U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–308 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING OVERSEAS

PRESENCE ADVISORY PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 15, 2000

Serial No. 106–136

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

KRISTEN GILLEY, Professional Staff Member

LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

WITNESS

Page

The Honorable Bonnie R. Cohen, Under Secretary for Management, U.S.

Department of State ............................................................................................ 4

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from New

York and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ........................... 22

The Honorable Bonnie R. Cohen ............................................................................ 23

U.S. Department of State Charts:

Overseas Building Program List of Forty New Posts in the 1990’s .................... 35

Overseas Building Program U.S. Government Overseas Presence by Agency ... 36

Foreign Service Institute Crisis Management Exercises in FY 1999 .................. 37

Overseas Building Program A/FBO Capital Appropriations: FY 1983–2000 ..... 38

(1)

PROGRESS ONIMPLEMENTING OVERSEAS

PRESENCE ADVISORY PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:40 a.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee will come to order.

Today we are continuing our hearings on the important recommendations of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel. The panel’s report, entitled ‘‘America’s Overseas Presence in the 21st Century,’’ provided many useful, and in some cases, far reaching recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our

State Department and the conduct of diplomacy.

We started this series of hearings in February 2000 and we

heard from the panel members at that time. I believe the panel

highlighted important issues and we continue to support many of

the recommendations as a means for creating a stronger State Department.

Mutual scheduling difficulties delayed hearings from the State

Department until today but that is probably to our benefit, as we

can discuss what has been done in the intervening months as well

as reviewing the recent report on the rightsizing project. We want

to see how the State Department is measuring its progress on

these recommendations.

Upon the release of the panel’s report, the President announced

that the Secretary of State would lead a cabinet committee to implement the recommendations on rightsizing. We have heard about

the need for employing the management strategy of matching policy with resources for many years. It seems this idea of rightsizing

may finally be gaining traction because of the high level involvement of the White House and the State Department. I recognize

that developing a rightsizing policy with its implications across

government agencies is difficult. For this undertaking to be effective, it requires continued interest and top level direction supporting interagency coordination with those agencies who have representatives overseas.

It is a given that diplomacy requires an overseas presence. Yet

recent studies indicate that the State Department needs to modernize its domestic and overseas operations.

2

There are reasons, such as technology improvements, changing

policy priorities or security concerns, that demand a reassessment

of how that overseas presence is designed, who has the authority

to manage these issues, and a need to articulate a mission with a

results-oriented perspective. The State Department should have

the lead in directing foreign policy structure with a strong chief of

mission authority.

A review of your statement indicates you are laying the groundwork for an incoming administration. However, I also hope the Department and the White House will try to take some decisions so

as not to delay necessary management improvements. I am interested in supporting those efforts and intend to keep congressional

interest alive so that the energy spent now will in fact be a worthwhile investment.

Having visited many of our posts overseas, I know that we have

talented people who can adapt and probably would welcome a new

approach to diplomacy and serving our interests, as suggested by

the panelist’s report.

I will now turn, before turning to our witnesses, ask Mr. Gejdenson for any comments he may have.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I will waive opening comments

so we can get to the witnesses.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this

hearing very much and the fact that you are trying to keep this

good product alive and move it toward implementation. I think we

can all agree that the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel [OPAP]

did an outstanding job in reviewing the way the United States conducts its overseas activities and making recommendations for reform. I frankly have been concerned that implementation of the

panel’s recommendations has been proceeding more slowly and unevenly than we would have liked. I hope that the Under Secretary

can relieve my concerns in regards to the implementation of the

recommendations.

A particular concern of mine has been embassy security. I have

been disappointed that the State Department has not requested

adequate funding for enhanced security despite the Crowe panel’s

recommendation. I was pleased to see the increased request of almost $1 billion this fiscal year and the appropriate Committee decision to meet that request.

