul afghanistan. Our efforts in afghanistan and our determination to support the Afghan Government are the highest importance to the department and to the administration. I, along with my colleagues at the department of state, look forward to working with you to examine the issues. Our National Interests sometimes require us to operate in very dangerous places. We identify the risks. We take deliberate and prudent steps to mitigate them. The department has made important strides in that regard. I personally discussed, plan, and strategize with my counterpart on at least a weekly basis, usually more than that. We plan with a wide array of department interlocktures at the mission in kabul. However, we can never foresee and mitigate all the potential pit pitfalls in an environment like afghanistan. Insurgents have employed a wide variety and range of attacks including suicide bombings assassination attempts kidnappings, and complex attacks. Just last week there was an attack near our compound and like past attacks, our security facilities and measures performed as they should and continue to protect our people. In addition to operating in a challenging security environment, we have our supply route impeded and closed for extended period of times without notice. It slowed our ability to get materials to the site, but we ultimately found alternate routes and our Mission Never ceased. Embassy kabul is not just a construction site. It is one of the largest functions embassy in the world with a large number of director and high contractor personnel, which requires a significant amount of support. Although we have experienced periods of elevated an targeted violence, which has halted all movements, we have resumed movements and we continue to build. When my colleague at the office of the Inspector General has brought issues to our attention, we have made changes in short order to ensure mistakes are not prolonged or duplicated. We have learned lessons due to the thorough inspection of the gao and the aig ig reports. Our facilities have proven time and time again they can withstand the most complex attacks. Building facilities in this environment is not easy, and it is certainly not without risks delays and unforeseen circumstances and costs. Due to a fluid and evolving security environment we must evolve and adapt to the conditions and circumstances that are presented to us. We work constantly to improve our practices and protect our people. We continue to reevaluate and at times, despite the inherent setbacks it may cause, we must chart new courses in order to advance the Bigger Picture of completing the mission to secure our people. As i will close, i will say that i am confident and pleased that despite the unforeseen challenges and setbacks Department Personnel in kabul are better prepared and better secured today. I want to thank congress for the resources that you have provided over the years to strengthen and reenforce this vitally important diplomatic platform. As the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security, i work every day with my colleagues in the department of state to ensure a safe environment for the people. Thank you. I will glad to answer any of the questions that you may have. Mr. Blanc youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the future of Mission Afghanistan with my colleagues lydia muniz and greg starr. Please allow me to begin once again by thanking the members of the committee for your continued support for our mission. I would like to particularly honor the dedication of thousands of American Military personnel, diplomats, and assistance professionals who have served and continue to serve in afghanistan. We began our mission in late 2001 to ensure that the country would never be used by al qaeda or extremists as a haven to launch attacks against the United States. Since 2001, our goal has been to foster the development of an afghanistan that is sovereign unified, democratic, and selfsufficient. In short, the development of afghanistan as we cannot achieve this without smart diplomacy. Afghanistan is undeniably a dangerous place. When we ask our people to go into harms way we do so because their work is vital to our National Security and we are all of us obligated to provide them with the resources they need to do their job safely and well. Unction we will continue to make improvements to adapt to a political, security, and planning environment. Ongoing security upgrades will create an Embassy Compound that is designed to minimize threats and sustain u. S. Diplomacy. In keeping with president obamas plan for a phase drawn down of u. S. Military forces to an embassybased presence, well have Life Support Services that will increase our flexibility and selfsufficiency. Were bringing satellite locations closer to the main compound. Installing advanced Early Warning technologies. We continue to work with our afghan partners to assess emerge emerging threats and develop effective prevention strategies. Of course, none of these measures is perfect. While we constantly examine our security method,sss, i want we will continue to scrutinize the environment in afghanistan to seize opportunities to improve security where possible. Surging our civilian staff to support the military footprint and now drawing down to a smaller and more sustainable level. To be effective, the business of