[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING OVERSEAS PRESENCE ADVISORY PANEL
RECOMMENDATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 15, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-136
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
international--relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-308 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
Kristen Gilley, Professional Staff Member
Liberty Dunn, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
WITNESS
Page
The Honorable Bonnie R. Cohen, Under Secretary for Management,
U.S. Department of State....................................... 4
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
from New York and Chairman, Committee on International
Relations...................................................... 22
The Honorable Bonnie R. Cohen.................................... 23
U.S. Department of State Charts:
Overseas Building Program List of Forty New Posts in the 1990's.. 35
Overseas Building Program U.S. Government Overseas Presence by
Agency......................................................... 36
Foreign Service Institute Crisis Management Exercises in FY 1999. 37
Overseas Building Program A/FBO Capital Appropriations: FY 1983-
2000........................................................... 38
PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING OVERSEAS PRESENCE ADVISORY PANEL
RECOMMENDATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:40 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A.
Gilman (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee will come to order.
Today we are continuing our hearings on the important
recommendations of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel. The
panel's report, entitled ``America's Overseas Presence in the
21st Century,'' provided many useful, and in some cases, far
reaching recommendations to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of our State Department and the conduct of
diplomacy.
We started this series of hearings in February 2000 and we
heard from the panel members at that time. I believe the panel
highlighted important issues and we continue to support many of
the recommendations as a means for creating a stronger State
Department.
Mutual scheduling difficulties delayed hearings from the
State Department until today but that is probably to our
benefit, as we can discuss what has been done in the
intervening months as well as reviewing the recent report on
the rightsizing project. We want to see how the State
Department is measuring its progress on these recommendations.
Upon the release of the panel's report, the President
announced that the Secretary of State would lead a cabinet
committee to implement the recommendations on rightsizing. We
have heard about the need for employing the management strategy
of matching policy with resources for many years. It seems this
idea of rightsizing may finally be gaining traction because of
the high level involvement of the White House and the State
Department. I recognize that developing a rightsizing policy
with its implications across government agencies is difficult.
For this undertaking to be effective, it requires continued
interest and top level direction supporting interagency
coordination with those agencies who have representatives
overseas.
It is a given that diplomacy requires an overseas presence.
Yet recent studies indicate that the State Department needs to
modernize its domestic and overseas operations.
There are reasons, such as technology improvements,
changing policy priorities or security concerns, that demand a
reassessment of how that overseas presence is designed, who has
the authority to manage these issues, and a need to articulate
a mission with a results-oriented perspective. The State
Department should have the lead in directing foreign policy
structure with a strong chief of mission authority.
A review of your statement indicates you are laying the
groundwork for an incoming administration. However, I also hope
the Department and the White House will try to take some
decisions so as not to delay necessary management improvements.
I am interested in supporting those efforts and intend to keep
congressional interest alive so that the energy spent now will
in fact be a worthwhile investment.
Having visited many of our posts overseas, I know that we
have talented people who can adapt and probably would welcome a
new approach to diplomacy and serving our interests, as
suggested by the panelist's report.
I will now turn, before turning to our witnesses, ask Mr.
Gejdenson for any comments he may have.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I will waive opening comments
so we can get to the witnesses.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing very much and the fact that you are trying to keep this
good product alive and move it toward implementation. I think
we can all agree that the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel
[OPAP] did an outstanding job in reviewing the way the United
States conducts its overseas activities and making
recommendations for reform. I frankly have been concerned that
implementation of the panel's recommendations has been
proceeding more slowly and unevenly than we would have liked. I
hope that the Under Secretary can relieve my concerns in
regards to the implementation of the recommendations.
A particular concern of mine has been embassy security. I
have been disappointed that the State Department has not
requested adequate funding for enhanced security despite the
Crowe panel's recommendation. I was pleased to see the
increased request of almost $1 billion this fiscal year and the
appropriate Committee decision to meet that request.
I know the Department has worked hard to improve physical
security. However, a fundamental problem remains largely
unaddressed. That problem is a threat posed to our embassies
overseas from large vehicular bombs. Admiral Crowe's report,
the OPAP report, and numerous senior State Department officials
have emphasized that such devices represent the greatest
physical threat to the lives and welfare of our citizens and
our employees. Over 80 percent of our overseas missions lack
the adequate 100-foot setback to protect against such attacks.
There is no substitute for purchasing, constructing, or
leasing property and new facilities that give us the necessary
setbacks. Unfortunately, it is also true that the Office of
Foreign Buildings, [FBO] for a variety of reasons described in
the OPAP report and elsewhere, is not and never will be able to
address this problem in a timely manner unless some very major
changes are implemented. It often takes literally decades to
work through the labyrinth of bureaucracy associated with
constructing a new embassy.
In part, the problem stems from the scoring rules imposed
by the OMB that require all the costs of construction or lease
purchase be scored in the first year. This makes it extremely
difficult to get the necessary appropriations. It also costs
taxpayers millions of dollars by forcing the Department to rely
on short-term lease arrangements which are far more expensive
in the long run than to either lease purchase or sales
leaseback.
I have tried repeatedly but unsuccessfully to exempt the
Department from this scoring rule. My efforts will continue. It
is not simply a problem with the Democratic Administration. It
is a problem that has existed in the administrations of both
parties, and the OMB policy simply has to be changed.
