U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–650PDF 2005

FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2005–2006: DEPARTMENT OF STATE

MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 14, 2005

Serial No. 109–14

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, 

Vice Chairman 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Christopher B. Burnham, Under Secretary for Management 

(Acting), U.S. Department of State ..................................................................... 8

Ms. Louise Crane, Vice President, American Foreign Service Association, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 27

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher B. Burnham: Prepared statement ........................... 12

Ms. Louise Crane: Prepared statement and material submitted for the record 30

(1)

FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2005–2006: DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS

AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee will come to order. I am pleased 

to convene this hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Human Rights and International Operations. Today we will be discussing management initiatives in the Department of State’s budget. This will be the first in a series of hearings devoted to the preparation and enactment of a foreign relations authorization bill for 

fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

I am very pleased to welcome our distinguished witnesses: Acting 

Under Secretary of State for Management, Christopher Burnham. 

And in our second panel, Vice President of the American Foreign 

Service Association, Louise Crane. 

Thank you both for being here and thank you for your patience. 

We have had a series of votes that put us back so we are starting 

a little late. 

The Administration’s request for the Department of State’s fiscal year 2006 budget, as we know, is $9.82 billion, an increase of about 

$1 billion, or 13.6 percent over fiscal year 2005. Highlights of that 

budget include $652 million for international broadcasting, a 10.2 

increase; $430 million for education and cultural exchanges, a 20.9 

increase; and a request for more than doubling of the U.S. contributions to international peacekeeping. Not included in the request is funding for United States Embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had been requested in the supplemental, in addition to 

security initiatives which include $1.5 billion for security-related 

construction of U.S. Embassies; $690 million to increase security 

for diplomatic personnel; and $930 million for border security management initiatives—the focus of this hearing today—include $249 

million for information technology, and $57 million for 221 new 

staffing positions for operational readiness. 

Another major new management initiative included in this year’s 

budget submission is a request for $57 million to fund the Office 

2

of Stabilization and Reconstruction. This office would coordinate 

the U.S. Government’s civilian response to conditions in failed, failing, and post-conflict states. This initiative—to identify, train, and 

quickly deploy qualified civilians to address unforeseen emergencies—is long overdue. 

I regret Ambassador Carlos Pasquale could not be here today to 

discuss this important new program, and I look forward to the possibility of his testimony in a future hearing. 

In the course of these hearings, Members of the Subcommittee 

will have numerous specific questions, I am sure, for our witnesses 

today and those who will follow. Let me begin this process by stating a few central concerns which I hope our distinguished Under 

Secretary will be able to address. 

First, there is a broad perception among the American people 

that government costs too much. Most Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of government deficits, but prefer to address the 

problem by reducing the cost of government rather than by paying 

more taxes. 

The officials who are charged with conducting foreign relations 

of the U.S. have in recent years been particularly strong in their 

conviction that they and the department are understaffed, underpaid, and generally not adequately appreciated by the American 

people or by the Congress. 

However, after 9/11, I believe we have begun to see a shift in 

public attitudes and congressional support regarding spending for 

foreign relations. In fact, the international affairs budget has 

grown from $18.7 billion in fiscal year 1996 to a 10-year high last 

year of approximately $30 billion. In addition to launching major 

new initiatives and programs to combat HIV/AIDS and provide development assistance through the Millennium Challenge Account, 

the Bush Administration has also added 1,100 new personnel to 

the State Department under the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative 

(DRL) and beefed up security at American Embassies around the 

world. 

Nevertheless, while overall spending levels are important, how 

we choose to allocate the limited resources we have is an even better index of what really matters to our Government. Many Americans believe that the cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the 

promotion of American values; that is, the protection and advancement of fundamental human rights of people around the world. 

Looking at the State Department budget, I see that the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor has only 104 employees and 

a budget of just $14.7 million. 

While this is certainly an improvement from the last decade in 

which the Bureau had 52 employees and a budget of $6 million, by 

way of contrast, a functional Bureau similar in size and scope, the 

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs has 50 percent more employees—160—and double the budget of DRL, at $26 million. Surely the United States should desire 

to promote human rights as much as the environment and reflect 

that in its allocation of financial resources. 

I just point out parenthetically that one of our State Department 

bills that I had the privilege of being the prime sponsor of that actually got signed into law, called for and achieved that doubling of 

3

the DRL budget. And I remember Amnesty International, of all the 

provisions in that bill and there were many, were the most pleased 

and most happy with that, because there had been a lack of focus; 

good people who work at DRL, but not enough of them. 

Each of the six regional bureaus had an average of 1,500 employees. These are the offices the Human Rights Bureau sometimes has 

to contend with in ensuring that human rights are accorded their 

rightful priority. They have a combined budget of over $1.5 billion, 

or 100 times the budget of the Human Rights Bureau. 

This gross disparity, I would say to my colleagues, in resource allocation is not only a poignant symbol of the imbalance in our foreign policy priorities, it also has important practical consequences. 

For example, Washington officials from the regional bureaus develop their expertise by taking trips to the regions in which they 

specialize. Officials in the Human Rights Bureau below the rank of 

Deputy Assistant Secretary almost never have the budget for such 

trips. It is an unfortunate fact of life that we usually get what we 

pay for. 

Public diplomacy is another area of serious concern. Post-9/11, 

the role of public diplomacy in improving America’s image around 

the world is understood to be even more critical than ever. Adequate funding is essential to address this problem, and I applaud 

Congress’ decision to increase the funding for public diplomacy in 

recent years, as well as to support those increased funding levels 

requested this year. 

I would point out that one of the findings of the 9–11 Commission was to provide for and to encourage a robust public diplomacy 

program and more resources addressed to that vital mission. 

However, legitimate questions remain about whether the programs currently being implemented are sufficient to truly change 

hearts and minds. I would point out that a GAO study released 

this month about U.S. public diplomacy states that the interagency 

coordination efforts are hampered by the lack of a national communication strategy. The report notes that several White House and 

Department of State initiatives have been launched in 2002, 2003, 

and 2004 to coordinate and target better diplomacy efforts, but 

their strategic and tactical plans are still in the drafting stage. And 

in November 2004, independent assessment of the State Department by the Foreign Affairs Council also concluded that integration 

of public diplomacy into the policy process is still deficient. 

We look forward to the arrival of Karen Hughes as the Under 

Secretary for Public Affairs and are hopeful that she will bring her 

numerous talents and experience to bear to address these problems. 

I would like to say a few words about the importance of information technology. Prior to 2001, State’s information technology was 

widely regarded as the weakest in the U.S. Government. This state 

of affairs not only affected productivity and communications, it also 

had serious adverse effects on security and State’s ability to attract 

and retain younger employees. Thanks to the implementation of a 

top-priority modernization program, the Department of State has 

completely replaced and modernized its hardware infrastructure 

and put the Internet on every desktop. 

4

However, the Department is laboring under an outdated telegram system for all of its official internal communications. Implementation of a 21st century messaging and archive retrieval system now under development is critical. 

Finally, despite these concerns, I definitely want to congratulate 

the Administration for the strong results which have come out of 

several of its management initiatives. The number of persons taking the Foreign Service exam has jumped from 8,000 in 2,000 to 

almost 20,000 last year, thanks to a dramatically revised recruitment system. Attrition due to normal causes during that same period declined from 4.6 percent to 2.9 percent. Training has expanded some 25 percent. 

We will have questions about the current proposals to follow up 

on these initiatives and these successes, particularly some of the 

personnel and pay issues that will be raised by the AFSA in our 

second panel. But I want to say at the outset that we appreciate, 

admire, and congratulate the efforts by the Department to put its 

own house in order. 

I would like to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Payne, my 

good friend and colleague from New Jersey. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you for calling this very important hearing on the State Department management issues and look forward to hearing the testimony of Mr. Burnham. Let me, though, before I make my few remarks commend you, Mr. Burnham, for your leadership in creating 

the Resource Management Department, so to speak, and bringing 

budgeting and accounting and disbursements and strategic planning and budget performance, integrating it into sort of a global financial operation, which I think certainly is an apparatus that will 

be more efficient, and your background in banking and financial resources certainly has been very helpful in creating this new forward-looking department. So I just wanted to commend you for 

that. 

Let me just mention one issue and I will be relatively brief. Of 

course, you being new in the State Department, this is an issue 

that is not new, but it is a continuing issue, realizing that you are 

not a person that would have been involved with the problem since 

you are relatively new, you are the messenger, so I do hope that 

the comments will get back to those who will have a look at what 

is happening and has been going on for some time. 

There is an element in the State Department that has troubled 

for me sometime, and that is the need for more minorities, particularly African Americans hired within the Department and the absence of senior African American career Foreign Service officers at 

State Department. I might even add now with the new emphasis 

on the Middle East, we are certainly having a shortfall in Middle 

Eastern personnel, people who speak Arabic, people who are Islamic, women. 

And so I think that if our State Department is going to reflect 

the world and to be able to be a little bit more relevant to the 

world, this only strengthens the United States of America and our 

diplomatic agenda for the world. 

Let me just tell you about a few of my disappointments. I was 

disappointed to learn that on several occasions, senior career ForVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
5

eign Service officers were forced to go into early retirement out of 

frustration, because they were not given new posts or were left 

hanging in limbo. Let me be specific. One, a former Ambassador, 

was denied another ambassadorship—these are career people 

now—and was sidelined. And this was an Ambassador that had a 

long and impressive track record. Former Assistant Secretary of 

State for Africa, a career Ambassador, got no onward ambassadorships after assignment in Europe and retired in frustration. A 31-

year career Ambassador was denied an ambassadorship even 

though she was Director General at the time now in Washington. 

Foreign Ambassador pulled after 27 years of service allegedly because of one inspector general’s report after numerous evaluations. 

One inspector general had a view—and this Ambassador was removed from the position. 

There are more than four cases that I know personally that are 

pending right as I speak. We have a crisis and a serious problem. 

This situation, if allowed to continue, could have serious consequences for minorities, especially African Americans. Recruitment and retention of minorities, already a problem, could be more 

difficult. These senior career foreign officers did not retire or leave 

the State Department willingly. They were forced out. 

It will probably be pointed out that Secretary Rice is an African 

American herself, but this is an issue that I brought up with 

former Secretary of State Colin Powell. He had a program that he 

was implementing aimed at recruiting African Americans. But simply beefing up recruitment efforts is not enough. There are some 

systemic problems in the State Department, and you wouldn’t 

know, but over the years there have been class actions suits continually which the State Department had consistently lost. So there 

is some ingrained systemic problems that really need to be looked 

at in the State Department. 

The State Department must treat African American Foreign 

Service officers with the same amount of respect that officers from 

other groups receive, and must not target them for being Black or 

from not being of the same political orientation. Special attention 

needs to be paid to the promotion and retention of senior Foreign 

Service officers. 

I strongly urge that as the Under Secretary for Management that 

you direct the Director General to conduct an investigation just to 

see what is going on, as I have indicated. If our Nation is going 

to remain strong, relevant, and to be able to do the job we need 

to do around the world, to have a Department which generally excludes minorities and women is not in the best interest of our security and our future policies. 

And so, as I indicated, this is all historic before you took your 

position. So therefore, I don’t even expect a response, but I just 

wanted to get it on the record and I will be pursuing this as you 

do assume your new position. Thank you, I yield back the balance. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Let me just welcome Mr. Under Secretary and let me 

just say I appreciate the time that you are spending with us today. 

And I want to associate myself with the remarks of our Ranking 

Member, Mr. Payne. 

6

I wanted to just mention a couple of points with regard to the 

issue of diversity. I think it is very important in this critical moment in American foreign policy that we make sure that our State 

Department is putting our best face forward in all corners of the 

world. The United States’ engagement in military operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, you know, on top of diplomatic efforts to stabilize the Middle East, I think this is very important for all of us 

to do within our own power in terms of making sure the State Department has the access to human resources and management capabilities that will repair, quite frankly, our image in the world 

and will improve our relations with our allies around the world. 

So I am especially interested in what the State Department is 

doing to draw, really, on the cultural diversity of our own Nation 

as it promotes diplomacy and development in countries and continents where many Americans have roots, such as Mexico, Africa, 

China and the Middle East, Japan, India. 

I can remember Secretary Ron Brown constantly talking about 

the need to have the face of America in the world because of those 

connections, because we are a country of immigrants and we have 

those—this is a plus because we have those ties to people around 

the world. So I think it is very important that we see this as a 

strength and begin to ensure that the points that Congressman 

Payne raised are really implemented and ensure that affirmative 

action and diversity exists at the State Department. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, one thing I will say and I do appreciate having the hearing, but sitting here thinking, I have traveled extensively since I have come to Congress and I have had the 

opportunity to travel with the Speaker of the House and have gone 

to Europe extensively. I have just gotten back from Africa with 

Senator Enzi and Senator Inhofe. 