diplomacy must be conducted in person. The reporting they provide is vital to an agency that determines longterm u. S. Strategy. They build relationships with afghanistans current and future leaders make sure u. S. Policymakers are informed and positions are heard. This work is critical to our efforts to fight al qaeda assist the Afghan Government against their insurgency, and bolster security and stability of the afghan state. Since september 11 2001 we have made significant progress. U. S. Diplomacy has helped the Afghan Government build an National Army and Police Forces to provide opportunity for millions of afghans. We have seen the country make great strides. But many challenges remain. Institutions must be further strengthening to give the government further legitimatecylegitimacy. Afghanistans ability to provide a Security Apparatus must be bolstered in the face of persistent threats in order to remain a partner. Fostering afghanistans development is the only Sustainable Way to address u. S. Security concerns in the region and it will require continuing assistance. At the same time, we will continue to find ways to address the real risks our team in afghanistan faces. Thank you very much, and im happy to answer questions. Thank you. Mr. Hays, youre now recognized for five minutes. Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the office of the Inspector General for the department of state. My testimony will focus on the Construction Projects and related Security Issues of the embassy in kabul. The embassy is a fortified compound composed of two adjacent campuses near the city. They total 36 acres and are a mix of structures and a construction site. The department leases several residences outside the Embassy Walls to provide adequate setback for enhanced security for those sections of the wall. At the time of our inspection, over 1,000 employees were stationed in afghanistan. Due to the massive construction underway the Embassy Compound employees were forced to weave their way to get to work. A number of agencies were still in temporary facilities awaiting completion of their new offices. We had 21 inspectors conducting over 600 interviews and reviewing hundreds of documents and 70 oversight reviews. When we arrived, the security situation was deteriorating in and around kabul necessitating additional security projects. The team found the bureau of Diplomatic Security was engaged in constructing a number of building projects both in and off Embassy Compound. During our inspection it spent 1. 35 billion betweenphysial physphysial fiscal years 2002 and 2013. These projects include the expansion of warehouse Marine Security guard quarters, construction to housing facilities, and other projects in kabul outside the embassy including the completion of contract guard sleeping quarters and other warehouse facilities. The need for Security Enhancement to the exterior wall was first identified and funded by ds in 2009. Ds considered these enhancements urgent given the embassys location, the middle of kabul. Large buildings adjacent to the compound were a growing security threat. The team made classified recommendations with regard to Security Enhancements. Necessary Security Enhancements, temporary housing were similarly characterized as urgent and founded by ds in 2011. Approximately 70 of the 800 u. S. Government employees and contract workers living on the u. S. Compound were housed in temporary containerized Housing Units called shoes at the time of the inspection. Most of these lacked adequate overhead and side protection. During the course of the on site inspection, both Embassy Senior Management Team expressed concern over lack of progress to the exterior wall and temporary housing. They were not initiated despite serious implication of not completing them. Based on interviews this issue caused considerable friction between ds and oboe at the time. Definitely ds wishing that the expeditiously completed these projects while oboe wanted it to finish after it met design and construction standards. In response oboes project manager explained there was a lack of progress due to a number of factors, including the number of projects underway and equipment on the compound. As a result the contractor stated it was required to phase in projects to work efficiently and safely. The desire there was no way to carry out these enhancements until current Construction Projects were completed. Washington raised concerns about the apparent inability of ds and oboe to Work Together in cankabul. The team met with oboe and the assistant secretary on several occasions. They stated they would Work Together to address these situations. Oboe would work with ds to address current security projects. On following the meeting, the undersecretary assured the team that highlevel meetings would be conducted to eliminate outstanding issues and to proceed with the recommendations on Security Enhancements. In our classified report we recommend oboe coordinate with ds in the embassy to develop and execute a master plan of all ongoing projects. Thank you. Thank you. Could you repeat that last the last two sentences there that you said. In our classified report, under the section titled construction project management we recommended that oboe coordinate with ds and the embassy to execute a master plan for all ongoing and planned projects, including those funded by ds and to date their recommendation remains open and is a serious concern. I didnt hear that last part and i appreciate you repeating it. Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to present testimony before this committee today. I am pleased to represent egis and all of our employees worldwide on this matter. Egis is a u. S. Company based in mcclain virginia. We provide security and Risk Management whose focus is to support necessary for our clients so they can undertake their missions in a complex and high threat operational environments. We handle everything from protective security to the facilities that house canines. Our team of dedicated professionals include employees from 47 of the 50 United States as well as four National Employees from nepal and afghanistan. Beginning in 2012 under task order 10 to our Worldwide Protective Services program which ill refer to as wps agents works in close concert with the department of state to meet all operational and contractual requirements. The department of state office of Inspector General initiated an audit. The audit covered the startup period of the contract. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member cummings, we fully acknowledge there was some administrative and logistic issues in the early part of that contract. Since that time and well before the issuance of the report we have worked to address and correct these logistical issues. This includes thorough documentation for recordkeeping accurate time card and billing administration. The report also raised concern that passports did not post trafficking in persons which we call tips. I want to ensure the committee that egis maintains vigilant human rights and tips compliance programs. We have werefined our programs to make sure employees are aware at all times where their passport is and the status of it. Tips posters are displayed in english and nepali in prominent locations throughout the embassy site where they work. Egis has worked closely with the department of state and the dod and the International Private Security Committee to establish private security contractor standards. Its what i called a super charged Quality Management system that ensures compliance and professional management of security contractors with an emphasis on vigilant protection of human rights. Im proud to report that egis was the first u. S. Security company to earn its security certification. This is obtained through a vigorous external and complete independent audit of our system in mcclain as well as on the ground in afghanistan. Our employees and representatives abide by the egis code of conduct, which is based upon our cornerstone core value of integrity and commitment to respect responsibility diversity, and inclusion. We also maintain stringent anticorruption and whistleblowing policies as well as a policy of zero tolerance for retaliation. In conclusion, id like to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in this discussion and to thank the department of state for the opportunity to support its critical operations in afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, im proud of all the egis men and women. Thank you. Ill now recognize myself for five minutes. Ms. Muniz, you joined o eded obo in 2009, correct . Yes thats right. And then you became the director in 2011 . I believe thats right. My understanding is you went to the ribboncutting there in kabul in 2010. I believe it was a ground breaking. Ground breaking. Since youve been the director, have you been back to afghanistan . No, not since ive been director. This is our biggest project in the world, correct . One of our biggest. Whats bigger than this, cost wise . I would say there are several that are on this scale, including islamabad . You think thats going to be in excess of 2 billion . No. That wont be in excess of 2 billion. Is there embassy complex thats going to be bigger than this . This is 2. 17 billion. We have a number of high level and critical projects in the department. Kabul, baghdad consulates in lahore, krachi. I have been to all of those places. Well have you come back to talk about mexico. I would like you to spend more time. You were the in mexico city but some of the consulates in tomalipes. Well come back to that. Is there a strategic facilities plan for the kabul em ba si construction . Im very glad you asked about the strategic facilities plan. Its important to note that the policy that the gao referred to which had been suspended applied not at all to the type of project that is kabul effectively. I would like to highlight the fact that you mentioned this was adopted in the 90s and was just recently suspended. It was repealed because the process had been superceded by an improved process. But in the time in which it was in place only 16 of these facilities master plans have been done. Let pe go first to quote what they do and explain why kabul wasnt an appropriate place in which to do this sort of facilities plan. Then i can talk about the type of plans we did do. The long range Facilities Program will be directed at posts not covered in the regular are capital or security capital programs. The long range Facility Program is intended to provide a clear definition to post requirements such that stake holderers and decision makerers have the relevant data prior to making decisions to fund