The OPAP report proposes an innovative approach toward
dealing with the problem by establishing a performance-based
government corporation, the Overseas Facilities Authority, the
OFA, to replace the FBO. Such a corporation should have the
ability to use the full range of financial tools and receive
funds from rents, appropriations, asset sales, forward funding
commitments, Treasury loans, and retainer service fee revenues.
It should also have authority to engage in cost effective
financing alternatives such as lease purchase and sales
leaseback.
The OPAP report concludes that ``in order to undertake the
fundamental change in the funding and management of U.S.
Government overseas assets, the FBO should be replaced by an
OFA with more authority, more flexibility and increased
participation by U.S. Government agencies.''
The report makes a compelling case for why a public
corporation would be a more efficient and effective way of
managing U.S. Government facilities overseas and of dealing
with the urgent issues of making these facilities more secure.
Yet the Department appears to have rejected the idea. I don't
know why. I don't understand it. I want to know why this is the
case.
It seems to me that there would be many advantages in
proceeding with the OPAP recommendations to replace the FBO
with a government corporation. One of these advantages is we
will have to secure embassies and consulates years earlier than
would otherwise be the case. All we are really doing is making
more American lives vulnerable for longer periods of time.
I hope the State Department will look again at this
excellent recommendation from people whose opinions you ought
to respect and that the Department staff study and act on
capital improvements and then move expeditiously toward
implementing the proposal. There are many outstanding features
of this report, but I do hope that you are going to focus on
this one because American lives are at stake.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. We want to
welcome Ms. Bonnie Cohen, the Under Secretary of Management.
Ms. Cohen holds an MBA from Harvard and prior to coming to the
State Department in 1997 she was Assistant Secretary for Policy
Management and Budget at the Interior Department. We appreciate
your coming here today to discuss the progress on the
implementation of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel. We look
forward to your statement and appreciate your efforts to
establish these ideas within the State Department throughout
the government.
We want to apologize for the delay in your testimony. We
had these markups that were important for us today.
I also want to recognize Ambassador Elizabeth Raspolic, who
is serving as the Director of the Interagency Rightsizing
Committee. Ambassador Raspolic has been in the Foreign Service
for 27 years and most recently was Ambassador to Gabon. We just
had the Minister of Defense from Gabon visit yesterday.
We welcome Ambassador Chamberlin, who is representing the
International Narcotics Bureau, and we thank Ms. Chamberlin for
being with us today.
So please proceed. If you would like to put your full
statement in the record, we will accept it without objection.
You may summarize your statement. Ms. Cohen.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BONNIE R. COHEN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Cohen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members
of the Committee. I will submit the statement for the record
and summarize, although I am going to read the first page
because I think it is very important.
Many experts heralded the end of the Cold War as ending the
need for American global engagement. As the last 10 years have
demonstrated, the dramatic changes in the world's political and
economic landscape have meant just the opposite. Today we are
confronted with a host of international problems that affect
America's security and domestic welfare, from financial crises
and the closing of markets to global environmental challenges,
AIDS, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and the
spread of weapons of mass destruction. These foreign policy
problems are America's national security challenges.
Our overseas presence provides the essential underpinnings
of our ability to defend America's security, to promote its
prosperity and to meet the new global challenges. It is our
first line of defense ahead of the military. It is when
diplomacy fails that the military comes in, and recognizing
this, we must reinvest in the conduct of our foreign policy.
The OPAP panel recognized this and said ``The U.S. overseas
presence, which has provided the essential underpinnings of
U.S. foreign policy for many decades, is near a state of
crisis. Insecure and often decrepit facilities, obsolete
information technology, outmoded administrative and human
resources practices, poor allocation of resources and
competition from the private sector for talented staff threaten
to cripple our nation's overseas capability with far reaching
consequences for national security and prosperity. The
condition of U.S. posts and missions abroad is unacceptable.
The panel fears that our overseas presence is perilously close
to the point of system failure.''
The Secretary of State welcomed OPAP's emphasis and its
urgency in improving the conduct of our foreign policy, our
overseas mission infrastructure and capital plan, the
importance of investing in human resources and the
indispensable nature of universal representation. We strongly
agreed with the panel's focus on the need to ensure stronger
interagency teamwork under chiefs of mission abroad and the
President and the Secretary of State.
I have a few handouts--I don't know if they have been
handed out--that give you some historical perspective on what
has happened to the State Department in the last 4 years, and I
actually remember the charts.
You will see from those charts that in the last decade the
State Department opened approximately 40 new posts overseas
with no real increase in the budget. The Department was in the
process of cannibalizing its resources.
The second chart shows you that the State Department is
only one of the agencies overseas, and indeed, while it is the
biggest, much of its size is to provide administrative support
to the other agencies. So it is very important that we work on
an interagency basis, which the panel emphasized, I think you
have emphasized in your remarks, and is the reason that I am
with the two people who are chairing our interagency panels.
The third chart shows you the crisis management exercises
in the State Department starting in 1998. I think that this is
a particularly startling chart because it shows you that in the
process of reducing the budget and opening new embassies
decisions were made that we now all recognize as too short-
sighted, including the total dismemberment of crisis management
training. We have been in the process, with bipartisan support,
of rebuilding the kinds of efforts we have to do, management
efforts, to have a strong department and be able to protect our
people.
The final chart, I think, directly supports the point that
you were making, Mr. Chairman, about the FBO and the need for
capital appropriations. You see from this chart that the only
time in the last decade that the State Department has gotten
substantial infusions of funds has been after bombings, when
people, both Americans and foreigners, embassy employees and
civilians, have lost their lives. That is simply not
acceptable. We have to have sustained funding, as Admiral Crowe
so eloquently put it.