But I will say as we are in those countries, the in-country briefings, the manner that we are treated has been very much the 

same. I have traveled with people who have been in Congress very 

long, with the Speaker, and I will say that generally I have been 

pleased that I am being treated basically the same regardless of 

who we are with. 

I hope you do relay that to your people, that the in-country briefings we get are very, very valuable and help us understand. We 

can talk about those things here, but until you actually get there 

and visit with the people that are on the ground and, you know, 

visit with the populace and then have them help us get to the 

places that we need to be going and see what is going on, that has 

been very, very helpful. 

And again, like I say, I have been pleased that traveling with 

some of the most senior Members versus the junior Members, there 

hadn’t been a lot of difference. So I think that is something that 

is commendable. 

Mr. SMITH. I now would like to welcome our very distinguished 

Acting Under Secretary for Management, Christopher Burnham, 

who is also the Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and 

Chief Financial Officer at the State Department. 

7

The creation of the Bureau of Resource Management consolidated 

all budgeting, accounting and disbursing, strategic planning, budget and performance integration, in global financial operations. The 

Resource Management office has one of the most prestigious 

awards in government accounting and reporting 3 years in a row. 

Before joining the Bush Administration, Secretary Burnham 

served as Chief Executive Officer of a leading asset management 

and mutual fund company, PIMCO’s Columbus Circle Investors, 

and as Vice Chairman of PIMCO’s Mutual Fund Group. So if you 

have any advice along that line, you might want to pass that to us 

as well. 

Mr. Burnham was elected to the Connecticut House of Representatives three times and served as Assistant Minority Leader. He is 

also a 23-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and a veteran of the first Gulf War. 

Secretary Burnham, thank you for being here and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. PAYNE. Would you yield a moment? Mrs. Watson came in 

and wanted to make a brief opening statement. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could suspend for a moment. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this privilege. I know you wanted to move ahead with the panelists and I 

want to thank you for calling this hearing, because this Committee 

has the opportunity to cover a vast array of topics of concern to 

America’s national security, but this particular hearing is on a subject that will judge whether or not we are able to effectively address any of the other challenges. 

The State Department remains America’s most important structure for protecting America and promoting our values and our interest. To put it another way, our State Department is where 

America’s foreign policy rubber meets the international security 

road. 

I feel very privileged being able to serve my country as an Ambassador to Micronesia, and I could not have performed that job 

without the support of the dedicated men and women of the United 

States State Department. These people are still America’s best and 

brightest and we should be proud of them for the work they do, and 

we should work to protect them from the dangers that they face. 

But I fear we are not serving the men and women of the State Department as well as they deserve. And I don’t believe that we manage the State Department in a way that employs our human capital most effectively. 

This problem is hardly limited to the State Department. In fact, 

I fear it permeates our national security’s apparatus from intelligence to defense, to international development and to public 

health. We have failed to get a grip on how to get the most out of 

our people. 

Now, I have two basic concerns, Mr. Chairman. First, are we hiring the right mix of people with the right skills? Our foreign policy 

establishment is still overwhelmingly of a single color. This is not 

simply a social justice issue, but an international security problem. 

A State Department that doesn’t look like America cannot effectively represent American values and interests. Furthermore, a 

State Department that doesn’t look like America cannot effectively 

8

speak to America about the world at large and America’s role in 

that world. 

This second point makes it exceedingly difficult to craft and to 

carry out an effective foreign policy that has the support of the 

American people. 

My second concern, Mr. Chairman, Are we getting the best results for the people we have? This is something that I feel we have 

completely failed to get a grip on. I am impressed by the achievements that Secretary Burnham has been able to achieve in his time 

at State, and I wish to hear from him how we can sustain the 

progress. But I also feel it is time to start focusing on the next 

question: Are these management changes achieving the results we 

need to serve America’s goals and interests? And I am glad to see 

we are hiring more interpreters and better training our officers, 

but are these people being deployed to where they could be the 

most useful? Are they getting the skills they most need, and, perhaps most critically, after we are investing in these people and 

their skills, are we able to retain them? 

This second concern led me to write an amendment for the intelligence reform bill in the last Congress, which would have called 

upon both the State Department and the National Intelligence Director to report to Congress on the effective employment of human 

capital. I felt then, and still do, that that bill focused its attention 

on budget authorities and turf wars, but failed to ensure that we 

had the tools in place to use people in their maximum effectiveness. 

My amendment regarding the State Department was included in 

the International Relations Committee’s draft of the bill, but failed 

to make it into the final version. And I would hope that my concerns on this subject can be addressed this year in our authorization bill. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And the point 

I am making is that when you are sure that we have a very wellintegrated State Department at the top, that we will have people 

who can go into these foreign cultures and have cultural sensitivity 

and perform admirably in terms of our relationships to other countries, and particularly those in the Middle East. 

So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this valuable 

hearing and giving me this time. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Fortenberry? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No comments at this time, Mr. Chairman, but 

thank you for holding the hearing. I appreciate you holding the 

hearing and learning more about these issues. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER B. 

BURNHAM, UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT (ACTING), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. BURNHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so much, and Mr. 

Payne and Members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful for the 

comments that we do a good job in working with Members of Congress when you go to post. 

On the other hand, I had a chance to travel with Mr. Payne to 

Jordan a year ago to attend the economic summit. And it is nice 

for us to travel with you as well. So thank you, Mr. Payne. 

9

Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize my remarks and I 

would ask that my full remarks might appear in the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full statement will appear in 

the record. 

Mr. BURNHAM. I would like to break down what we do in management into what I call the six ‘‘P’’s: People, places, productivity, 

protection, public diplomacy and policy. 

Let me start with people. As Members of this Committee have 

mentioned, it is the most essential aspect of what we do from ensuring proper staffing levels; enabling training, particularly expanded language training in Chinese, Arabic, and Farsi; meeting 

the new demands of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Sudan, and the 

Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization as well as other policy 

initiatives of the President. In addition to new diplomatic security 

and consular positions, we are requesting $57 million for 221 positions in these critical priorities. 

For places, we have over 250 Embassies and Consulates around 

the world. Seventy percent of them failed to meet basic security 

standards. Almost 70 percent have some degree of a hardship rating, with 38 percent rated as most hard. Eleven percent also carry 

a rating that earns our employees danger pay. Yet, thanks to Congress, the Department has been able to build 14 new Embassies 

and Consulates over the past 4 years and currently has an additional 40 under construction thanks to the George S. Patten of 

overseas building, General Jack Williams. We are requesting 1.5 

billion in fiscal year 2006 and it will add an additional eight Embassies and one Consulate, pay for upgrading compound security at 

high-risk posts, and address other major physical security and 

other rehabitational requirements. 

Protection, protection of the American people. The President has 

requested $930 million for border security programs to protect our 

Americans living and traveling abroad and to protect our U.S. borders from illegal entry of terrorists and others who would do us 

harm. We are also seeking legislative authority to retain revenues 

generated by increases in passport demand. Due to the Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative mandated by the Intelligence Reform 

and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the Administration announced the details of this program just last week. We anticipate 

at the Department that our demand for passports could grow from 

approximately 8.8 million in 2004 to over 17 million passports by 

2008. 

To meet this demand, the Department needs to significantly increase its passport adjudication and production capacity. Let me 

stress that what we have asked for is not to receive money from 

our existing level of passport issuance, but to meet the new demand due to the Western Hemisphere Initiative to have anything 

over the 2004 level come to the State Department to pay for that. 

Productivity means harnessing the new technologies that are 

available in the Internet, as well as to increase efficiency and productivity while maintaining momentum on modernization and 

interagency collaboration. The Chairman has already mentioned 

SMART and also mentioned Secretary Powell’s efforts to link everybody up to the Internet through Open Net Plus. 

10

We have other great successes. In 1994 I was elected Treasurer 

of the State of Connecticut. In January 1995, when I was sworn in, 

I was shocked to find out we were running the finances of the State 

of Connecticut on a Wang computer system, a company that had 

gone out of business a decade earlier. I thought never again, either 

in business or in public service, would I ever find a Wang computer 

system. Not so, Mr. Chairman. I arrived here in 2001 and I had 

another Wang computer system, in fact, two, which we operated 

until last fall when we retired. 

I proudly note one of the Secretary’s prized possessions was the 

plate we pried off of the Wang computer in the basement of the Department and presented to Secretary Powell, which he brought 

home with him. 

We are upgrading to a modern real-time global financial management platform, a difficult thing that every global corporation 

around the world is attempting to do, yet I think we are leading 

the world in this effort. We have a logistics management system, 

purchasing supply, transportation, warehousing and inventory, 

which we are also trying to bring up to the 21st century. 

And finally, this would be the second most important behind 

what you have already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, which was the 

replacement of our 60-plus-year-old cabling communication system. 

The SMART system is GIMM, the Global Information Management 

Modernization program that has anywhere from 89 to 90 million—

87 million requested in fiscal year 2006 alone—to make sure that 

we continue to upgrade the platform on a regular 3-year replacement cycle. 

Public diplomacy, Mr. Chairman, you have already spoken about. 

Karen Hughes’ imminent arrival at the State Department pending 

confirmation by the United States Senate—we are looking forward 

to that and we are all well aware of the needs that we must now 

do within the public diplomacy arena if we are going to continue 

on the successes we have had in countries around the world in 

bringing American values and American respect for democracy and 

freedom abroad. 

The last ‘‘P’’ is policy. The President has boldly launched a number of critical initiatives from the Global AIDS Initiative and Millennium Challenge Account. Other requirements such as peacekeeping and contributions to international organizations and a negative exchange rate environment continue to tug on our resources. 

But these added requirements will require additional personnel, 

additional resources, and it is essential that we find the funds to 

meet these concerns. 

Let me just close with one other thing, which is a little bit off 

the topic, Mr. Chairman, and that is the supplemental. The supplemental is going forward. Obviously, within that supplemental, we 

requested an original amount of $658 million for a new Embassy 

compound in Baghdad. I can’t stress enough how important that is 

to the men and women of the State Department, to the men and 

women who are living in trailers behind the old Republican palace 

in Baghdad, to the men and women who are laboring within that 

building, which I know you know is a dysfunctional building, and 

how anxious we are to return it to the Iraqis for their own use and 

get us in a first-class space for our Americans in Baghdad and 

11

throughout Iraq. So we ask, sir, that that—I would extend to you 

this is my number one priority for the supplemental. 

If I could, let me just comment on a couple of things which the 

panel commented. On democracy, human rights, and labor versus 

oceans and the environment, I will just note that many of those 

things are also in the democracy area rule of law conducted by 

USAID. So it is difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison. 

I have a background in corporate finance. We make our living 

doing comparables of one corporation to another. Where we see inequities, we either buy it, break it up, or sell it. One of the frustrating things for me as Chief Financial Officer has been the inability to do an apples-to-apples comparison, even from a budget 1 year 

to the next, because of supplementals and the way we move money, 

from global AIDS, to child survival and health, to the global AIDS 

initiatives. And other initiatives both on the part of the Administration and on the part of Congress make it difficult to reduce that 

to an apples-to-apples comparison. 

In making that comparison, we must look at the laudable efforts 

in that arena of USAID. Mr. Payne, I would welcome the opportunity to come up here with our Director General, Ambassador Bob 

Pearson, first to define exactly what you would like to know rather 

than just to take up our brief comments that we have had here at 

this meeting; to come up here in the next 2 weeks or 3 weeks, depending on your schedule, to go over these things. And I would like 

to welcome other Members who would like to join and then we will 

go back to exactly what you are doing. You know, of course, Secretary Powell was deeply committed to this. Secretary Rice is deeply committed to this. Secretary Rice is also deeply committed to recruiting more women into the Foreign Service, which is also very, 

very important. And I also want to add that she has spoken at 

length to us in meetings about making the State Department reflect the culture and the breadth and depth of America and have 

others see that the strength of our society is in this multicultural 

democracy of ours and how well it works here, so that this is really 

a shining example for our countries abroad. 

Congresswoman Watson—I want to call you Ambassador Watson—we are looking at all the aspects that you raised here, the 

right people with the right skills. Recently Secretary Rice has 

adopted virtually the same words you used today. The questions: 

Are we recruiting the right individuals? Do they have the right 

skills set? What does the State Department look like in 20/20 vision? What will an Embassy look like? What are the skill sets, the 

political, management, consular officer, are those still applicable? 

In my own words, the historical role of a Foreign Service officer 

to observe and report has changed, and to the words of Secretary 

Rice recently, demarche and advocate. It is sometimes tough for 

people from the business world to come to Washington, DC and use 

terms which we are not used to down here in Washington. I like 

to think of our Embassies as factory floors where we produce a 

widget called diplomacy. That always raises a few eyebrows when 

I say it. And I like to use the word ‘‘sales’’ rather than ‘‘advocacy.’’ 

We need to go out there and sell our programs and sell what America stands for and what we need other nations to do to come and 

12

join the family of nations in open and free societies that respect 

each other and each other’s cultures. 

