Almost two years after the Benghazi terrorist attack, lawmakers are taking their investigation to a new front: architecture.
Lawmakers suggested Thursday that the State Department is trading safety overseas for, as Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said, “pretty buildings.”
The State Department rolled out the “design excellence” plan for building overseas facilities under President Obama. The guidelines were aimed at designing buildings that better represent U.S. values, but at a lower cost.
Lawmakers have honed in on diplomatic security since the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans: Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith, and embassy security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
And the State Department has upped its budget request, asking Congress for $4.6 billion to boost security at its embassies and consulates as part of its fiscal year 2015 budget request. That’s roughly $600 million more than $4 million the administration requested for security upgrades last year.
The money is being used to fund additional security staff, upgrades to infrastructure, and funding for new embassies or consulate compounds. The department has started construction on embassies in the Netherlands, Suriname, and Mauritania, so far this year.
But with some projects delayed and over budget, members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee worry that the new design process endangers U.S. personnel overseas and eats up the department’s budget.
“I think the consequence is that it will cost more. I think the other consequence is we’re going to have more people in harm’s way,” said Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz.
Lydia Muniz, the director for the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, said that by using “design excellence” guidelines, the department will be able to shorten construction times, potentially save money, and still meet security requirements.
“Every new design and construction project that OBO undertakes both must and will meet the security and life-safety standards required by law,” she said. ” … We are dedicated to meeting all the security requirements that [diplomatic security] establishes.”
But Chaffetz referred to a report by Grant Green, who testified before the committee, which found that delays would leave “more personnel exposed in inadequate facilities for longer periods of time” without any cost benefit for using the new design standards.
“When we interviewed people who were worried about security “¦ [they] felt very strongly that the pendulum had shifted very strongly from security to design,” Green, the former under secretary for management at the State department, told lawmakers.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee’s ranking member, said it was hard to fully understand any merits or drawbacks of the new design plan because no finished embassy has been completely built using the “design excellence” plan.
“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,” he said.
House members also questioned if pushing to build embassies in more urban locations left U.S. personnel more open to attack, versus building in a remote location.
The hearing comes after a report late last month raised questions about gaps in security at U.S. embassies and consulates.
“State lacks a process for reassessing standards against evolving threats and risks,” the Government Accountability Office found, including an inability to incorporate new information when making decisions about the level of threats at a location.
Congressional reports have criticized — if not outright blamed — the department for its lack of responsiveness in the 2012 attack.
“The failures of Benghazi can be summed up this way: The Americans serving in Libya were vulnerable; the State Department knew they were vulnerable; and no one in the administration really did anything about it,” according to a 2014 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
What We're Following See More »
President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”
It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”
It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.
Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.