When I first came to the Department, 3 years ago now, I
received approximately two feet of studies on what needed to be
done at the Department. We now have Admiral Crowe's excellent
report and the OPAP report, and we welcome your support for the
OPAP report. This is an important time. We are in the process
of implementing the OPAP recommendations. The Secretary has
accepted them enthusiastically, although there are some details
to be worked out. I think all of us are concerned that, as we
transition administrations, this effort does not lose its
momentum and we don't have to have additional studies.
Now, I will go to the recommendations and give you a sense
of where we are. The Secretary chaired a cabinet level meeting
of all of the agencies who operate overseas and there was
unanimous support for the interagency implementation of the
rightsizing recommendations. We were very heartened to get that
support and have moved forward. One of the most important
recommendations was from the Attorney General, who suggested
that we organize an interagency law enforcement rightsizing
group, which Ambassador Chamberlin is heading up.
That is critically important because, as you know, the most
rapid growth in overseas presence today is law enforcement and
it is very important that that be coordinated. The Attorney
General even went so far as to suggest that there may be
opportunities for memoranda of understanding with some of the
law enforcement agencies who are present in specific posts to
assist in the responsibility of other agencies so that we
wouldn't have to have as many people overseas.
We have had a very active interagency group looking at
rightsizing. They visited six embassies, Amman, Bangkok, Mexico
City, New Delhi, Paris and Tbilisi. The idea was to develop
both general recommendations that we could apply across
embassies and then recommendations for these six posts. They
have reports on each embassy and they have done, I think, an
outstanding job. An interagency group visited each embassy, and
the more general recommendations are that we can begin to bring
back administrative functions to the United States with
appropriate communications to support them.
The final report from the interagency group will be
available soon and then will go to the Secretary. So the
Secretary has not had the chance to review and endorse the
recommendations, but the interagency group is recommending, for
example, that our financial center, which is in Paris in its
own large facility, can be brought back to the United States
and operate out of Charleston, where we also have a financial
facility. Our finance people also think that is possible. So
that type of recommendation is on the table.
In addition, there are recommendations for agencies to
share certain administrative functions overseas that would
permit staff reductions. For example, in Mexico City every
agency has a personnel specialist who classifies people, and I
don't want to get into that because it is really detailed and
very bureaucratic, but it appears with the right computer
support that we could have just one agency do it for everyone
and bring back the other support people. We are very encouraged
by that.
In addition, we have specific recommendations for each
embassy.
Ambassador Rohatyn, who has been in the forefront of this
effort, is now in the midst of working with his interagency
group at Embassy Paris. We will be complementing his work here
by developing a plan this summer that will substantially change
the structure of that embassy and be a model for other
embassies.
In the FBO area, which I know is a particular interest of
yours, quite honestly, I endorse everything you said. I think
we need more money; we need sustained funding. We need a better
functioning FBO and we need the kinds of financial reforms that
you talked about. We have had a group working on it. They are
making proposals that will, with the Secretary's endorsement,
be taken forward in the Administration.
We may have what I hope is not a real difference over this
corporation. The OPAP report is recommending a performance-
based organization, which requires legislation and is the route
that the Internal Revenue Service took in their reform.
Mr. Bereuter [presiding]. Madam Secretary, may I interrupt
you to tell you that as long as you don't eliminate the FBO, no
matter how sustained the funding is, you are not going to be
able to cope with the huge backlog of security-related
consulate and embassy construction, reconstruction, and
retrofitting. But you don't agree with me entirely because my
basic point is that so far the State Department is rejecting
that fundamental reform, am I correct? You are not endorsing a
replacement for the FBO?
Mr. Gejdenson. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Bereuter. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Gejdenson. Not to defend the State Department, but my
question is, what is the difference between creating a new kind
of department to do this or just getting the authorities and
structural reforms in the existing operation? Sometimes I find
the disruption----
Mr. Bereuter. The difference is that the current FBO is not
allowed to engage in the more innovative lease and purchase
arrangements, and we can't given the current arrangements,
escape the OMB scoring mechanisms. Therefore all capital
construction costs are up front immediately.
Mr. Gejdenson. If the gentleman would yield, then what if
you simply gave those same powers to the existing operation?
Mr. Bereuter. Then you still are left with the requirement
to change the law and make an exception of scoring on OMB, and
that seems to be very difficult for OMB to accept because they
are concerned about the precedent. Of course, it is always more
expensive for the government to construct a building by far
than for the private sector to build that same building, and
the gentleman knows some of the reasons.
Under Secretary, please proceed. I went farther in this
than I intended in interrupting you.
Ms. Cohen. The rest of my testimony is quite brief. In
information technology the State Department has made enormous
progress, again with bipartisan support. Two years ago we had
no Internet. Now we have 85 percent of overseas post on the
Internet. Yet we are still concerned. You are considering our
budget; we had asked for $17 million to wire two embassies
overseas to allow agencies to speak to each other, and to
demonstrate the benefit of information sharing. We were
authorized in your markup to do this, but it was to come out of
our existing budget base. But our existing budget base is
really inadequate for our current needs.
In the human resources area you will be hearing from our
new Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of
Human Resources. We have completed the McKinsey and Company
study on the war for talent. We are in the process of
implementing the recommendations from that study, and yesterday
I went to a very exciting half-day session at FSI where we
introduced the new Center for Leadership and Management
Training. In the past the State Department has not had
management training, and management is key to the Department's
future success. So we are excited about that.