With that, let me conclude and say I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burnham follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER B. BURNHAM, UNDER

SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT (ACTING), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify today in support of the management portions of the President’s FY 2006 

budget request for the Department of State. 

The President’s top foreign policy priority is winning the war on terrorism. The 

United States is engaged in a new kind of war—the global war on terrorism. Defeating such an enemy requires vigilance, tenacity, and international cooperation on an 

unprecedented scale. 

Yet despite the altered security environment and the hard realities of terrorism, 

America remains committed to an historic mission—the expansion of freedom and 

democracy. This mission is consistent with our deepest principles and vital to our 

national interests. For widening the circle of human liberty is the surest way to decrease the appeal of terrorism and build peaceful societies based on individual aspirations and hope. 

These are ambitious yet necessary goals to safeguard the security and well-being 

of our nation. Full funding of the FY 2006 request for the Department’s management initiatives will provide the resources we need to sustain a strong diplomatic 

platform that effectively supports the work of the men and women of the State Department, both in Washington and overseas, as well as the employees of more than 

thirty other agencies working at our side at American embassies and consulates 

worldwide. 

I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee for their past support of the 

State Department’s management initiatives. The State Department has earned a 

strong record of accomplishments in the management area over the past four years. 

I would like to give you a sampling of these achievements, many of which depended 

on Congressional funding support. 

STATE DEPARTMENT’S MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

President’s Management Agenda (PMA): 

I first want to underline our success in implementing the President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA)—the strategy for improving the management and performance of the 

Federal government. The PMA emphasizes five government-wide initiatives—

human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial performance, expanded 

electronic government, and budget and performance integration. In addition to the 

government-wide initiatives, the Department is taking a lead role in carrying out 

the PMA initiative on a Rightsized Overseas Presence. 

The Department of State has achieved measurable progress in implementing the 

PMA and is now in the top tier of the 26 PMA agencies. We started in 2001 with 

red (the lowest score) for both status and quarterly progress on all five initiatives, 

but I’m proud to say that State is now one of only four agencies with green (the 

highest) status scores on four of the five initiatives. The only one on which we have 

not yet reached green, but we are actively engaged in getting there, is competitive 

sourcing. In support of the rightsizing initiative, and at the direction of Congress, 

we established the Office of Rightsizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence 

last year to lead the Department’s effort to develop internal and interagency mechanisms to better coordinate, rationalize, and manage the deployment of personnel 

overseas under Chief of Mission (COM) authority. 

People: 

• We improved our recruiting and hiring processes to ensure we hire the best talent 

available.

• We are developing a new set of requirements for Foreign Service employees who 

wish to compete for promotion into the senior ranks. Requirements include broader functional and regional expertise, additional training and language requirements, and hardship service.

13

• We are building the professional skills of our Civil Service employees, including 

expanded entry-level orientations, an accelerated hiring process, a broad-based 

mentoring program, a robust Presidential Management Fellows program, and full 

access to training for professional and critical needs.

• Overall, the Foreign Service Institute provided 40% more training in FY 2004 

than in FY 2001.

• Under the mandatory leadership training for mid-level Foreign Service and Civil 

Service employees begun in 2002, the Foreign Service Institute’s Leadership and 

Management School has already trained more than 5,000 employees, on track to 

train the entire target group by the end of December 2006.

• We expanded our capacity to train students in Arabic at our language schools in 

Washington and Tunis. In FY 2001, enrollments of State employees in any form 

of Arabic training (part-time, full-time, etc.) totaled 121, whereas in FY 2004 that 

number was 341. Currently there are over 200 State Department employees enrolled full-time in Arabic training, an increase of 100% since FY 2001. 

Security: 

• We have made numerous technical upgrades to the security systems at our domestic and overseas facilities. Overseas this includes physical security upgrades 

such as forced-entry/ballistic-resistant doors and windows, perimeter security, and 

safe havens and technical security systems such as upgraded CCTV coverage with 

digital recording of events and improved alarm systems.

• We have made substantial progress on combating visa and passport fraud through 

the strong partnership of our Bureaus of Consular Affairs (CA) and Diplomatic 

Security (DS). Expanded DS investigative efforts have led to an 82 percent increase in the total number of individuals arrested for passport and visa fraud 

from FY 2002 to FY 2004 (from 401 arrestees to 725 arrestees).

• Our Bureau of Diplomatic Security is automating the security clearance process. 

We have decreased the processing time for issuing a security clearance by 45% 

and have virtually eliminated the backlog of full-time employees with clearances 

older than five years.

• Our Bureau of Consular Affairs:

— Successfully implemented the Biometric Visa Program at all visa-adjudicating posts ahead of the Congressionally-mandated October 26, 2004 deadline. This information is shared with Department of Homeland Security inspectors at ports of entry.

— Developed a new generation U.S. passport that incorporates state of the art 

security and printing features. This new passport will also incorporate an integrated chip onto which the Department will write the bearer’s photograph 

and the same biographic data as found on the passport’s data page.

— Deployed the Internet Based Registration System (IBRS), which permits 

American citizen travelers to register their foreign plans and contact information via the Department’s Internet site. 

Technology: 

• With the help of Congress, the Department has made great strides in modernizing 

our IT infrastructure and systems:

— Internet access at every desktop.

— Classified connectivity for all those authorized to have it.

— We have implemented a four-year technology modernization cycle for Department networks worldwide—classified and unclassified.

— IT staff skills have been upgraded; hiring, retention, and training issues 

have been addressed.

• The Information Technology implementations are changing the way the Department does diplomacy:

— Remote posts are less isolated as a result of global networks.

— Flexible email has replaced rigidly formatted cables for much of the Department’s workforce.

— The Internet is now a vital information resource to all Department employees worldwide and a vehicle for outreach.

— Electronic commerce is well established for on-line acquisition.

— Strengthened computer security and the completion of information assurance authorization on major IT systems in the Department ensures we can 

14

depend on the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information. 

Facilities: 

• We have established a stronger, more responsive Overseas Buildings Operations 

Bureau (OBO) which has implemented a Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan 

(the fourth edition covering FY 2005 to FY 2010 was issued in February), continued to hone its Standard Embassy Design, and introduced a new Disciplined Approach to Management designed to ensure construction projects are completed 

within scope and budget and on time.

• We greatly accelerated the construction of safe, secure, and functional embassies 

through management efficiencies as well as the creation of the Capital Security 

Cost Sharing Program, a $17.5 billion program to replace 150 posts over 14 years. 

In most cases, embassy construction time has been reduced from more than four 

years down to two.

• OBO is currently managing $4.7 billion in construction projects, compared with 

$0.7 billion in FY 2001. Since then, OBO has completed 14 capital construction 

projects and currently has another 40 under construction.

• In Washington we renovated the Old State wing of the Harry S Truman (HST) 

headquarters building and started the design and planning for the next renovation phase for the New State section of the HST building, which is scheduled to 

begin in November 2005 pending funds. 

Management Reforms: 

• We developed the first-ever joint State-U.S. Agency for International Development 

Strategic Plan, which will be updated this year, and established formal mechanisms to better coordinate policy and management issues with USAID. The Joint 

Management Council is helping to implement the Plan’s management goals, including eliminating duplicative services and integrating IT infrastructure and 

services.

• We consolidated strategic planning and budget operations in the Bureau of Resource Management, creating the structure not only to improve financial performance but also to integrate planning, budget, and performance. We are linking 

budget decisions to program performance, including Senior Reviews chaired by the 

Deputy Secretary and Budget Reviews chaired by the Department’s budget officer. 

This bureau has achieved green status scores for both the financial management 

and budget and performance integration PMA initiatives (a double green reached 

by only four other agencies Government-wide thus far).

• The Integrated Logistics Management System (ILMS) is a major reengineering development effort to create a modern, web-based, user-oriented system for logistics, 

including purchasing, supply, transportation, warehousing, and inventory.

Both our authorization and budget requests are necessary to continue and build 

on these and other management achievements. 

FY 2006–2007 FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION BILL

I want to ask your support for the Administration request for the FY 2006–2007 

Foreign Relations Authorization bill, including full funding levels for FY 2006 and 

‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ for FY 2007. Our request includes a number of 

personnel flexibilities and a variety of other management authorities that are important for the Department. The personnel provisions, including those for stabilization and reconstruction efforts, are key to our creatively meeting the challenges that 

the Department faces in the post-9/11 world. 

The Department is also seeking legislative authority to retain revenues generated 

by increases in passport demand beyond the levels budgeted in FY 2005 (9.6 million) 

and FY 2006 (10.1 million) in order to fund the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Although not finalized in time for our original Authorization request package, 

this proposal is now part of it. Under Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, must develop and implement a plan by January 

1, 2008 that requires passports or other documentation (to be determined at a later 

due) denoting nationality and identity for all U.S. citizens entering or leaving the 

U.S. from other jurisdictions within the Western Hemisphere. The Administration 

announced the details of this program last week. The Department anticipates that 

passport demand could grow from 8.8 million applicants in FY 2004 to as many as 

17 million passports per year by 2008. To meet this estimated demand, the Department of State may need to significantly increase its passport adjudication and proVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
15

duction capacity beginning in FY 2005. These revenues will be used to support such 

expenses as increased passport direct hire and contractor staff, staff training, outreach programs, additional passport facilities, and related systems support. 

FY 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL

Full funding of the President’s FY 2005 supplemental request is vital to carrying 

out our commitments in the global war on terrorism. Our request included funding 

to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and meet our commitments to international peacekeeping. I want especially to highlight the need for full funding of the 

Baghdad New Embassy Compound (NEC) and the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. 

The $658 million requested for the Baghdad NEC in the FY 2005 Supplemental 

is vitally important:

• When the FY 2006 budget was prepared, the Department was still refining 

particulars related to the size, cost, and timing of construction and assuring 

that the new post would be rightsized.

• In order to ensure that all USG staff are working in a safe, secure environment, we need to begin the construction process as soon as possible. Although 

security improvements have been made to the interim complex, the facilities 

meet only some security standards because of the current environment. The 

interim complex has been hit numerous times by insurgent fire, and two mission members have been killed there in the past four months.

• The Palace complex has symbolic importance to the Iraqi people, and we have 

agreed to return it as soon as possible to an elected Iraqi government.

Should funding be deferred on the Baghdad Embassy construction until regular 

FY 2006 appropriations, the delay (which could be as much as 14 months from our 

current schedule) would cause greater risks to personnel and extend site maintenance costs while awaiting mobilization. 

President Bush has charged the State Department with coordinating our nation’s 

post-conflict and stabilization efforts. We are asking for $17.2 million in supplemental funding for start-up and personnel costs for the Department’s new Office of 

the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. Our FY 2006 request continues funding for this office. 

FY 2006 REQUEST

The Administration request for FY 2006 will sustain initiatives for people, security, information technology, and facilities and meet new and increased diplomatic 

requirements, including the capability to coordinate quick civilian response to postconflict situations. This funding is necessary to build on our many accomplishments 

in the management area over the past four years and to maintain the strong momentum in our implementation of the President’s Management Agenda. 

The resources requested in the FY 2006 budget will enable the State Department 

to:

• Support the global war on terrorism

The request provides $690 million in Worldwide Security Upgrades to 

maintain security programs for the protection of our diplomatic personnel, facilities, and information in the face of terrorism. Security is an on-going effort, especially as the potential for large-scale terrorist attacks and continued 

physical and technological attacks directed at Government and civilian targets within the United States and our diplomatic missions abroad remains at 

a historic high. The work of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) in 

counter-terrorism, criminal investigations, and intelligence makes it a partner in the global war on terrorism. DS manages a broad range of programs 

to create and maintain the appropriate level of security for more than 57,000 

U.S. Government personnel, staff, and dependents who work and live at approximately 260 embassies, consulates, and other missions overseas. 

This funding will continue programs to maintain our security equipment 

and technical support, information and systems security, perimeter security, 

and security training. It will add 55 security professionals for key responsibilities such as Joint Terrorism Task Force participation and the mobile security 

teams that respond to crises, increased threats, and security training requirements overseas.

• Strengthen protection of America’s borders

16

The FY 2006 budget provides $930.6 million in appropriated funds and fees 

for the Border Security Program, whose mission is—through continuous improvements in consular systems, processes and programs—to protect American citizens living and traveling abroad and to protect U.S. borders against 

illegal entry of terrorists and others who would threaten homeland security. 

This funding is a combination of Machine Readable Visa fees ($672.1 million), 

Enhanced Border Security Program fees and visa fraud prevention fees 

($184.3 million), and $74.2 million in appropriated funds.

The funds provided through the Border Security Program will:

• Support almost all consular operations worldwide, including the salaries and 

support costs of 2,852 full-time consular officers and support personnel.