and execute projects. The decision based on the growth and staff and growing needs in kabul, we hadder already paed the decision to invest in growth in kabul. The longrange facilities plan was a tool developed to address those posts with nagging infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs that were never making it to our program list. Back to the question of whether planning was conducted which is a valid question. At the time we developed the scoper for the Embassy Kabul compound, a kpre hen he sieve plan was done as a stand alone facility. Assuming a continued d. O. D. Presence until modifications or drawdowns were made to that presence. So it was master planned. Ta plan was designed and is currently being executed. Things get messy when you are working on an occupied compound around hundreds of temporary facilities where you are squeezing the construction project in amongst those. But, yes a master plan was conducted. It was developed. It was designed. Its being built. There are ongoing reviews of what needs be done in that environment. Because in the six years since the the. What are new needs in the situation thats continually evolving. We started with a master plan and well make modifications until we have the right combination of facilities and security features in place in kabul. I appreciate that lengthy answer. I beg indulgence from my colleagues as we start to ask questions. Is that masterer plan something you can provide to this committee . Yes. The reason i pause is that this aster plan is made up of many documents which sort of look at all no doubt there are many documents. All im asking for is the original plan and the updated plan. Because to hear you say it there is no problems. To hear mr. Courts and mr. Hayes you are spending hundred huhs of millions of dollars in addition to what was origin fally planned. You are three years behind schedule. We have People Living this temporary facilities that arent secure. Let me read part of this page 16 of this gaoer report. Between 2009 and 2010 contracts states should have conducteded four Cost Containment studies and six rain snow mix Risk Assessments. For the 2009 contract didnt conduct either type of assessment. In your written statement you wrote i reject the notion that more thorough cost of Risk Assessments would have had a Material Impact on the cost or schedule of the project. I would argue there would have been further delaying of permanent facilities. You said Cost Increases and project delays werent voibl. You said the gao has suggested that the kabul project wasnt appropriate planned to take into account the Mission Needs and the maximum account possible. We are left begging. Who should we believe . They dont have an agenda gao. You have an inspeck tor general. They both cite a host of problems. Look at how mr. Hayes concluded his assessment. You cant get the d. S. People if the same room with the folks. I will go to page 17. Diplomatic security is interested office. This relates to the Cost Containment studies. According to the attendee list no one participated in the meetings related and officials we speak with indicated they were not aware of the study and the security recommendations. We cant even get Diplomatic Security to be part of the discussion in one of the most dangerous places on the face of the planet makes no sense to us. In isolation youre saying we dont need to do better planning. We have a great facilities plan. I have two independent groups that looked as this over the course of a year saying youre wrong, that there is a problem. We in congress are look at funding this to the tune of more than 2 billion. Youre coming in late. We have people that arent secure secure. We have always known afg is dangerous are. It has been dangerous and will continue to be dangerous. Its a fortress of cement. Its a very difficult thing. We have people sacrificing for this country. They are living in a hooch thats substandard and not secure. I have gone past pi time. I struggle to figurer out since you became the Deputy Director why you think things are going better. Every metric im looking at is worse in this particular case. Every one. Name one thing thats going better in afg since you began. I guess what i would say is the way you have constructed the sentence is complicated. Let me be very clear about this. Kabul and afghanistan are are complex, involving environments. The security situation is deteriorated. The numbers of desks have gone up. The movement and post needs in and around an ongoing construction project have continued to evolve. Those projects were awarded since i have been there. I have watched the team work tirelessly with colleagues if dip lolomatic security to do the best they can. The security isnt even in the meetings. And keep the project moving forward. I think the engineering study is a valid point. Diplomatic security was invited. There were no Diplomatic Security items added to the value engineering list. Thats the point of having them in the meeting is to get their perspective in a high Risk Assessment. We have been therer for more than a decade. I want to give mr. Courts and mr. Hayes an opportunity to offer perspective. Then i need to allow others to answer questions. I would first acknowledge that kabul is a challenging environment. There is no way to limb naught all risk especially in a place like afg. Thats