I know you have heard about the Consular Affairs Bureau.
That is an outstanding example of a bureau that has strong
leadership, is very sensitive to the American public and the
kinds of services they need. We are considering the OPAP
recommendations in this area, particularly the ones that give
consular services control of their own people.
The OPAP Report called for Ambassadorial authority to be
strengthened and made more clear. Carolyn Lowengart is here.
She is in charge of this issue for the Department and will
answer any questions. Before you is a letter that goes to new
Ambassadors, giving them their charge. We will be working to
reform that letter, but we will wait to make it final until
there is a new administration, since it will be theirs. I know
that you have had quite a few presentations on the efforts we
have made in overseas security in the last 2 years under Dave
Carpenter and with FBO. I could share with you the many cables
I am now getting back from Ambassadors saying that they really
feel, even in facilities that don't have adequate setback, that
they are getting the kind of attention they need and are better
protected than they had been in the past.
Thank you very much. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cohen appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Madam Under Secretary. I want to
turn first to the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman
from Connecticut, before we go to vote.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of quick
questions. I think I like your idea on the back office. If you
look at modern businesses, they don't place in the field every
function that they have, and obviously in smaller areas you
might only need two-thirds of a person but it is a little hard
to achieve that. I also suggest you look at not putting it all
in Washington, D.C., but look at spreading it around to other
places where we might have facilities existing, former military
bases, whatever, where we may have some other functions
together.
Some functions that you might need travel for you might
look at regional facilities, for instance, a lot of back
offices for American companies are now someplace else. For
functions that might need some visits, you could pick obviously
countries that are friendly countries, that pose less of a
security threat. Countries that speak the English language or
have good access to educated people obviously make it easy. So
I think that makes a lot of sense.
Congressman Bereuter and I have, I think, some difference
on the funding issue because I think that it is a general
problem through government that we buy an aircraft, an engine,
we pay for it in 1 year. The advantage obviously for State to
pay for these embassies over the long haul is that you can get
a lot more of them started and done, but then we have the
general problem with procurement, whether it is a bridge, a
building, or something else I think it is something you have to
work out.
Let me ask you, I was not a supporter of the reforms that
occurred in the last session of Congress, taking into State a
number of other departments and agencies, and I am getting some
information that says that State is now looking at taking over
more of USAID's functions and ESF and other areas and creating
repetitive, in a sense, systems. In some cases maybe USAID
doesn't have enough staff to do it, but it seems to me now that
when you merge, rather than create a duplicate function to
manage these systems in State, that what you might need to do
is add some personnel to USAID. But it makes more sense, I
think, to keep USAID functioning and not to just have State and
USAID doing the same kinds of things. Am I wrong in the
information that I have that State is seriously looking at a
number of USAID functions and management of development
programs?
Ms. Cohen. Yes.
Mr. Gejdenson. That is very good news. I have very few
other questions and it is so seldom that you get such an
absolute answer so that, I will just have to----
Ms. Cohen. Would you like me to go on?
Mr. Gejdenson. Actually, I would like you not to have any
qualifications to that.
Ms. Cohen. I don't have any.
Mr. Gejdenson. OK. Great. Go ahead.
Ms. Cohen. This has to do with grants management. What has
happened is that we found, more and more, what had been in the
past grants management from USAID, was drifting over to us as
we spent the money. We really aren't staffed to do that
adequately or to do it in a way that ensures the protection of
the resources. This first came to our attention as different
divisions asked for staff to do grants administration. So under
the CFO we put together a group to look at this issue with
USAID, and quite honestly, our preference is that the functions
stay with USAID. We will work with them, but we have no
intention of duplicating their very good efforts. I think we
have the same objective you have.
Mr. Gejdenson. That is reassuring. Let me say that
information I have been getting was that people at State
thought they could move a number of these functions to State
from USAID without authorization, just by simply taking the
action. I think that would be a long-term mistake, that the
idea of having an aid operation that is focused on its
traditional responsibilities makes a lot of sense for the
country; and in every administration it forces a focus not just
on the short-term geopolitical interests of the aid-recipient
but the long-term development interests.
So I thank you for that response and say to you that it is
something that I am going to continue to watch.
I think--again, I was not a supporter of the changes and
hope that some lines will be kept there so that there is an aid
agency with a traditional commitment to helping the poor and
doing the right kinds of things there.
I commend you for many of the other proposals you are
making in the area of rightsizing and trying to make the
agencies more efficient.
The last thing I would like to say, one of the great
frustrations, as oftentimes we know, the agencies are
understaffed. In some ways, the most visible part to the
average citizen of the operation of the State Department are
the consular services, like the Motor Vehicle Department is the
public face by which the people judge their government. You
stand in line for 3 hours at the Motor Vehicle Department, and
they tell you to go to another line. It tends to give you a bad
taste for government. I can't tell you how many times, and I
know they are understaffed, and I know it is difficult.
We had one case where a young lady, a dual citizen, was
robbed of all her belongings in a Latin American country. She
could get nowhere with the American embassy. Her other
citizenship was Israeli. She got a passport the same day.
I then called the embassy to get her a visa, the paperwork
because now she was traveling on an Israeli passport to come
back to Connecticut. Yes, 5 days later, after several calls
from me, she finally got a visa.
I know people are overburdened. I know that we are--a lot
of it is our fault. We don't give them the funding. But when
Americans are stuck, and they get no help--we have got to get
our consular officials to understand in a lot of ways what
people think about the State Department, what we do overseas,
is a function of that consular office. They still have got to
be a friendly face to American citizens.