• Support all consular systems, including passport production systems, the Consolidated Consular Database (CCD) and the Consular Lookout System 

(CLASS), against which all visa applications must be checked prior to being 

issued.

• Introduce a more secure passport that has a biometric chip embedded in the 

passport document.

• Support the national security requirement to collect biometric data worldwide 

from visa applicants.

• Expand the use of facial recognition checks in the visa issuance process.

• Add 55 positions to manage an increased domestic passport workload, increases in consular services provided to American citizens abroad, and continuing changes in visa processing, including more extensive interviewing of 

applicants and the implementation of biometric collection.

• Provide human resources for core requirements

In addition to the positions in the Border Security program and Diplomatic 

Security already mentioned, the request provides $57 million for 221 new positions to meet core staffing and training requirements. These 221 positions 

will address critical priorities such as:

— New embassies in Baghdad and Kabul (including four regional centers 

in Iraq), a liaison office in Libya, and most recently Khartoum; these 

have become permanent requirements that must be considered as part 

of the base of our operations.

— Critical needs related to security objectives such as non-proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorist financing, and advancing information technology to meet security and intelligence requirements;

— The Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization; and

— Arabic language instruction and advanced training in critical needs languages, particularly Arabic and Farsi.

In 2001, the Department of State proposed a three-year hiring initiative 

known as the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative, or DRI. The intent of DRI was 

to allow for more training in critical foreign languages and management 

skills, as well as provide staffing that would ease the pressures of responding 

to emerging priorities and crises. 

The Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) has rebuilt both Foreign Service 

and Civil Service personnel to meet the needs of 21st century diplomacy. 

However, the DRI plan predated 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism, and 

new requirements have been placed on the Department.

• Continue to construct and upgrade secure diplomatic facilities

Following the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, and as highlighted by continuing terrorist acts around the world, one of the Department’s 

most pressing needs is to provide secure facilities for U.S. Government employees overseas efficiently—and at reasonable cost. 

The request provides $1.526 billion to support security-related construction 

projects and address the major physical security and rehabilitation requirements of U.S. embassies and consulates. 

This funding includes $810.2 million for capital security construction to replace diplomatic facilities at the most vulnerable posts. Of this amount, 

$393.6 million is for State’s share of the Capital Security Cost Sharing 

(CSCS) Program (with the remainder from regular appropriations). This 

multi-year program is designed to accelerate construction of new secure emVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
17

bassies and encourage Federal agencies to rightsize by carefully considering 

their overseas positions. All U.S. Government agencies with an overseas presence contribute to the costs of this construction program based on the number 

of their authorized overseas positions. With $203.1 million in anticipated cost sharing contributions from other agencies, the Department will have $1.013 billion to plan, design, and build 

new embassy and consulate compounds (NECs). This will fund the design and 

construction of eight new embassy compounds in Brazzaville, Republic of 

Congo; Djibouti, Djibouti; Harare, Zimbabwe; Kigali, Rwanda; Kinshasa, 

Democratic Republic of Congo; Lusaka, Zambia; Oslo, Norway; and Sarajevo, 

Bosnia-Herzegovina; a new consulate compound in Karachi, Pakistan; and 

four USAID annexes in Abuja, Nigeria; Accra, Ghana; Managua, Nicaragua; 

and Tbilisi, Georgia, as well as NEC design in Mexico City. 

The request also includes $85 million to upgrade compound security at 

high-risk posts and $15 million to increase protection for soft targets such as 

overseas schools and recreation facilities as well as $615.8 million for ongoing 

operations and maintenance.

• Exploit information technology

To maintain our edge in the changing world landscape, it is imperative that 

the Department have steadfast and effective information technology (IT) globally to carry out U.S. foreign policy. 

The request provides $249 million for Central Fund investments in IT, including $116 million in estimated fee revenues. The two top IT priorities in 

this funding are SMART (State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset) and 

GITM (Global IT Modernization) included in the Centralized IT Modernization Program. 

Specifically, SMART is the key to the future with a simple, secure and 

user-driven system to support foreign policy through modern messaging, dynamic archiving and information sharing. SMART will replace the outdated, 

cumbersome 1940’s cable system that currently provides worldwide information to the Department, combining command and control messaging with email into a single, searchable electronic archive. The request for $39.7 million 

is needed to move this critical program forward. 

The Centralized IT Modernization Program request of $74.1 million will 

help us to ensure that the Department’s global IT infrastructure and network 

access is kept current over our reliable worldwide network. Continued technology modernization is a prerequisite for SMART implementation. 

We will be able to centralize our modernization efforts and leverage the Department’s IT investments via a cost-effective program linked to our Strategic 

Plan by:

— Continuing modernization of the common infrastructure, network architecture and standardized hardware and software to ensure secure unclassified and classified environments.

— Planning and executing the program in synchronization with the Department’s business process re-engineering efforts to provide an agile 

and adaptive infrastructure capable of leveraging new technology.

— Avoiding operations and maintenance and other support costs for old or 

obsolete hardware and software through a disciplined and centralized 

approach to modernization on a four-year cycle.

— Providing a common global baseline for classified and unclassified infrastructure to facilitate efficient user training and technical support.

— Facilitating cross-agency communication and information sharing. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for allowing me to explain some of the key management initiatives in 

the President’s FY 2006 budget request for the Department of State. I welcome the 

opportunity to answer your questions.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Although we 

will be having a very specific hearing on Embassy and Consular affairs, I didn’t see this in your written statement. But in your oral 

statement, you mentioned that 70 percent of our missions fail to 

meet security standards. I would ask if you could elaborate on that. 

And I see people here who have worked on the Foreign Relations 

18

Act of 2000 and 2001, an act which I was the prime sponsor of, 

which we finally got enacted into law. And I will never forget after 

the Embassy bombings in Africa, two horrific events, regrettably, 

were almost predictors of what would happen in 9/11, because I remember Secretary Carpenter sitting there where you are, and, as 

matter of fact, Ken Nakarora testified that day as well, and Admiral Crowell who headed up the Crowell review boards, and they basically said that transnational terrorism is here; they are going to 

pick the weakest and most vulnerable mission. We can’t think it 

is going to be someplace in the Middle East that might get hit or 

that proximity was no longer an issue. It is transnational terrorism. 

We authorized the $5.9 billion in that legislation. The appropriators, Hal Rogers and Frank Wolf, I think, were very faithful in 

trying to get as close as possible in an ongoing systematic Embassy 

upgrading system as humanly possible, and yet you have shared 

with us today that 70 percent still don’t meet those security standards. 

How big of a hole do we have? Is that 70 percent not having 

every X in the box? Are we that much at risk? Are we fooling ourselves? 

Mr. BURNHAM. The report that was done in 1998—does anybody 

know who did the name of the report—Admiral Crowell’s report? 

Mr. SMITH. We had him testify and we took his recommendations 

and offloaded them right into our bill. He had an excellent series 

of suggestions; $1.4 billion per year is what he had recommended 

we do. 

Mr. BURNHAM. At that time, approximately 70 percent of the 

Embassies were noted to have a security risk, including setback 

issues, construction issues. I visited an Embassy where part of it 

was originally built out of dung bricks in the 1800s. Fortunately, 

this has been addressed dramatically by Congress in a couple of 

ways. First of all, you have given us the funding to build 14 new 

Embassy compounds in the last 4 years. We are in the midst of 

construction of 40 more. And this is a plan to build up to 150 new 

Embassies and Consulates around the world to address this issue. 

Moreover, not all of the money we have requested in 2006, approximately $1.5 billion, will go to new Embassy construction. 

Rather, about 40 percent of that will go to security upgrades at existing facilities. 

Also critical: Out of the 150 Embassies we would hope to replace 

over the remaining 14-year period that we have set out to do this 

in as well, the upgrades should address all these issues. 

Second of all, the capital security cost-sharing program has been 

an absolute godsend to this program, a godsend from two standpoints. One, it brings us the money we need to reduce this construction agenda from a 26-year program to a 14- or 15-year program. But second of all, it adds to an important element that Congress is requiring and the White House through OMB is requiring, 

which is rightsizing. It is making us go through the process of trying to determine whether or not we have the right staffing abroad. 

Whether it is more or less, it is an effort that the State Department, in collaboration with other agencies, are making to determine what is the right level of staffing abroad. And you can do that 

19

from a policy standpoint and simply ask us, well, tell us whether 

you think we have the right number of people at the Embassy in 

this country. But when there is an economic incentive as well, as 

we know from the private sector, when there is an overhead charge 

on a per capita basis, it makes you seriously look at the number 

of people you are placing abroad. So that has contributed greatly. 

I didn’t wish to alarm you, the 70 percent. I need to get you a 

recalculated figure from the 14 we have already built, from the 

hundreds of millions of dollars we have already spent to increase 

security at existing facilities. That was the legacy figure from the 

Crowell Commission. Let me update that. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that because the Crowell Commission 

was the catalyst for us. The original name of that bill was the Embassy Security Act, just to try to meet that compelling need. I 

would appreciate that and we will make that a part of the record 

when that is provided. 

[The information referred to was not received prior to printing.] 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you, if I could, about some AFSA 

issues. AFSA, whose representatives will testify following this 

panel, has been very vocal for eliminating pay disparity between 

overseas and Washington assignments, which are 16 percent greater. They are also seeking an increase in hardship and danger pay 

rates to 35 percent, a reduction of the low-ranking quota to 2 percent from 5 percent, and enforcement authority from the Foreign 

Service Grievance Board decisions, and increased flexibility on 

death gratuity payments. 

I wonder if you could tell us what the Department’s views are 

on that. They did provide us—there was a letter dated February 

25 that was sent to Senator Lugar, and to give you an example, 

AFSA has calculated that a Foreign Service general joining the 

service in 1995, serving a normal 27-year career, and leaving the 

service as an FS–1, would lose over $440,000 in salary and retirement benefits over the course of that career. And especially given 

the differentials between, or the problems with currency. Eleanor 

and I just returned from the Human Rights Commission where we 

were to promote the Cuban resolution and the Belarus resolution. 

But when we met with the State Department folks and I got an 

excellent in-country, U.N. briefing, I asked about personnel issues 

and I got an earful about the problem with the euro and the exchange rates; and that, coupled with the disparity pay, certainly 

raises some very serious questions. How do you respond? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Locality is 

a very important issue. We have a disparity between senior Foreign Service officers serving abroad and the Foreign Service officer 

level 1 and below serving abroad. Senior service officers now receive locality pay or compensation for—they do not get penalized 

for going abroad due to a bill that passed Congress, I think last 

year. However, that has caused a disparity between senior Foreign 

Service and junior Foreign Service. 

The overseas locality pay would cost us in fiscal year 2006 ap- proximately $72 million. It is an issue of prioritization within the 

President’s budget. The State Department requested it. It was not 

included in the President’s budget and we support the President’s 

budget as it stands and understand that this is a tough year, in 

20

fiscal year 2005, and we are going into another tough year in fiscal 

year 2006. 

However, we still recognize that this is a growing morale issue 

for the Department. On hardship pay and also danger pay we have 

within the 2006 budget implied requesting authority to go to 35 

percent for danger pay, that is approximately a million dollars. We 

also have an issue with hardship pay which could be $5 million or 

$6 million additional money. Again, that comes out to prioritizing 

and making priorities within the President’s budget. And while 

danger pay has been included for a request for that line, it was not 

done so, I believe, for hardship pay. And again, we support the 

President’s budget. 

On the grievance board, if I could get back to you, it is a complicated legal issue. I would like to take it for the record. 

[The information referred to was not received prior to printing.] 

Mr. SMITH. The State Department did request the $72 million 

that would have been necessary, or no, and it went to OMB and 

they cut it down? 

Mr. BURNHAM. You may be getting me into trouble. I am not sure 

whether internal deliberations like that should be discussed openly 

as a policy. This is an important issue for many, many members 

of the Foreign Service. We recognize that. We have discussed this 

at the highest levels numerous times over the course of the last 4 

years, and I believe we will continue to work to try and work this 

into the priorities of the Department and the President’s budget in 

future years. 

Mr. SMITH. I hope we can be helpful in prioritizing it in our bill 

because I think it is important. 

And you mentioned the morale issue. It is a very real issue that 

is getting worse. And we all know what OMB does. I have been 

here 25 years, here in Congress. So many times, very good ideas 

are sent to OMB and they are cut to shreds. We will take your 

comments. 

You mentioned also the Embassy in Baghdad. I was very discouraged, and perhaps you were as well, and the Department was discouraged by the recent vote on the Upton amendment, 258 to 170. 

I want the record to show I voted no. I thought it was a misguided 

effort to say here is an area we can save and there is no penalty. 

The people back home will see this in a positive light, but I think 

it was a misguided vote and I hope that will be rectified going forward; $592 million is what the Upton amendment claimed he 

would save and that is $592 million of enhancement that we need. 

And I am sure you agree on that. 