I know the Department has worked hard to improve physical security. However, a fundamental problem remains largely

unaddressed. That problem is a threat posed to our embassies overseas from large vehicular bombs. Admiral Crowe’s report, the

OPAP report, and numerous senior State Department officials have

emphasized that such devices represent the greatest physical

threat to the lives and welfare of our citizens and our employees.

Over 80 percent of our overseas missions lack the adequate 100-

foot setback to protect against such attacks.

There is no substitute for purchasing, constructing, or leasing

property and new facilities that give us the necessary setbacks. Unfortunately, it is also true that the Office of Foreign Buildings,

[FBO] for a variety of reasons described in the OPAP report and

elsewhere, is not and never will be able to address this problem in

3

a timely manner unless some very major changes are implemented.

It often takes literally decades to work through the labyrinth of bureaucracy associated with constructing a new embassy.

In part, the problem stems from the scoring rules imposed by the

OMB that require all the costs of construction or lease purchase be

scored in the first year. This makes it extremely difficult to get the

necessary appropriations. It also costs taxpayers millions of dollars

by forcing the Department to rely on short-term lease arrangements which are far more expensive in the long run than to either

lease purchase or sales leaseback.

I have tried repeatedly but unsuccessfully to exempt the Department from this scoring rule. My efforts will continue. It is not simply a problem with the Democratic Administration. It is a problem

that has existed in the administrations of both parties, and the

OMB policy simply has to be changed.

The OPAP report proposes an innovative approach toward dealing with the problem by establishing a performance-based government corporation, the Overseas Facilities Authority, the OFA, to

replace the FBO. Such a corporation should have the ability to use

the full range of financial tools and receive funds from rents, appropriations, asset sales, forward funding commitments, Treasury

loans, and retainer service fee revenues. It should also have authority to engage in cost effective financing alternatives such as

lease purchase and sales leaseback.

The OPAP report concludes that ‘‘in order to undertake the fundamental change in the funding and management of U.S. Government overseas assets, the FBO should be replaced by an OFA with

more authority, more flexibility and increased participation by U.S.

Government agencies.’’

The report makes a compelling case for why a public corporation

would be a more efficient and effective way of managing U.S. Government facilities overseas and of dealing with the urgent issues of

making these facilities more secure. Yet the Department appears

to have rejected the idea. I don’t know why. I don’t understand it.

I want to know why this is the case.

It seems to me that there would be many advantages in proceeding with the OPAP recommendations to replace the FBO with

a government corporation. One of these advantages is we will have

to secure embassies and consulates years earlier than would otherwise be the case. All we are really doing is making more American

lives vulnerable for longer periods of time.

I hope the State Department will look again at this excellent recommendation from people whose opinions you ought to respect and

that the Department staff study and act on capital improvements

and then move expeditiously toward implementing the proposal.

There are many outstanding features of this report, but I do hope

that you are going to focus on this one because American lives are

at stake.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. We want to welcome Ms. Bonnie Cohen, the Under Secretary of Management. Ms.

Cohen holds an MBA from Harvard and prior to coming to the

State Department in 1997 she was Assistant Secretary for Policy

Management and Budget at the Interior Department. We appreVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:05 Nov 17, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66308.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
4

ciate your coming here today to discuss the progress on the implementation of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel. We look forward to your statement and appreciate your efforts to establish

these ideas within the State Department throughout the government.

We want to apologize for the delay in your testimony. We had

these markups that were important for us today.

I also want to recognize Ambassador Elizabeth Raspolic, who is

serving as the Director of the Interagency Rightsizing Committee.

Ambassador Raspolic has been in the Foreign Service for 27 years

and most recently was Ambassador to Gabon. We just had the Minister of Defense from Gabon visit yesterday.

We welcome Ambassador Chamberlin, who is representing the

International Narcotics Bureau, and we thank Ms. Chamberlin for

being with us today.

So please proceed. If you would like to put your full statement

in the record, we will accept it without objection. You may summarize your statement. Ms. Cohen.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BONNIE R. COHEN, UNDER

SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. COHEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members

of the Committee. I will submit the statement for the record and

summarize, although I am going to read the first page because I

think it is very important.