Ms. Cohen. If I could just answer that.
I think Mary Ryan has put a lot of attention on this. In
fact, the whole consular bureau is rated one of the top areas
by the American people in terms of service to the public. When
something like this happens, it is somebody not doing their job
well. Because however overworked they are, their first response
is to an American citizen in trouble.
I would ask you if this happens again to just give me or
Mary a call because that is not the way she wants that office
to operate.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much for your comments.
I do think that the way we fund our oversees presence is
unworthy of the United States, and there is a lack of
confidence in the State Department on Capitol Hill. It is not a
surprise to you, despite the good people--long-term employees,
foreign service officers or otherwise--and my concern is that
this report will not receive the attention and implementation
that it deserves in part because of inertia, in part because of
the bureaucratic battles that you will have to fight within the
Department, and in part because of lack of support here on the
Hill.
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations
Subcommittee, Chairman Hal Rogers and I met with Secretary
Albright at a breakfast to discuss about the report; and I
really think we need to keep in close contact with you to build
an acceptance and a positive sense of inertia about the
implementation of the report.
I would think we ought to have you up here more often--
frankly, about every quarter--and that there ought at the
beginning of the new Congress to be established a more
coordinated fashion to work with you on the part of the
authorizing Committees. Right now, we are just holding things
together with Scotch tape, and it is no wonder that people
won't respond to the concerns of the gentleman's constituent,
for example, because they are moving from one crisis and one
special demand to another because of the lack of capabilities.
That is my assessment. Things are just gradually grinding to a
halt.
I do want to come back and, if possible after recessing for
this vote, talk a little bit about the organization,
reorganization, and decentralization initiative of our
Ambassador to France and hear more about the Financial Services
Office move that you contemplate there. I would also like to
focus a little bit on information technology where I have just
heard terrible stories about how bad our capabilities are
within the State Department. I think that is recognized by you
probably and certainly by the report.
With those comments, I think I need to recess, and we will
resume in approximately 15 minutes. I think Chairman Gilman
will probably be back at that time.
The Committee will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bereuter. The Committee will be in order.
Madam Under Secretary, I wonder if you or one of your two
colleagues can address your attitudes, first of all, about the
recommendations concerning information technology and what it
is you have been able to or intend to implement in the
immediate future with respect to upgrading the quality of the
information technology and communication technology you have
among the personnel stationed abroad.
Ms. Cohen. Thank you.
First, I have to say that I think that the Department's
information technology is not as abysmal as you had heard. We
have a new chief information officer who, for the first time in
the history of the State Department, is an experienced
information technology specialist. He came to us from the
Institute of Medicine which is well known for its information
technology, and we have made substantial progress.
I have spoken about the Internet. In addition, the
Department, with the exception of a couple of mainframes, is
off the dreaded Wang that used to be the chief complaint, and
we are on a standard platform. So we have made progress.
We are offering additional training to information
technology specialists, and we have bonus compensation plans.
So we have reduced the turnover of these people, and we have
also begun to be able to recruit new people.
I know you will be hearing from Fernando Burbano, our chief
information officer, next week. He has a very comprehensive,
long term plan for correcting the remaining deficiencies of the
Department.
I think that the most critical deficiencies are currently
overseas. One is the inability of different agencies to
communicate with each other within an embassy. Because the
Department of Agriculture, for example, will have its own
separate computer system making it easier for them to
communicate back to Washington than it is for them to
communicate to the FBI or the Ambassador down the hall. That is
a real deficiency.
The second deficiency is bandwidth overseas. We really need
to upgrade that and get all embassies more bandwidth. We have a
plan to do so and we have the capability, but we are short of
the funds. I endorse the OPAP report wholeheartedly in that
area.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
I wonder, Ambassador Raspolic, if you can talk about the
rightsizing and the risk involved in implementing the
recommendations for the personnel involved, if any, but mostly
about what the Department intends to do to act upon the
recommendations with respect to rightsizing and consulates.
AMBASSADOR ELIZABETH RASPOLIC, DIRECTOR, INTERAGENCY
RIGHTSIZING COMMITTEE
Ms. Raspolic. I would be glad to speak to that.
The Committee--the rightsizing committee is very much an
interagency committee. It is not just State Department. I want
to make that clear because that is what exactly the original
OPAP panel has recommended. We have had a very active group
with representatives from every department that you can think
of who are active overseas. We have been working on the project
since the beginning of February. We visited each of the six
posts with a team that fluctuated from 10 to 12 to 16 people;
and, in fact, we had one of the appropriations subcommittee
staff members visiting with us when we went to Bangkok.
We are in the process now of negotiating our Committee
report through the various agencies that are involved, and we
will then submit it to Under Secretary Cohen, who will then
submit it to the Secretary.
One of the major recommendations that we are supporting is
one that appeared in the original OPAP report, and that is the
creation of an interagency senior government board that would
create a possibility here for an interagency review in
Washington of proposed major staffing changes overseas, either
up or down. It would be a reflection here in Washington of a
process that already exists overseas in the Ambassador's
country team when the Ambassador, he or she, sits and meets
with representatives of all agencies at post. This would be a
mirror image of that here in Washington.
That could be--we are suggesting that it be convened in
November, because at that point several of our other
recommendations would have come into being and the various
reports and various actions would have been taken through
September and October.