why adequate Cost Containment and Risk Assessment is so important in a place like that. Where the impact of the cost and skenl skenl is greater when problems are en countered. If state followed its own policies earlier. For example, part of the 2009 contract it probably could have better managed risk. It may not have limb mated all the risk but might have better managed some of it. It would have given a chance to develop mitigation strategies prior to soliciting the 2010 contract. When they did a Risk Assessment and Cost Containment study for the 2010 contract they identified risks, some of which came to pass. One was a problem with the sequencing. Another was the site my colleague mentioned. There were a mub of things that were not unpredictable. State did predict the problems. Both findings of the report and gao mirror each other. We were concerned about the lack of the plan that projected into the future. We are concerned about the security of our people and the compound. When we came back we raised the issues. There was tension in the field. We addressed those to director munoz and greg starr. Today agreed at the meeting to improve coordination and collaboration. At a later date in a meeting with director munoz, she developed colleagues to work with senior colleagues in d. S. We believe the coordination is improving, certainly in washington. We are not able to speak to the relationship in the field. Thank you. I want to see if i can put this in context a little bit. Ambassador hayes, i would like to ask questions from the view of the Inspector Generals office. I understand staffing attica bull increased since 2002. Is that right . Thats correct. In 2009 there was bipartisan support for a drastic increase in troops and civilian personnel. They commonly called that a surge. Construction contracts. I would like to understand how state plans to adapt to such changes. Explaining that the total number of american personnel working for the americans in 2008 to a peak of more than 1340 in fiscal year 2012. Is that all correct . Is that right . Sp i believe thats correct. These numbers reflect an in crease of almost four times in the state department versus afghanistan within fourer eryears. Thats right. Do you know approximately what percentage of those people worked in the ka uh bull embassy . As of the time we visited about 800 americans were housed on the compound. They were talking about a downsizing downsizing. A number of nonamericans work at the embassy as do employees from other agencies. For example, fbi dea department of Homeland Security have employees there who conducted important work at the embassy attica bull. From the Department Perspective the United States government working in afghanistan requires a larger interagency presence at the embassy that fluctuates depending on a variety of factors. Correct . Yes, sir. These fluctuating staff levels must have exacerbated the space challenges experienced by the Kabul Embassy. Is that correct . Sir, thats absolutely correct. As we noted the department has tried to be flexible to surge our number of both state and other agency colleagues when the pill tear surge took place and now to draw down to a sustainable level. We have been looking at environments in afghanistan we have tried to find the best diplomatic diplomatic. What about the overseas building on oh radiations . How did that go into building the Kabul Embassy . Im curious to see your answer on that. I would say it impacted the can you put your mic up . I would say it impacted the project pretty dramaticalliment ta said we knew we were operating in an environment where we would be trying to adjust to changes. Given the constraints, the time we had, we moved forward with awarding the ro project as quickly as we could and incorporate aring changes as quickly as you could. In a perfecter world you know the final number of desks years before you develop a project you develop a design and award it and nothing changes. Thats not the reality in kabul. I think it would have been a waste of time to wish that it was and not continue to react to changes in the best way we could. Its sort of like flying a plane into a building at the same time . A little bit. This the report including since the em ba si reopened in 2002 dynamic and unpredictable operate environment of afghanistan has produced changing Facility Needs that have been outpaced existing capabilities. Do you agree with the statement, Health System munoz . I do agree. Can you provide examples . Again, i think shifting numbers, the fact that the numbers would delay the removal of temporary facilities in the footprint or the path of building permanent facilities these things can complement the execution of the projects. Thats correct. Do you agree with that . I dont agree. Why not . I simply dont. Let me give you an example. The recommendation, Risk Assessment and cost evaluation done to the 2010 project ares that have been referred to the cost savings generated from the value engineering study were a Million Dollars and well over a billion dollars. The risks that were known at that time so in an ideal situation you cant award to two contractors. You award to to one beginning to end. There was a decision that there was an opportunity to gain time and get hardened facilities and made the decision to pov forward with the approach. Is it ideal in an ideal scenario . Absolutely not. That point is va ledment we waited against the primary need of moving the construction project forward as quickly as we could. Ambassador hayes you are from the Inspector Generals office. This in october you offered a report are with troubling findings about egypt and it work in afghanistan. I understand you were not the individual who worked on the report are. Let me direct that. You are the ceo of eges . Yes, sir. There were questions about how passports from third Country Nationals you hired to come to afghanistan afghanistan. Your company held the passports for purchase longerer. Than would have been necessary for purposes raising in persons. Thats a serious thing. Would you agree . Thats a serious trafficking in persons. Absolutely. Let me read. There were Third Party Nationals passports for periods longer than necessary. Report of all tip violations, all of which increase the risk of inappropriate practices that could lead to potential tip violations. I heard you are say now you have the posters up. Youre getting 723 Million Dollars. Seemed like you could put a poster up. Would you agree . Hello . Yes. Why did your company do that . Why were you holding peoples passports . Let me address them separately. Please do. The passports werent held longer than they were required to be held. Its a difficult situation in afghanistan submitting passports and the documentation to administrative intierer yor and they dont turn them around as quickly as wed like. We failed to keep the employees up to date on the status of passports. I can assure you and the committee that we dont hold them any longerer tan we need to. We do keep them advised of status. With regard to the posters we didnt have posters published in nepali and we should have done that. There is no excuser for it. Its been corrected. We souldnt be hearing about these problems in the future. Sir . We should not hear about these problems in the future. Thats correct. That is holding peoples passports longerer than they are suppose ed to. A country paying 723 million placing people in a possible indentured service type situation. Not in 2015. Thats correctment. In fact, the Inspector General reported many workers complained, and i quote it took three to four months to obtain a new passport resulting in a contractor hold ing passports for approximately four months for every sixmonth visa. Again thats a function of the Afghanistan Ministry of interior. We werent holding them longer than we needed to. We worked with the administrative interior to try to turn multiple entries around as quickly as we can. It has improved. We dont the hold passports unnecessarily. Its just the period of time we need to obtain. You are in a position where you are informer president ing people as to the status of the passport. How does that work . Do they come and sea whats happening with my passport . Do you go to them . They advise them, give them data. It is published in the break rooms also. Its interesting. I want to make sure you correct this which was also found. Your company had and i quote an absence of detailed records in the access. Its hard to give information when you dont have the appropriate detailed records. Whats happening with that . Have you improved that . Yes. We have accurate records. We know exactly where everybodys passport is on the entire project. Our committee has operating in iraq are including the way they treated third Country Nationals under circumstances almost resembling a little bit earlierier inden cure ed servants. We all agree this goes against our most basic values as americans. A key part of the oversight responsibility is to ensure that lessons have been learned from past mistakes. We must be diligent in reviewing the performance of the contractors hired let me circle back. I know we were not the one who worked on the report but we would like to follow up. Can we schedule a briefing for our staff to get an update on the Inspector Generals findings in october . Im sure we can find the appropriate time to do so. Can the state department Inspector General review documentation that is going on around the world . I will bring this back to the attention of the auditors who conducted this and see what they can do. If you could con if i were withes that you are going to do it, we would appreciate it. Absolutely. Taung. Now mr. Mica from florida. Thank you. My first question is to the director of the bureau of overseas building operations. I heard you say that they are going to you spoke about opening more desks or something being rabl. The care man asked about what did you achieve. You said the next few days were going to open a facility with more desks. What was that . This month and in the i i cant hear you. In the coming weeks we are opening an unclassified facility facility. I look at your testimony and some of which, it sounds like the desker report are. We have gone from hundreds of desks 900. When complete it will have 1,237 the desks. But we could grow to well, we go to 1487. Then 1771. That breaks out the scope in the current project and the nine and ten. Thats the 1200 and 00 if you combine them with existing facilities. I appreciate the report. People dont understand that i guess the revenue in the country is 2. 5 billion and the budget in the entire country is 7. 2 billion. The rest is given money isnt that correct, for afghanistan