I have other questions, but I will just ask one or two more. In 

your personnel request increase, the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative increased the State Department personnel by 1,100 over the 

past 3 years. In the 2006 request of 306 people, 221 are for operational readiness, 55 for security, a continuation of that program. 

How would the 221 new employees be used and can you just define 

for us what operational readiness means? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. The numbers break down so we are looking for 83 spots to help out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, as well as 

our imminent requirements in the Sudan. We are looking for 54 

people, at least notionally, for the Carlos Pasquale Office of ReconVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
21

struction and Stabilization. If we are going to provide people with 

the proper training, whether that is leadership and management 

training, career development training and, most importantly, language training, particularly as I mentioned earlier, Arabic, Farsi 

and Chinese, we need to have individuals who we can take out of 

the system and take away from post and put them in our incredible 

Foreign Service Institute language school and train them for a year 

or 2 years before we can send them back out to post again. We 

need more individuals to give us that float. 

When Secretary Powell came to the Department, there was not 

that kind of cushion to be able to take people away from post, even 

for as brief times as a month, to receive basic management training. Now, thanks to the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative, we have 

that. But that was launched prior to 9/11. 

Since 9/11, we have increased requirements. I mentioned those 

for the language. Out of the 221, we would dedicate 20 to help provide that float to enable people to seek language. 

And finally for operational issues, it simply means that things 

such as nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction, combating 

terrorist financing, and advancing information technology to meet 

security and intelligence requirements, these are the new add-ons 

of the last 4 years that require additional personnel needs and that 

would be approximately 64 individuals as well, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask one final question regarding the Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative. What do you anticipate the revenues 

will be from that? Can you elaborate on that. 

Mr. BURNHAM. Can I take that one for the record, Mr. Chairman, 

and get back to you the specific estimation of that? 

[The information referred to was not received prior to printing.] 

Mr. SMITH. Finally, let me point out—and this is a very positive 

thing—the Foreign Affairs Council in their independent assessment 

in November 2004, it is a group of 10 organizations, they discovered, after they did their assessment, that applicants taking the 

Foreign Service examination have more than doubled. But they 

also pointed out that the proportion of successful minority candidates hired has grown sharply from 13 percent in fiscal year 2001 

to 19 percent in 2003, which I think shows real progress. And I 

congratulate you on that. 

Mr. BURNHAM. The numbers are even higher for 2004 and we 

will get those to Members of the Committee as soon as we return. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for your response on getting together. I have a question just on policy. 

You know in recent years, in my opinion, there seemed to be a 

blurring of the responsibilities between the Department of Defense 

and the Department of State, agency responsibility for such activities as Iraq reconstruction, public diplomacy, police training and 

overseas is really not clear to me. 

And do you agree that there has been a blurring of responsibilities between State and the Department of Defense? And if so, how 

has this affected State Department’s effectiveness and credibility 

and employee morale? 

22

It just seems that there were discussions in the debate leading 

up to preempt the strike and even during the time that the Department of Defense just appears to be doing things that the State has 

done now. I have seen in previous Administrations, the last 10 or 

12 Administrations, there has been some difference between the 

U.N. Ambassador and National Security. Different individuals tend 

to take on perhaps more leadership or more competence by the 

President. 

But I think this Department of Defense and State Department 

crossover business, to me, seems to be going in a wrong direction. 

I just wonder if I am seeing it clearly and if, in fact, there will be 

any kind of redefining of where State ends and Defense begins, or 

where Defense ends and State begins, or maybe just have a Department of Defense, which seems to be going on. And there are 

so many outstanding career diplomats, they just seem to be muted 

by the Department of Defense. Just wonder if you could respond to 

that. 

Mr. BURNHAM. It reminds me of General P.X. Kelly who was sitting next to President Ronald Reagan. To his right was Jimmy 

Baker, former Marine; to his left was the National Security Advisor, former Marine, and Ronald Reagan turned and said to P.X. 

Kelly, ‘‘Maybe the Marines should just run the country.’’

And P.X. looked to his right and left and thought, Well, maybe 

tonight is the night. But as a former employee of the Department 

of Defense, you know, I have immense respect for that organization. 

Sir, I see it in a different way. When we came here, we came 

here, and particularly in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11, we came 

here to break down stovepipes, first to build intra-agency collaboration, particularly between us and USAID. We have succeeded 

greatly with that. 

USAID is our full partner in the effort of global development and 

the relief of human misery. We have a joint strategic plant now. 

We have, for the first time ever, we have a joint performance plan 

for the first time ever. 

This reflects the integration between our two organizations, the 

State Department and USAID. The next phase of that is interagency collaboration and the breaking down of stovepipes. And 

once again, in the last month, I have heard Secretary Rice also address these issues. An example of this is going to be, for the first 

time ever, the State Department will participate and help work on 

the Defense Quadrennial Review that is coming up. 

This is essential if we are going to have integration and coordination between our two missions. I think the crowning achievement 

of this collaboration has been Carlos Pasqual’s regionalization and 

stabilization effort. We have detailees from the CIA, from the Department of Defense, from State Department and other agencies as 

well. 

We all recognize, as a former Reservist—and I know you know 

this from your own Guard and Reserve in your own district—that 

one of the critical elements that DoD has performed for the past 

few years in the Reserve and Guard has been civil affairs groups. 

And that when we have a conflict situation, we have a post-conflict 

situation, it has fallen upon the Guard and Reserve where 100 perVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
23

cent of the assets within the military were transferred to the 

Guard and Reserve for civil affairs groups to pick up and to work 

with communities in this countries. 

And so it is incumbent upon DoD to make sure that the State 

Department has the capacity for this, because we do not want to 

be sending our Guard and Reserve out there month after month, 

if not year after year, to fulfill these missions. 

So in my perch, I actually see it different. I do not see the turf 

war. Although I look forward to the books, beginning in 2009 and 

2010 that will tell us some of those things that we all like to read. 

But, sir, I do not know anything about that. I do know that we 

are trying all we can to break down the stovepipes, and that Secretary Rice is committed to the kind of collaboration and interagency cooperation that will advance the foreign policy agenda of 

this Nation, of transformational diplomacy, and for democracy and 

freedom around the world. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Let me ask—an observation that I have 

noticed as I traveled through one of the countries. In Kenya, as you 

know, the building of the Embassy, I think it is completed, or the 

temporary Embassy is not now used that much. 

But I noticed on my way out to Naivasha, where I attended the 

peace—signing of the—well, attended the peace negotiations between the Bashir Government and the SPLM months ago, and on 

my way to Naivasha, looked and saw this beautiful compound of 

houses up on the hill. 

And I was told that that is, you know, a compound of American 

State Department and other U.S. employees. And, you know, it had 

a wall around it. But, you know, it just seemed that it was just sitting there like a—like a potentially, you know, a potential target 

almost. 

And I just wonder, what is the thinking of State, is it better to 

have people all housed together as it is there? And I guess that is 

what—I guess that is the policy. But I just wonder whether we—

I do not know which is better, to spread it all around; you cannot 

have that much security. All together, you can have better security. 

However, everyone is sitting in a compound all there at one place. 

I wonder, what is the—as we move forward, what is going to be 

the pattern? 

Mr. BURNHAM. Yes, sir. I have walked the good red earth of that 

compound and been in those townhouses or condos or whatever you 

want to call them, or homes. It is an exceptional facility for our 

Americans abroad. 

I am well aware of some of the security issues that have been 

brought to us. I have had numerous conversations with General 

Chuck Williams about ameliorating some of those concerns. 

The decision to go to that location was actually made a number 

of years ago before this Administration. But, nevertheless, it represents a great new way of thinking, which was build-to-lease. So 

General Chuck Williams is very supportive of that as we try and 

take our Americans abroad, U.S. Government employees abroad 

and put them in housing that at least has some semblance of what 

we might enjoy back here in the United States. 

Like you, I traveled to many posts around the world. I have seen 

some places which do not meet that standard. You asked me a speVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
24

cific question. To put everyone together, is that the methodology 

going forward? It depends on the country. Clearly, our Foreign 

Service officers and our public diplomacy efforts are benefitted 

when we are out in the communities. And part of the experience 

of being a Foreign Service officer, not being one, but what I understand, is that you do have the opportunity to go out there in the 

communities and participate in the culture of the country you are 

in. 

However, the security needs are such that it is a lot easier to 

protect a compound than it is to protect 2 or 300 homes around a 

city. And so that may necessarily be the methodology going forward. 

Again, this is, we have an absolute expert on this in General 

Chuck Williams. And I would welcome the opportunity to bring 

Chuck up here, the General up here, to talk specifically about the 

security issues that were associated with the complex in Nairobi; 

second, the amelioration of those issues; and, third, our policy 

going forward. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Thank you. They look beautiful. I mean no 

criticism. I think it is a stunning looking compound and probably 

very comfortable and has a pool and all of that. I just wonder if 

someone wanted to put a missile on their shoulder and have a shot 

at a place, that you—I mean, it could happen anywhere, at an Embassy or anywhere. 

It just seemed that they were all there. But certainly, as I travel 

a lot, I understand the problem of trying to keep everyone in, you 

know, in posts where there is a threat and some kind of security. 

So I did not say it as a criticism; I just do not know what is best. 

And I just had a concern as I passed it. 

Mr. BURNHAM. I have now two visits to schedule with you. 

Mr. SMITH. We do have to break for a moment, for these series 

of votes. I do apologize for that. I understand Ms. Lee has a question or two, she would like to pose. I hope your time will permit. 

I do have a question I would like to ask on the increased cost 

of fuel. How does the Department plan for what may be an everescalating cost of fuel, whether it be for transportation or heating 

or whatever, and what—like for every dollar, for example, that a 

price of oil goes up, is there any kind of calculator as to what that 

means to more costs to the Department? 

Mr. BURNHAM. I can answer that when you return. I would also 

like to put in there a discussion of exchange rate. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing will resume. And, Mr. Secretary, if you 

want to answer those questions. We would appreciate it if you 

would. 

Mr. BURNHAM. One of the things I wanted to just talk about was 

exchange rate. Obviously, exchange ratelosses have put a huge burden on the Department. We have a fund which was emptied a 

number of years ago due to prior year exchange rate losses. 

We have asked for the ability to help ameliorate subpoena of that 

within the supplemental, particularly within the contributions of 

the International Organizations Account. And obviously, this also 

25

affects us greatly when we have to pay dues to international organizations, and those dues are affected by the exchange rate. 

One of the things which I have taken the initiative to do, and 

I am working on right now, is to try to get the ability to hedge 

that. We have purchased between $2 and $3 billion worth of currencies a year. We deal in over 130 different currencies from 

around the globe. 

This might be one thing we can talk about again sometime is 

how we as a U.S. Government entity can actually enter into a 

hedging program. 

Specifically to your question on energy, I am going to take that 

one for the record. But that also goes to the hedging issue. My 

church in Connecticut, we actually hedge our oil purchases every 

January and lock in a price. 

Why can’t we do that within the U.S. Government? It just seems 

to be proper business planning. We may need permission or authorization to do that, however. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. And please let’s continue that conversation, because, obviously, those costs can skyrocket if this upward movement continues. I just—I thought Ms. Lee might be coming back as well as Mr. Payne. 

Mr. BURNHAM. I would be willing to come up here and meet privately, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Great. You did mention, I would just sort of ask you, 

with regards to the democracy and human rights, the idea that, 

you know, apples to apples, what you were saying earlier, it has 

been my observation for years—it is why we look to double it the 

first time, which we did in the authorization bill. Usually it has 

been, you know, this is anecdotal, but I do a lot of travel myself. 

I always meet with the human rights Foreign Service officer, that 

they are relatively junior, and there is usually just one. 

I will never forget one trip to Beijing. Obviously China has one 

of the most enormous human rights problems on the face of the 

earth, whether it be torture, coercive population control, the crackdown on the religious believers, including the Falon Gong, you 

name the human rights abuse, and regrettably, they are engaging 

in it. And there was one solitary Foreign Service officer at the time 

for all of China. And then the argument is, well, everybody has 

that as part of their portfolio. 

But, that is true and not true because prioritization, and resource allocation is usually a recognition of priority. And I would 

hope, as we move forward, we could look to increase the number 

of people just—you may or may not know this, but I was the sponsor of the Trafficking and Victims Protection Act. We had a major 

push back when we were writing that legislation about creating a 

specific director, now Ambassador, Ambassador Miller, and the personnel that it would take to task it and to do it right. We had the 

same kind of push back on Frank Wolf’s bill, which went through 

my Committee and was actively opposed by the previous Administration on the International Religious Freedom Act. 

The argument then, and I thought it was bogus, was that there 

would be a hierarchy of human rights established where religious 

freedom would trump all others. It was value added. It was another 

means by which we can promote human rights. And we have conVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26

tinued to have a problem with staffing there. Ambassador Hanford 

does a marvelous job. But he only has so many people and could 

use more. 