This board would also be used to look at things like when
there is a construction of a new embassy facility overseas,
this board could review the staffing implications for that
given post and say, look, is the construction adequate for the
projected staffing over X number of outyears; and this is
something that Under Secretary Cohen has already put into
implementation. Our Committee has been invited to participate
in several reviews that Secretary Cohen is conducting on
construction of facilities overseas in the near future.
We have also recommended--we have discussed the
recommendation that the Attorney General has proposed creating
a law enforcement pilot project; and we have--on the basis of
our visits have recommended that the law enforcement project
take place at Embassy Mexico City and Embassy Bangkok because
we felt that those posts offered the most productive mix of law
enforcement agencies and the fact that those agencies had a
certain amount of depth at each of those posts.
Mr. Bereuter. Those are meant to be tests or prototypes?
Ms. Raspolic. Correct. I believe that was Attorney General
Janet Reno's original implication, that these would be--that
whatever is developed from these projects could be used
elsewhere. But I am sure Ambassador Chamberlin can speak more
adequately on that subject.
One thing we have found, though, if you can assume that our
visits to six posts are illustrative of all posts overseas,
which perhaps is a major jump, that it makes no sense to
implement some cookie-cutter template and force all posts
overseas to, in effect, look alike. Because in effect what we
found is each post is absolutely unique, depending on the
strategic goals of that post, depending on the mix of agencies
at that post, depending on what it is that the Secretary and
the Department of State have and the Ambassador have chosen to
emphasize at that post; and the mix is constantly changing and
requires different staffing of each agency at each embassy.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you are ready, I
will take another time later.
Chairman Gilman [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
Ms. Cohen, your statement mentions your monthly interagency
meetings. Have you prepared an action plan to implement the
OPAP recommendations and are you measuring progress on the
various recommendations. Also what measures are being used to
evaluate the progress on implementation?
Ms. Cohen. We do have monthly meetings, and it depends on
the specific area. I have seen a draft report, and the draft
report does have action steps recommended in each area, and it
says the status of each area and the timing. It doesn't
necessarily have monthly objectives.
For example, in FBO, I receive quarterly reports on our
high-priority projects. I receive similar updates on our
personnel initiatives. As we go forward with the rightsizing,
the additional reforms of FBO and the other recommended steps,
I anticipate that we will have quarterly progress reports.
Chairman Gilman. Does the Department have a structured
timetable for implementation as it relates to the OPAP's
recommendations and can it be made available to this Committee
if you have such a program? Has the President been briefed on
the progress that the Department is making on OPAP
recommendations?
Ms. Cohen. The interagency task force, when established by
the Secretary, was asked to report back to her at the end of
this month. We anticipate that it is on schedule and that she
will get a report. She will review the report, and then share
it with the Administration. Then I am sure it will be available
to you.
Chairman Gilman. Has the President expressed interest in
the report?
Ms. Cohen. We have had very strong support from the White
House all along, and we have had a senior official from OMB
sitting in on our monthly meetings.
Chairman Gilman. With regard to the Chief of Mission
authorities, the Department's March report on the panel's
recommendations states that, given the time required to
complete interagency review coordination clearance, and I
quote, ``we should defer new documentation outlining Chief of
Mission authority until next year when it can be taken up by
the next administration.'' Can you elaborate on the COM
authority and how it is conveyed and what is the interagency
role in that matter and is the authority under discussion by
your rightsizing Committee?
Ms. Cohen. I think I will defer to Carolyn Lowengart, who
is our expert.
Chairman Gilman. Ms. Lowengart, will you step up to the
mike and indicate your title? Did you hear the question, Ms.
Lowengart? Please identify yourself.
CAROLYN LOWENGART, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Lowengart. I am the Deputy Director of the Office of
Management Policy and Planning. I have been with the Department
nearly 30 years, so I have seen this Presidential letter of
instruction through several administrations.
Chairman Gilman. Thirty years and still learning.
Ms. Lowengart. The reason for the timeline is that it
historically takes between 12 and 24 months to get this letter
written and negotiated interagency, so there isn't enough time
left in this Administration to get it all the way through.
Chairman Gilman. How long a time does it take to get a
letter written?
Ms. Lowengart. The last one took 18 months to get it
negotiated. Written, it takes about a day.
Chairman Gilman. It is a little faster than what we do up
here, I guess.
Is the authority under discussion by the rightsizing
committee?
WENDY CHAMBERLIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Chamberlin. No, sir.
Chairman Gilman. Not under discussion.
What recommendations for changes in the Chief of Mission
authority would you make to the next administration? Any of the
panelists.
Ms. Cohen. We have not developed those yet. We are in the
process of getting the report, and then over the summer and
into the fall we will be implementing what we can and
developing strong recommendations for the next administration.
We agree with you that it is really an outstanding report, and
our major objective is to see that additional studies don't get
done but rather that implementation is carried forward.
Chairman Gilman. We don't want to study this to death.
Ambassador Raspolic, what criteria are you using to
evaluate the posts for the purposes of determining appropriate
staff levels?
Ms. Raspolic. Mr. Chairman, that is a very interesting
question because it has been the source of much discussion
among our Committee Members. We have tried various criteria. We
have tried to look at the mission's strategic goals which is--
in bureaucratic terms--part of the mission performance plan. It
is a document that is negotiated at every post around the world
by the Ambassador and the various interagency members of the
country team.
We have looked at the goals that have been given top
priority at each individual post. Then we have looked at how
the various agencies are selected to implement each of these
goals and how a goal cuts across agency lines and what kind of
cooperative effort is taking place at a given post. We have
looked at whether or not a post is providing regional services,
because this directly affects their staffing, also.