The same goes for the Human Rights Assistance Secretary and 

his or her, whoever it turns out to be, to have enough people. So 

I hope we can work together on that. Because every slot makes a 

difference. 

Mr. BURNHAM. I will carry that back tomorrow morning when I 

see the Secretary. 

Mr. SMITH. Maybe we can work up some concrete numbers on 

what we could actually achieve by having some additional people 

working on this. 

I just chaired a hearing of the Commission on Security Cooperation in Europe—I am Chairman of the Helsinki Commission—that 

ended right before this began, and it was on unregistered churches 

in Russia and a spike that is occurring with regards to persecutions. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses, evangelicals, Pentecostals, a whole crosssection of people who do not want to be part of a registration 

scheme, or cannot be in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they 

made the point, one of the head of the Baptists, that there are two 

people in Moscow who work human rights, and he got his first call 

from them last week, probably in anticipation of the hearing. 

So it is a personnel problem, not enough to do the work. So I just 

ask you to take that back. That is as recently as 3 hours ago. 

Mr. BURNHAM. If we can help in doing an apples-for-apples for 

you, let me look into that and get back to you and see if we cannot 

take a first cut and help you with giving you greater comfort with 

the numbers. 

Mr. SMITH. That would be great. I appreciate that. I suspect my 

colleagues are not coming back. So I would ask you, if you could, 

respond to any questions in writing, and the ones you already indicated you would. Thank you so much. 

Mr. BURNHAM. It has been my honor. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me welcome our second witness, Ms. Louise 

Crane, who has been the Vice President of the American Foreign 

Service Association since July 2001. 

Ms. Crane is a member of the senior Foreign Service with the 

rank of Minister Consular. As a Foreign Service officer, Ms. Crane 

served in a number of posts, including Ecuador, Santiago, Chile. As 

a correspondent for the VOA, she worked in Buenos Aries, Argentina, and Lima, Peru. 

Her last overseas assignment was as minister consular for public 

affairs in Tokyo. Her Washington assignments include managing 

Fulbright Scholar exchange programs for Latin America and East 

Asia, and as deputy director of both the East Asia and Latin American regional bureaus. 

Ms. Crane, thank you for being here, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

27

STATEMENT OF MS. LOUISE CRANE, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE 

Ms. CRANE. Thanks go to you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing the 

American Foreign Service Association to be present here today to 

represent the 11,000 members of the Foreign Service, and including then the total of 23,000 active duty and retirees combined. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement and a letter to you discussing AFSA’s views on personnel issues, requested by the Administration, or included in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

bill, S. 600. I request that these become part of the hearing record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, they will be. 

Ms. CRANE. I know I am preaching to the choir, Mr. Chairman, 

but I wish to say for the record that AFSA considers the authorization bill very serious and important legislation. We deeply regret 

having gone 2 years without authorizing legislation. 

The Foreign Service and the foreign affairs agencies are just as 

much a part of our national defense as are the Department of Defense and the Armed Services. Our respective authorization bills 

have the same purpose, making it possible for us to do our work 

and provide congressional input on national security policy. 

We congratulate and thank this Committee and the House of 

Representatives for passing authorization bills every year, and we 

look forward to a time when the enactment of the bill will become 

as regular an occurrence as passage of the Defense Department’s 

authorization bill. 

Mr. Chairman, AFSA fully supports the Department’s request for 

operating an Embassy security account. We have considered these 

requests for funds, a minimum funding level, a request floor, not 

a ceiling. Today’s funding requests are central to the continuation 

of sound foreign affairs management. It is a continuation of the initiatives begun by Secretary Powell in the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative. 

We fully support the request for 220 more Foreign Service generalist positions and 55 security professionals for fiscal year 2006. As 

the Under Secretary mentioned, the original Diplomatic Readiness 

Initiative was planned pre-9/11, and yet the congressional generosity in funding it allowed us to cope with the surge in national 

security demands on the Department of State after 9/11 and in the 

Afghanistan and Iraq wars. 

But the new demands continue, from staffing Embassies in Iraq 

and Afghanistan to additional Consular overseas staffing, and more 

security and support positions. And, therefore, we fully support the 

request for additional staff. 

We fully support the Department’s request for additional money 

for information technology and up-to-date information technology 

infrastructure which is critical for overseas missions. 

We appreciate the Department’s attention to Embassy security. 

And we appreciate the role that you have played and that of this 

Subcommittee in getting the necessary funding and legislation to 

begin securing our Embassies right after the bombings in Nairobi 

and Dar es Salaam. 

I am pleased to report that the Department has made greet 

progress over the intervening years. One security concern that 

28

AFSA has is that of soft targets. And that is the places where our 

Foreign Office colleagues and their families worship, go to school, 

eat and shop. And we would like to see the Department pay attention to greater security for those soft targets. We note that the Department has requested $15 million in fiscal year 2006 for further 

protection of soft targets overseas. 

Now, there are some issues that are not in the Department’s bill. 

You yourself raised them, Mr. Chairman. The number one issue is 

that of pay disparity. This year, there is a 16-percent pay cut when 

the Foreign Service employee departs this country for an overseas 

post. This gap inexorably grows year by year, by over 1 percent a 

year. Next year, it will be 17.2. After that, it will be 18.5. By the 

end of the decade, it will certainly be 20 percent or greater. 

This is a morale breaker. As you mentioned, we have estimated 

that a Foreign Service employee who joined the Foreign Service in 

1995, has a standard 27-year career, rises to the class of one, will 

have lost $440,000 in both pay and pension and Social Security 

benefits. 

Pay disparity is a morale breaker, particularly when it is added 

to the problem of spousal employment. The lack of employment in 

a dual-income society means that there will be less money in retirement. Therefore the pay disparity only exacerbates the problem of 

fewer resources in retirement for a Foreign Service couple. 

We also want to see the caps raised on both the hardship and 

the danger pay differentials. It is interesting to note that our employees now, because of the 16-percent pay cut, if they go to Baghdad, if they go to Pakistan, they only get a 9 percent increase in 

their pay. 

Yet these differentials were meant to try and compensate people 

for the danger and the hardship that they were undergoing at the 

25 percent level. It is clear that there is also a difference between 

posts at the 25 percent level. Among these posts, Pakistan and 

Kabul and Iraq may not be quite as dangerous as Algeria and Lebanon, and yet all get the same level of hardship pay and danger 

pay. 

We also would like to see the low-ranking requirement lowered 

from 5 percent to 2 percent. This is very important to us. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998, 1999, section 

2311(b) requires all Foreign Service promotion boards to low rank 

5 percent of every class reviewed. 

If an employee is so ranked 2 out of 5 years, then the employee 

can be recommended for separation. Both the Department and 

AFSA have struggled for years to implement this rule fairly. It 

harms the process of selecting employees for promotion and has a 

very deleterious affect on morale. 

The decisions are arbitrary as is the quota. The boards are often 

required to low rank people on capricious grounds unrelated to performance, such as a pattern of assignments. We, actually, AFSA 

had a case of an employee who has since gone public, so I can mention it here. He was performing out of a cone in our Embassy in 

Beijing. He got a superior honor award for the quality of his performance, and he was low ranked by the board. The board was 

searching for a person to low rank, to meet its quota. He was low 

29

ranked on the grounds that he was not performing in his cone, or 

within his specialty. 

The selection board themselves report that low-ranking 2 percent 

of the class is not an issue. It is the arbitrary quota of 5 percent 

that results in unwarranted grievances and very poor morale. 

Now, the Department has not put this in its bill, but privately 

the Department will agree with AFSA that the grievances that result from this practice are an unnecessary burden on both the employee and the Department which cannot defend the board’s actions 

in an impartial forum. 

To this end, we would also like to see some legislation to 

strengthen the authority of the Foreign Service grievance board. It 

has an important role in employee-management disputes. And it is 

very similar to the role filled by the Merit System Protection Board 

for the civil service. 

We believe the grievance board’s authority should be expanded 

in four specific areas, beyond the restoration of the interim relief 

as provided for in the Administration’s request. And we ask that 

they have enforcement authority, that they can provide assistance 

in alleged overpayment of an annuity, that they have authority 

over reduction in force or RIF cases, and that they have subpoena 

authority to provide Foreign Service employees the same protection 

provided to the civil service. 

And, finally, we would like to ask for a death gratuity, a new 

gratuity benefit for the members of the Foreign Service, and other 

civilian Federal employees working to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. 

There is a death gratuity provision in the Foreign Service Act 

which provides the equivalent of 1 year’s salary. However, we 

would like to update this provision for both Foreign Service and civilian employees serving overseas. The actual mean salary of a Foreign Service employee is $64,000. And many younger Foreign Service members, both generalists and specialists, earn much less; 1 

year’s salary is not very adequate when a family has to completely 

remove itself from the foreign country, relocate in the United 

States and resettle. 

I have actually read the depositions given by the widows of the 

employees who were killed in the Beirut bombing in 1983, and they 

described the great difficulty they had finding employment, because 

they had spent so long overseas not working. They had no network 

of people whom they could turn to for tips on finding jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, and all of the Members of the Committee, the 

men and women of the Foreign Service are proud to serve this 

country. Their skills and dedication determine the success or failure of our foreign policy. Winning on the battlefield is vital, but we 

must also win to secure the peace. 

The decisions you make with this bill will not only affect the 

lives of the members of the Foreign Service but will determine 

whether our country’s representatives will have the necessary resources to achieve our foreign policy goals. 

Thank you again for allowing me to share the Foreign Service 

perspective as you begin developing this very important bill. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Crane and material submitted 

for the record follow:]

30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. LOUISE CRANE, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN

SERVICE ASSOCIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

On behalf of the American Foreign Service Association and the 23,000 active-duty 

and retired members of the Foreign Service, I thank you for the opportunity to 

share our views and concerns as you review the Foreign Relations Authorization 

Act. 

Mr. Chairman, I know I am preaching to the choir, but I wish to say, for the 

record, that the American Foreign Service Association considers the Foreign Relations Authorization Act very serious and important legislation. We deeply regret 

having gone for two years without authorizing legislation in this area. We have seen 

important programs like the Millennium Challenge initiative, the creation of the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, and the HIV/AIDS initiative find their origins in appropriations legislation. The Foreign Service and foreign affairs agencies are just as much a part of our national security system as the 

armed services and Department of Defense. We serve on the front lines of this country’s defense together. We both advance national interests abroad, and both protect 

our country from foreign threats, be they hostile nations, international terrorism, 

international crime and illegal drug cartels, efforts to manipulate international 

trade, or the myriad of other threats to our nation and our people. 

This authorization bill establishes funding levels covering our foreign affairs agencies, and the tools of diplomacy. Most importantly, it provides Congressional input 

into the foreign policy that shapes our nation’s role in the international arena. We 

congratulate and thank this committee and the House of Representatives for passing such a bill every year for the past several years. We hope this year we will be 

able to congratulate the Congress for enacting a Foreign Relations Authorization 

Act on its own terms and look forward to the time when the actual enactment of 

this bill will become as regular an occurrence as the passage of the Defense Department’s authorization bill. 

ADMINISTRATION FUNDING REQUEST. 

I would like to provide the perspective of the men and women of the Foreign Service regarding the Administration’s funding request and personnel proposals. 

AFSA fully supports the request for the State Department’s operating and embassy security accounts, and considers these minimum level requests. These funding 

levels will build on important initiatives started by Secretary of State Powell to improve the foreign affairs infrastructure. Only four short years ago, organizations like 

the Stimson Center, the Council on Foreign Relations, AFSA, and many others 

agreed that ‘‘The United States’ overseas presence, which has provided the essential 

underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for many decades, is near a state of crisis.’’ We 

need to continue funding operation and security accounts to avert this crisis. 

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS. AFSA fully supports the Administration’s request for 221-additional generalist positions and an additional 55 security professionals for FY06. These requests are continuations of the Diplomatic 

Readiness Initiative (DRI) initiated by Secretary Powell in FY 2001, aiming over 

three years, to fill an identified staffing shortage of almost 1200 people. Without the 

necessary Civil and Foreign Service employees, our offices and overseas posts fell 

below critical mass, and, in too many cases, became dysfunctional. With Congress’s 

support, we have filled these positions. However, both the FY05 and the current 

FY06 requests provide for further personnel increases above attrition. 

However, the 1,158-staff shortage that prompted DRI was a pre-9/11 measurement. That world changed quickly and dramatically on September 11, 2001. Immediately, Foreign Service professionals found themselves facing new requirements. 

We had to change our missions’ priorities and sometimes leave vacant those positions that DRI expansion was meant to fill. The new demands continue, from staffing embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan and new liaison and regional offices, to the 

staffing of security and support positions required by the expansion. At the same 

time, additional personnel is still needed to meet the original pre-9/11 targets. For 

instance, we still need a 15% training float so that we do not have to choose between training and leaving a position unfilled. Additional personnel is still essential. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNDS. AFSA also fully supports the Administration’s important IT Central Fund request of $249 million. Those who are new to 

the Department, cannot imagine the outmoded information systems at the Department a few years ago. It was the world of the WANG machine, a 1970s format that 

made the Department a joke in the IT world. Today we have modern computers at 

our desks, e-mail, and access to the worldwide web. Great strides have been made 

but there is still a distance to go, and we will need continuing resources to ensure 

31

that our information infrastructure remains abreast of all the technological advances. An up-to-date IT infrastructure is critical for our overseas missions. Again, 

AFSA fully endorses this request. 

EMBASSY SECURITY. Mr. Chairman, AFSA appreciates the important role you 

personally, and this Subcommittee played in getting the necessary funding and legislation to begin securing our embassy soon after the bombings of our embassies in 

Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. At that time, AFSA testified with 

Admiral William Crowe about the new threat environment created by international 

terrorists and the need for a coordinated, thorough response. I am pleased to report 

that the Department has made great progress, and that Congress has played an essential role in meeting the Administration’s worldwide security funding requests. 

Further, the recent Capital Security Cost Sharing program halves the estimated 

construction time for the remaining new posts and embassies. 

SOFT TARGET SECURITY CONCERNS. With improved security at our overseas 

posts, we are concerned that terrorists have expanded their reach to include ‘‘soft 

targets,’’ a euphemism for attacks against us, our spouses and our children as we 

live at our posts and missions abroad. These are attacks against the schools our 

children attend and the school busses they ride, against our homes, the recreation 

centers and churches we attend, and the places we shop and dine as we live our 

daily lives. AFSA has received the assistance of Senate appropriators, particularly 

Senator Judd Gregg. We believe this issue should also be a matter for authorizers 

in their oversight capacity, and we urge the Subcommittee to consider the increasing danger to our Foreign Service and their families posed by terrorist focus on soft 

targets. 

TITLE III PERSONNEL ISSUES. Beyond the funding issues, Mr. Chairman, we 

would like to address provisions in ‘‘Title III—Organization and Personnel of the 

Department of State.’’ I would like to submit for this Subcommittee’s consideration, 

AFSA’s views on provisions in the Administration’s request, and in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bill, S. 600. 

There are five areas I would like to highlight for the Subcommittee: 

1. PAY DISPARITY. First among AFSA’s issues, and requiring an authorization, 

is the elimination of the pay disparity existing for mid and entry-level Foreign Service employees serving in Washington and their colleagues serving abroad. AFSA requests an amendment to the 1980 Foreign Service Act, to create a category termed 

‘‘Overseas Comparability Pay’’ which will provide Foreign Service employees overseas with the same salary they would receive if they were assigned to Washington, 

D.C. 

This year, this morale-breaking pay disparity, a consequence of the Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1990, translates into a 15.98% reduction in the salary 

of a mid-level Foreign Service Employee the moment she boards a plane to her next 

assignment. AFSA has calculated that a Foreign Service generalist who joined the 

Service in 1995, who serves a standard 27-year career, and leaves the Service at 

the rank of FSO–01, will lose over $440,000 in salary and retirement benefits compared with his counterpart who stayed in Washington the entire time. Certainly 

money is not the main attraction for serving in the Foreign Service, but this increasing pay disparity damages Service morale, and will make it more difficult for the 

department to staff many of its hardest-to-fill posts. The pay gap widens annually 

as the locality pay increase averages slightly more than 1% a year for federal employees working in Washington, D.C. 

This disparity unintentionally negates the differentials provided to compensate for 

danger and hardship. Twenty years ago, 35 U.S. overseas posts were classified as 

‘‘greatest hardship’’ at the maximum 25% differential rate. Today, 75 posts in 62 different countries are at the maximum rate, reflecting increasingly dangerous and 

harsh conditions in many parts of the world. The disparity between Washington, 

D.C. salaries and those overseas has caused these differentials to lose their effect, 

essentially reducing the amount of differential paid. For instance, non-senior State 

Department employees stationed in the most difficult environments in the world receive only 9 percent more pay than their colleagues in Washington, D.C, a far cry 

from the 25% incentive intended by the Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act 

(P.L. 86–707). 

There is also the negative effect on the morale of our overseas colleagues when 

they know that the salaries of members of the Senior Foreign Service at their post 

as well as their counterparts in the intelligence agencies posted abroad all receive 

Washington D.C. level salaries. In 1993, when the Defense Intelligence Agency announced it was raising the salaries of its employees posted overseas to that of their 

Washington colleagues, it explained the move by saying it did not want the lower 

overseas salaries to provide a disincentive for overseas service. In light of these disparities, AFSA asks, ‘‘Why are we penalizing our lower-rank Foreign Service emVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
32

ployees for their overseas service?’’ They are already making a considerable sacrifice 

in the lack of spousal employment in a dual income society, in inadequate schooling 

for their children and exposing their families to inadequate health care. 

Some have suggested that comparability could be at the ‘‘rest of U.S.’’ level, which 

is lower than the Washington, D.C. rate. The vast majority of Foreign Service personnel serving in the continental United States are posted in the Washington, D.C. 

area. A true comparison of pay disparity should therefore be with the Washington 

area. AFSA believes that comparability at less than the Washington, D.C.-area rate 

will continue to reduce the salary and benefits each member of the Foreign Service 

receives, will undermine the system of allowances and incentives for service in difficult and dangerous posts, adversely affecting both morale and staffing of those 

posts. 

The Department of State’s personnel managers privately recognize the inequity of 

this pay system, but will not publicly say so to the committee because they have 

been muzzled by Office of Management and Budget. OMB’s decision is not to approve any move to make up the salary difference to those serving abroad. 

AFSA requests that the existing pay disparity be eliminated by amending the 

1980 Foreign Service Act to create an Overseas Comparability Pay system equal to 

the locality pay provided to federal employees in the Washington, D.C. area to begin 

in FY 07. 

2. RAISING DANGER AND HARDSHIP DIFFERENTIALS Another issue you 

won’t hear the Department’s officials mention publicly, but privately they would like 

to have it, is an increase in the ceilings of both hardship and danger pay differentials from 25% to 35%. OMB only approved increasing the danger pay differential 

to 35% but not the hardship. However, last year the Foreign Relations Authorization bill passed by this House lifted the cap on both allowances to 35%. We urge 

you to do so again. 

3. REDUCING LOW RANKING REQUIREMENTS Another item not in the Administration’s request, but an issue which is very important to AFSA is the lowering 

of the 5% rule on separation from Foreign Service. The Foreign relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, Sec. 2311(b) requires the Foreign Service 

promotion boards to low rank 5% of every class reviewed. If an employee is so 

ranked two out of five years by two different officials, then the employee can be recommended for separation. 

AFSA and the Department of State have struggled for years to implement this 

rule fairly. This arbitrary rule harms the process of selecting employees for promotion and has a deleterious effect on morale. Its arbitrariness forces the selection 

boards to low rank people on capricious grounds unrelated to performance such as 

a pattern of assignments. AFSA assists employees with grievances based on the promotion panels’ misuse of the procedures and procedural errors. For example, in their 

efforts to meet the quota, boards will repeatedly cite the same passage in an evaluation report. This violates the department’s procedures. The resulting grievances are 

an unnecessary burden on both the employee and the department which cannot defend the boards’ actions in an impartial forum. 

Selection boards report that low ranking 2–3% of a class is not an issue; however, 

an arbitrary quota of 5% results in unwarranted grievances and poor morale. 

AFSA urges the committee to adopt AFSA’s proposal to amend PL 105–277 to 

lower the percentage of mandatory low ranking from 5% to 2%. This will enhance 

morale and reduce the number of time-consuming and ultimately successful grievances. 

4. STRENGTHENING THE AUTHORITY OF THE FOREIGN SERVICEGREIVANCE BOARD. In the Foreign Service Personnel System, the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB) plays an important role in employee-management dispute adjudication similar to the role filled by the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) for 

the Civil Service. We believe the FSGB’s authority should be expanded in several 

areas to provide Foreign Service employees the same protections provided to the 

Civil Service. 

Beyond the restoration of Interim Relief authority in the Administration’s request, 

AFSA requests four additional authorities to be provided to the Foreign Service 

Grievance Board. We believe that

a. The FSGB, like the Merit Systems Protections Board, should have the authority to enforce its decisions,

b. The FSGB Interim Relief authority should be expanded to provide stays in 

cases involving the collection of alleged overpayments of annuities,

c. The FSGB should have the authority to adjudicate cases regarding the operation of a Foreign Service Reduction in force. Currently the authority over 

33

a RIF is split between the FSGB and the MSPB but the MSPB has neither 

the experience nor case history regarding a RIF in the Foreign Service, and

d. The FSGB should have the authority to issue subpoenas requiring testimony 

and documents from witnesses who are either currently in the active Service 

or who are not directly under the control of the agency involved in a grievance.

5. DEATH GRAUITY. AFSA requests that the Subcommittee consider a Death 

Gratuity benefit provided to members of the Foreign Service and other civilian Federal employees working to advance the interests and foreign policy of the United 

States. 

Within the last six years, members of Foreign Service have been killed in Kenya, 

Tanzania, Jordan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The Foreign Service honors our colleagues 

killed abroad on two memorial plaques in the diplomatic entrance of the Department of State. There are now 215 names on those plaques, 141 added since the end 

of World War II. 104 of those named died from terrorist attacks or hostile action. 

Sadly, we will be adding three more names to the memorial plaque this May during 

Foreign Affairs Day. 

In recognition of the increasingly dangerous nature of civilian service abroad, we 

ask the Subcommittee to add provisions increasing the death benefit for members 

of the Foreign Service and other civilian Federal employees working to advance the 

interests and foreign policy of this nation. Recently the FY 05 Supplemental Appropriations legislation, H.R. 1268 increased the death gratuity for our military. AFSA 

fully supported this increase. But, when our federal employees are killed abroad, 

their families suffer the same hardship as families who lose a member of the armed 

services and they too need assistance. AFSA has read the statements of the widows 

of employees killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut. They all told 

of the great difficulty they had in relocating their families back to the United States, 

the financial constraints they were under and the special difficulty they encountered 

in finding employment. Because they had been overseas for some years, they had 

not worked and had not built that network of contacts so many employment counselors say is critical for finding employment. 

Further, many other U.S. agencies such as the Department of the Treasury and 

the Department of Justice use the embassies as platforms for their own international work, but their personnel are not covered under the death gratuity provision in the Foreign Service Act. 

AFSA is requesting this provision on behalf of the specialists and junior officers 

of the Foreign Service. The mean rank of a Foreign Service employee today is a 03 

Step 4 with base pay of $64,302. Survivors of our lowest-paid employees will most 

need the increased death gratuity as they work to overcome the death of their loved 

one and resettle in the U.S. The State Department’s Office of Casualty Assistance 

notes that families of those killed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam encountered very 

high initial expenses while awaiting benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Program. The families of federal employees killed in the line of duty overseas must relocate to the United States and pay the additional costs associated with 

moving to a new community, finding housing, and establishing a household. AFSA 

believes this is the least we can do to help survivors of our Foreign Service and 

other federal civilian employees who are killed in the line of duty serving this Nation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, the men and women of the 

Foreign Service are proud to serve our country. Their skills and dedication determine the success or failure of our foreign policy and the security of our nation. Winning on the battlefield is vital, but we must also win and secure peace. The decisions you make with this bill will not only affect the lives of the members of the 

Foreign Service, but will determine whether our country’s representatives will have 

the resources to achieve our foreign policy goals. Today, engagement in the world 

is not a choice. It is a necessity. Our choice is simply ‘‘how well will we do the job 

given us.’’ Your action will determine whether or not we will have the tools to do 

our job of protecting our country even better. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for allowing 

me to share the views of the Foreign Service as you begin the process of developing 

the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. 

34

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. LOUISE CRANE, VICE

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 14, 2005. 

Hon. CHRIS SMITH, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, 

Committee on International Relations, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As the Subcommittee prepares to work on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, we at AFSA appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns with you and your staff regarding issues of particular importance to the men 

and women of the Foreign Service. This letter will touch briefly on those issues. The 

enclosed discussion papers explain our perspective in greater detail. 

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are many provisions in the administration’s request that would help ensure our colleagues’ security and furnish 

essential diplomatic tools for their mission. AFSA therefore urges the authorization 

for appropriations be provided, at a minimum, at levels requested by the administration. We believe, however, that there are areas requiring additional authorization 

and appropriations to support programs and initiatives important to the Foreign 

Service. We urge you consider these areas as you develop your bill. 