We have looked at whether a post uses a process that was
initiated by Ambassador Rohatyn in Paris, and that is the
American presence post. Are they using satellite post
activities? We have found this in two or three posts but in
different variations.
In France, it is one American and two Foreign Service
national employees at a given post, very low budget, very low
key, and in most instances quite effective.
In India, they have been doing this for an even longer
period, but it does not--in their implementation it does not
involve an American officer. It is Foreign Service nationals
who are running small outlying foreign commercial service
operations, and then they report back to the local consulate.
It seems to be very, very effective; and it has proved very
useful for American business overseas.
In Mexico, I believe, we saw some operations--some DEA
activities in cities where there formerly had been a consulate,
where the consulate has been closed but a DEA officer operates
independently.
So there are many variations. These are all some of the
criteria that we looked at, and this ultimately is what brought
us back to what I had referred to earlier and that is that each
post is so very different and so unique that we felt we could
not simply sit back in Washington and apply some template that
would be appropriate to all overseas posts.
Chairman Gilman. Ms. Cohen, it seems to me it would be
useful to institute some market forces such as a capital
surcharge for agencies at posts noted in your statement and to
make certain the Department captures the full cost of staff
presence at the post. Presumably, that would influence the
decision process of other agencies that are increasingly
responsible for growth overseas. Do you think a capital
surcharge or other like ideas would provide an incentive to
encourage participation in rightsizing?
Ms. Cohen. Absolutely. We have support from the other
agencies for such a concept as long as the first time we apply
it they get a budget bump-up to cover the surcharge. But I
think in the long run that would be money well spent for
America. I anticipate that we would, with the Secretary's
support, go forward with that recommendation in our budget
proposals and our suggestions to the next administration.
One of the real problems we have is that space in our
embassies is free to agencies. So when a department, and I
won't mention any departments, decides to send five people to
an embassy and then wants three Foreign Service nationals as
support, they think only of the salary costs and not of the
space. As you know full well, space in our embassies is
unbelievably expensive because of the security requirements.
Chairman Gilman. Speaking of security, recent press reports
indicate that there are seven Ambassadorial nominees that have
incurred over 100 security violations and infractions. What are
your thoughts on that and what personnel actions should be
instituted against those who commit egregious security
violations? Do you think there ought to be a change in the regs
that govern the actions taken against those individuals? Should
there not be more severe consequences?
Ms. Cohen. Diplomatic security and personnel are in the
process of working out again changes with the legal office
right now. I think that the history of the State Department has
been that the penalties have not been as clear as they should
be, they haven't been applied uniformly, and in some instances
they probably haven't been as stringent as they should be. But
this is a different security environment and I anticipate we
will have recommendations for action.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Mr. Houghton.
Mr. Houghton. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very interested, by the way, in what our Ambassador of
France is attempting to do with the decentralized effort.
Despite some of the people who aren't enthused about leaving
Paris, I think that probably we are providing better and more
effective service to our constituents, to business, and to
interfacing with the French public.
Madam Under Secretary, I think your statement says you are
recommending a capital surcharge to agents at post to assist
with capital costs. You mentioned a personnel cost just a
minute ago. What is the status of that recommendation and do
you have an estimate of how much money this would generate for
the Department?
Ms. Cohen. The status of that recommendation is that the
FBO subcommittee of the interagency task force has, in a
preliminary report, indicated that they will be strongly
recommending a capital surcharge. We haven't had the final
meeting, it will be held next week, but I anticipate that there
will be a recommendation and that it will have interagency
support. They may have numbers that give an estimate of that,
but I don't have them today.
Mr. Bereuter. What are your thoughts about creating an OPAP
czar to oversee the OPAP's recommendation and track the
Department's progress? Or are you the czar?
Ms. Cohen. Up here or down there? At the State Department?
Mr. Bereuter. At the State Department.
Ms. Cohen. I am opposed to that. I am opposed to all these
special things. I think there are people at the Department who
have responsibility for whatever the specific things are, and
they should be held accountable for implementing them. If you
created a special czar, then I would have the opportunity to
relax.
Mr. Bereuter. I did not hear, unless you pursued it when I
was out of the room, the issue of the Chief of Mission
authorities. Did, in fact, you then ask for recommendations for
changes in the Chief of Mission authority? You got their
impressions of recommended changes in Chief of Mission
authorities?
Counsel. They deferred.
Mr. Bereuter. Are you in a position to give me an
indication of what rank and file Foreign Service officers think
about the recommendations of the report? For example, where
might they take greatest exception or have the greatest
concerns, if at all? I know they are going to be generally
supportive, but if you had to say where they had particular
concerns, any, distinguished ladies, where would it be?
Ms. Cohen. If I can start, I would not speak for the
Foreign Service. You will have Mark Grossman up here who is our
new Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of
Human Resources in a month or so. I have only been at the
Department for 3 years and don't have the background, but I
will say this.
We have had a town meeting where Lew Kaden came and talked
about the report. We videotaped it. We sent it overseas. We
sent the text of the report overseas. He has met with AFSA. My
impression is, on the whole, it has very strong support because
it is meant to strengthen the State Department and the Foreign
Service and training and our attention to their personnel
needs. There may be specific things that are at issue which he
would address, but perhaps you have different ideas.
Mr. Bereuter. Ambassador Chamberlin, you are our Foreign
Service Officer. You can't speak for them all, but you can give
your impression.