PAY DISPARITY. First among AFSA’s issues requiring an authorization is the 

elimination of the existing pay disparity between Foreign Service employees serving 

in Washington, D.C. and abroad. This pay disparity is the result of the locality pay 

system for federal employees working in the continental United States—a system 

that does not extend to those serving abroad. Today, this disparity causes a 16% 

loss in base pay for Foreign Service personnel serving abroad. AFSA has calculated 

that a Foreign Service generalist joining the Service in 1995, serving a normal 27-

year career, and leaving the Service as a FS–1, would lose over $440,000 in salary 

and retirement benefits over the course of that career (see Attachment 1). Certainly 

members of the Foreign Service serve abroad for more than money, but this increasing pay disparity hurts Service morale, and is making it more difficult for the department to staff many of its hardest to fill posts. AFSA seeks to end this pay disparity by creating Overseas Comparability Pay—similar to that provided by intelligence agencies—that would be equal to the Washington, D.C. pay rate. 

Some have suggested that comparability could be at the ‘‘rest of U.S.’’ level, which 

is lower than the Washington, D.C. rate. The vast majority of Foreign Service personnel serving in the continental United States are posted in the Washington, D.C. 

area. A true comparison of pay disparity should therefore be with the Washington 

area. AFSA believes that comparability at less than the Washington, D.C.-area rate 

will continue to reduce the salary and benefits each member of the Foreign Service 

receives, will undermine the system of allowances and incentives for service in difficult and dangerous posts, and will adversely affect both the morale and staffing 

of those posts. 

Finally, AFSA reminds the Committee that in January 2004, the salary of all 

members of the Senior Foreign Service serving overseas was raised to the Washington level. With the intelligence community posted abroad already receiving 

Washington, D.C. level salaries also, AFSA asks why we are penalizing our lowerrank Foreign Service employees for their overseas service?

THE ADMINISTRATION REQUEST. There are many provisions in the administration’s request that AFSA fully supports. Many of these provisions were also included 

in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s reported bill, S. 600. Those provisions 

are:

• ADMINISTRATION REQUEST SEC. 301—EDUCATION ALLOWANCE.

AFSA supports the Administration’s request to expand education allowances 

which would, in this increasingly dangerous world, permit parents to send 

their children to schools in the United States if there were no suitable schools 

at post (Sec 301 Senate bill S. 600);

• ADMINISTRATION REQUEST SEC. 309—REHIRED ANNUITANTS. AFSA 

supports the Administration’s request to expand the Secretary of State’s authority to waive limitations on re-employment of Foreign Service annuitants 

so that a larger reserve force would be available to the Secretary when surge 

or additional capacity is required (Sec. 307 in Senate bill S. 600);

• ADMINISTRATION REQUEST SEC. 311—> RESTORATION OF INTERIM 

RELIEF. AFSA supports the Administration’s request to restore INTERIM 

Relief authority to the Foreign Service Grievance Board in those cases not inVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
35

volving separation for cause. This provision would allow the Board could stay 

administrative actions in those cases that it felt could be meritorious and deserved a full review before action is taken (Sec. 310 in Senate bill S. 600); 

and

• ADMINISTRATION REQUEST SEC. 315—BONUSES. AFSA supports the 

Administration’s request to provide the Secretary of State with the authority 

to grant, at the Secretary’s discretion, recruitment, relocation and retention 

bonuses to members of the Foreign Service (Sec. 314 in Senate bill S. 600).

AFSA DIFFERENCES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION’S REQUEST OR WITH 

THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTED BILL, S. 600

I. DIFFERENCES WITH ADMINISTRATION. 

• INCREASE HARDSHIP DIFFERENTIALS AND DANGER ALLOWANCE.

The Administration sought to increase the cap of only the Danger Pay allowance from 25% to 35%. AFSA supports Sec. 303 of S. 600 and urges 

the inclusion of a similar provision in the House bill. This section would 

increase the ceilings of both the hardship differential and the danger allowance from 25 percent to 35 percent in order to recognize that compression has 

occurred, and allowing proper compensation to those serving in the handful 

of ‘‘super hard’’ and ‘‘super dangerous’’ posts (see Attachment 2);

• REDUCE THE LOW–RANKING REQUIREMENT. AFSA supports Sec. 309 

of S. 600 and urges the inclusion of a similar provision in the House 

bill. This provision would reduce the current requirements on Foreign Service 

Performance Boards to identify and low-rank the bottom 5% percent of those 

reviewed to identifying and low ranking the bottom 2% (See Attachment 3);

• PART–TIME, INTERMEDIATE AND TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITIES. AFSA supports Sec. 312 of S. 600 and urges the inclusion of 

a similar provision in the House bill. This provision provides a deadline 

for the Office of Personnel Management to issue regulations implementing 

Section 321(f) of PL 107–228 so that those who worked abroad as PITs from 

1989 to 1998 could gain retirement credit for their service—as already provided by the Congress (See Attachment 4);

• U.S. REPRESENTATITIVES TO THE U.N. AFSA supports S. 318 of S. 

600 and urges the inclusion of a similar provision in the house bill.

This provision expands the provision of living quarters and allowances to the 

United States Representatives to the United Nations, by increasing from 30 

to 40 the number of U.S. Government officials who may be provided housing 

by the Secretary of State while serving at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. and 

exempting the housing allowance from taxation as is already done in the case 

of overseas housing benefits.

• ADMINISTRATION REQUEST SEC. 310. SUSPENSION OF FOREIGN 

SERVICE MEMBERS WITHOUT PAY. AFSA disagrees with the Administration and opposes this provision as unnecessary. AFSA questions 

why the State Department needs this authority, given that it already has the 

authority to separate an employee for cause, even in the absence of a criminal 

conviction, based on the underlying misconduct.

The Administration asserts that this authority is needed because ‘‘no administrative action can be taken against the employee until a conviction.’’ However, this 

statement is not accurate, as the department may move to separate an employee 

for cause based on the underlying misconduct. The employee is entitled to 15 days 

to respond if assigned to the U.S. and 30 days if assigned outside the country. The 

employee also has the right to meet with the Foreign Service Director General. Once 

the Director General decides to separate the employee, he or she is placed in a 

leave-without-pay status pending a hearing before the Foreign Service Grievance 

Board. Furthermore, the employee remains in a leave-without-pay status during the 

entire process. 

For all these reasons, we believe the State Department already has ample authority in these cases. We therefore oppose the requested expansion of the Department’s 

authority. 

II. DIFFERENCES WITH THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE–

REPORTED BILL, S. 600.

• ADMINISTRATION REQUEST SEC. 305—COMPENSATORY TIME FOR 

TRAVEL. AFSA supports the Administration’s Request and urges its 

inclusion in the Committee bill. While the request is more limited for the 

Foreign Service than the Civil Service, AFSA supports the Administration’s 

36

request and accepts its reasons for not proposing provisions that would be 

similar to those for the Civil Service. AFSA requests, however, that the Committee Report accompanying the legislation clearly expresses the union’s right 

to negotiate implementation rules. Since the Secretary would have the discretion to provide compensatory time for travel to Foreign Service employees, 

AFSA should have the right to negotiate implementation of these rules under 

the case law of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. (This provision is not 

part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported bill, S. 600.)

NEW AREAS OF AUTHORITY FOR THE FOREIGN SERVICE GRIEVANCE 

BOARD. AFSA seeks four new areas of authority for the Foreign Service Grievance 

Board beyond the Administration’s previously requested restoration of Interim Relief to the Foreign Service Grievance Board (Sec. 311). AFSA believes that:

a. The Foreign Service Grievance Board should have the authority to enforce 

its decisions (see Attachment 5);

b. The Foreign Service Grievance Board’s Interim Relief authority should be expanded to include providing a stay in cases involving the collection of alleged 

overpayments of annuities (see Attachment 6);

c. The Foreign Service Grievance Board should have the authority to adjudicate 

cases regarding the operation of a Foreign Service Reduction in Force (see Attachment 7); and

d. The Foreign Service Grievance Board should have the authority to issue subpoenas requiring testimony and documents from witnesses who are either 

currently in the active Service or who are not directly under the control of 

the agency involved in a grievance (see Attachment 8).

DEATH GRATUITY FOR THE FOREIGN SERVICE. Section 413 of the 1980 Foreign Service Act (PL 96–465), as amended, permits the Secretary of State to provide 

a death gratuity equal to one year’s salary ‘‘to the surviving dependents of any Foreign Service employee who dies as a result of injuries sustained in the performance 

of duty abroad.’’ AFSA believes that level of compensation no longer meets the needs 

of the majority of Foreign Service employees and, particularly, of our newer officers 

and our specialists. AFSA therefore seeks an amendment to provide for tax-exempt 

payment of $100,000 or one year’s salary, whichever is greater (see Attachment 9). 

Mr. Chairman, we sincerely hope our suggestions will be assistance and be included in the Foreign Relations Authorization legislation. If you have any questions, 

please feel free to contact me at (202) 944–5502, or by e-mail at limbert@afsa.org. 

I can also be reached through AFSA’s Director of Congressional Relations, Ken 

Nakamura, at (202) 944–5517, or by e-mail at nakamura@afsa.org. Thank you again 

for your past assistance and your support in these important matters. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN W. LIMBERT (AMB.), President.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Crane, thank you so very much for your testimony and for your very specific examples as well as recommendations as to what the Subcommittee should do. 

I point out that we will fight, as we have in the past—when I 

was International Operations and Global Human Rights Chairman 

previously, we fought very hard with the appropriators, who with 

one sentence could waive the need for an authorization. And I 

made that a major part, along with Ben Gilman, who was then the 

Full Committee Chairman, to ensure that that did not happen. 

And it did not happen with the 2000 act, because we—because 

of all of the language, all of the vetting, all of the information that 

is provided by you and others, that found its way into that legislation, as well our own ideas, were just completely made moot, because they could just waive the need for an authorization bill. 

So I am with you on that we absolutely need for all of—the policy 

language needs to be here to ensure that we do this every 3 years 

just like we do the DoD authorization bill. And I know Chairman 

Hyde is deeply committed to that as well. 

Let me just also say on the death benefit—and the other points 

you have made—I am fully in accord with that. I chaired the VetVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
37

erans’ Affairs Committee for 4 years, was on that Committee for 

24. The first bill that I sent to President Bush was to raise the 

service members group life insurance from $200,000 to $250,000. 

And while that is a purchased life insurance, it is very much reduced to what it normally would be. And virtually every one of our 

servicemen and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

you know, if it is any consolation to their widows, they got at least 

$50,000 more than they would have gotten had it not been for that 

legislation. 

In like manner, I was very much in favor of the 9/11 widows getting adequately compensated for their loss, even though it seems, 

from some people’s point of view, excessive, since they got $1 million to $2 million, some as many as $3 million. That was in the 

context, as you know, of being a wrongful death. And it was to 

avert the slew of lawsuits that probably would have gone to the 

airlines. 

So there was a mixed motive for that by the Congress—I am not 

saying a bad motive, but certainly a mixed one. So I will work very 

hard for that as well. We just recently, as a Congress, passed an 

additional death benefit, as you know, for those killed in Iraq or 

in the performance of their duty. So this I think is very appropriate. So I will work toward that. I can tell you. 

On the soft targets, I want to see what we can do to be helpful 

there as well. 

Ms. CRANE. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. This was a hard target. I know that you were in 

Lima yourself. The day I went down to Lima on one of my human 

rights trips a few years ago was the very day that it was bombed. 

Nobody was hurt. It was a little bit after hours, but the long corridors and the glass helped the defenses work. 

The soft target issue, I think, is more complex, and we do not 

want it to be, you know, fortress America for anywhere we go, but 

particularly when people want to be out among the population. But 

it is a very, very important issue that we need to focus on. And 

every recommendation you have, we want to try to protect our men 

and women abroad. 

Thank you for speaking for them on that, because, you know, 

most Americans, I do not think, fully recognize or appreciate just 

how many hardships are endured, deprivations are endured, and 

even the spousal issue you mentioned in terms of employment is—

your point was very well taken. 

I would want to point out to you that Eleanor Nagy, to my right, 

who is our director of policy for the Subcommittee and really brings 

an enormous amount, a wealth of information to the Subcommittee, 

is really a Pearson Fellow. She has been in the Foreign Service for 

17 years. Her last posting was in Macedonia as DCM, and believe 

me, having someone with that kind of know-how and insight as Eleanor, we are very much grateful on the Committee to have her. 

Ms. CRANE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for hosting 

Foreign Services officers on your staff. AFSA recently negotiated a 

new career development path for Foreign Service with the director 

general of the Foreign Service. 

And one of the things we recommended and he adopted was more 

details outside of the Department, to learn more about the comVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:01 May 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\041405\20650.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
38

plexity of foreign relations and international affairs. One of the 

things they are going to do is indeed encourage more Foreign Service officers to serve a detail on a congressional staff. 

Mr. SMITH. That is great. I think it is a win-win for everyone. 

Let me just finally say, if you have anything to add, your testimony was very comprehensive so you answered the questions before they could be asked. I want to thank you, and, Ken, nice to 

see you again. And we deeply appreciate your insights and look forward to working with you as we go forward. 

Ms. CRANE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