Ms. Chamberlin. I can't speak for them all, but I can speak
from 25 years of experience. As the newest member of this team,
I am, I guess, the closest thing to an outsider on the OPAP
team.
The Kaden report was not done haphazardly, and it was not
done piecemeal. It was exhaustive. They even came to Laos.
Mr. Bereuter. They even came to Capitol Hill.
Ms. Chamberlin. Wow. They really reached far and wide to
gather our thoughts and our impressions. Believe me, Foreign
Service Officers around the globe offered very candid views. A
year later, when I read the final report, I was extremely
impressed. I was enormously impressed and can say personally I
wouldn't be able to answer your question. I don't know what I
would object to in that report. I am not just saying this
because I am sitting next to Under Secretary Cohen. It is a
personal view that I believe.
But to echo what you have said, implied in some of your
questions, I think the rank and file's view would be, OK, we
have seen a lot of these reports in the past. We would also
like implementation. Because, let's face it, the results of
this report would strengthen security and this means security
for not only ourselves but our families. So I find support, but
I would find a restlessness to see it implemented.
Mr. Bereuter. Ambassador, would you care to comment?
Ms. Raspolic. If I can add a few words. I agree with what
both of my colleagues have said.
I would also add, in our visits to posts overseas, we were
struck by the enormously welcoming approach that every post
had. Individual officers are very interested in sitting back
and looking at how the Department works and how the Foreign
Service operates and what can be done to improve it. These are
thinking, intelligent individuals who understand that
technology has changed the world, perhaps not as quickly within
the Department. They are very, very interested in the idea of
an IT subcommittee looking at these issues, and they see how it
could be used to improve their own output. I think they are
very, very interested in supporting OPAP.
Mr. Bereuter. If I could switch questions on you, in
particular, Ambassador, just as my final question here today at
least, will the rightsizing group make recommendations about
specific embassies that perhaps, given the qualified personnel
we have spread around the world, should be downsized--actual
embassies or consulates?
Ms. Raspolic. Sir, if I may say, I think our
recommendations are a mixed bag, just as the initial report
was. In some instances, we are recommending a downsizing in the
sense of changing--eliminating some positions and transferring
some positions overseas back to the United States to decrease
or lower the official presence overseas. In a couple of
instances, we are questioning whether or not these posts need
more people to perform the many obligations that had been laid
on them. So it will be some of each, I suspect.
Mr. Bereuter. Do you think the way the world is evolving
and with the information technology we have and with the
multiagency reputation in our embassies today that the
Ambassador's job is more challenging or that it is less
manageable, that is, less attractive for a political appointee
or for a career officer? Are you looking in any detail as a
result of this data yet, the Ambassador's duties?
Ms. Cohen. I meet with almost every Ambassador who goes
overseas or comes back to the United States, and they find it
very challenging. They find it some of the most interesting
work they have ever done, and it is very special in a foreign
country to represent the United States. But, as a person, they
are shocked when they get overseas to see the condition of our
embassies, which I know you all have seen, to see the condition
of our data processing equipment, to see that they have
positions that they consider critical that go empty because we
don't have people to fill them. So they are more challenged
than they would like to be.
Chairman Gilman. Would the gentleman yield for a point?
What would it take to bring all our data processing equipment
up to date in all of our embassies? It seems to me that is a
basic tool we have today. Why can't that be a priority?
Ms. Cohen. It is a priority for us. That is why I mentioned
the $17 million. I met with your staff yesterday. They cited I
think it is the CSIS report that said it would take $400
million. My experience prior to the government is that you
never really know the cost in data processing. That is why we
wanted $17 million, to be able to implement two large embassies
and a small embassy and then come back to you and say, all
right, this is exactly what it will cost. It will be, a couple
hundred million dollars. But as I said in my beginning
statement and, I suppose after----
Chairman Gilman. Let me interrupt you. It seems Microsoft
could use a little goodwill these days. You might approach
them. They are doing it for schools. Why not do it for our
embassies? We go out and reach out to the art community to
furnish the State Department. It seems to me that we could
welcome some donations from the telecommunication industry.
Ms. Cohen. I defer to you, sir.
Chairman Gilman. I defer to you. You are the czarina in
charge of this.
Ms. Cohen. I have very strict, stringent fund-raising
restrictions on me.
Chairman Gilman. I think we ought to explore it. Mr.
Houghton is in charge of mainstream business people. We will
work with him and see what can be done in that direction.
But, seriously, it should be a priority and not just wait
for an example of what happens in one embassy. These are
serious problems in all of our embassies.
Ms. Cohen. Honestly, we really appreciate your support, all
of your support. This is, for me, very refreshing to hear. This
is a Department that needs investment, and I said at the
beginning our diplomats are there ahead of the military, and it
is hard to explain why there is as little investment as there
is in our personnel----
Chairman Gilman. Time we got rid of the smoke signals and
got some real telecommunication.
Mr. Bereuter, any further questions?
Mr. Bereuter. No. I would just say this is a Department
whose overseas presence, as it is funded, is not worthy of this
great country. I said that earlier. It is not, and it is
getting relatively worse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. I want to welcome this update. I want to
keep communication open with you on your recommendations and
the implementation. Rightsizing has been talked about for
years, and maybe we are finally getting some traction on that
issue. Properly aligning our posts to the policy mission is
fundamental to modernizing the State Department.
We thank our panelists for being able to be here. Sorry you
were delayed today because of our markup. I want to thank our
colleagues who stood with you to the end. Thank you.
The meeting stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 15, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6308.017