Many experts heralded the end of the Cold War as ending the

need for American global engagement. As the last 10 years have

demonstrated, the dramatic changes in the world’s political and

economic landscape have meant just the opposite. Today we are

confronted with a host of international problems that affect America’s security and domestic welfare, from financial crises and the

closing of markets to global environmental challenges, AIDS, terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. These foreign policy problems are America’s national security challenges.

Our overseas presence provides the essential underpinnings of

our ability to defend America’s security, to promote its prosperity

and to meet the new global challenges. It is our first line of defense

ahead of the military. It is when diplomacy fails that the military

comes in, and recognizing this, we must reinvest in the conduct of

our foreign policy. The OPAP panel recognized this and said ‘‘The

U.S. overseas presence, which has provided the essential

underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for many decades, is near a

state of crisis. Insecure and often decrepit facilities, obsolete information technology, outmoded administrative and human resources

practices, poor allocation of resources and competition from the private sector for talented staff threaten to cripple our nation’s overseas capability with far reaching consequences for national security

and prosperity. The condition of U.S. posts and missions abroad is

unacceptable. The panel fears that our overseas presence is perilously close to the point of system failure.’’

The Secretary of State welcomed OPAP’s emphasis and its urgency in improving the conduct of our foreign policy, our overseas

mission infrastructure and capital plan, the importance of investVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:05 Nov 17, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66308.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
5

ing in human resources and the indispensable nature of universal

representation. We strongly agreed with the panel’s focus on the

need to ensure stronger interagency teamwork under chiefs of mission abroad and the President and the Secretary of State.

I have a few handouts—I don’t know if they have been handed

out—that give you some historical perspective on what has happened to the State Department in the last 4 years, and I actually

remember the charts.

You will see from those charts that in the last decade the State

Department opened approximately 40 new posts overseas with no

real increase in the budget. The Department was in the process of

cannibalizing its resources.

The second chart shows you that the State Department is only

one of the agencies overseas, and indeed, while it is the biggest,

much of its size is to provide administrative support to the other

agencies. So it is very important that we work on an interagency

basis, which the panel emphasized, I think you have emphasized

in your remarks, and is the reason that I am with the two people

who are chairing our interagency panels.

The third chart shows you the crisis management exercises in

the State Department starting in 1998. I think that this is a particularly startling chart because it shows you that in the process

of reducing the budget and opening new embassies decisions were

made that we now all recognize as too short-sighted, including the

total dismemberment of crisis management training. We have been

in the process, with bipartisan support, of rebuilding the kinds of

efforts we have to do, management efforts, to have a strong department and be able to protect our people.

The final chart, I think, directly supports the point that you were

making, Mr. Chairman, about the FBO and the need for capital appropriations. You see from this chart that the only time in the last

decade that the State Department has gotten substantial infusions

of funds has been after bombings, when people, both Americans

and foreigners, embassy employees and civilians, have lost their

lives. That is simply not acceptable. We have to have sustained

funding, as Admiral Crowe so eloquently put it.

When I first came to the Department, 3 years ago now, I received

approximately two feet of studies on what needed to be done at the

Department. We now have Admiral Crowe’s excellent report and

the OPAP report, and we welcome your support for the OPAP report. This is an important time. We are in the process of implementing the OPAP recommendations. The Secretary has accepted

them enthusiastically, although there are some details to be

worked out. I think all of us are concerned that, as we transition

administrations, this effort does not lose its momentum and we

don’t have to have additional studies.

Now, I will go to the recommendations and give you a sense of

where we are. The Secretary chaired a cabinet level meeting of all

of the agencies who operate overseas and there was unanimous

support for the interagency implementation of the rightsizing recommendations. We were very heartened to get that support and

have moved forward. One of the most important recommendations

was from the Attorney General, who suggested that we organize an

6

interagency law enforcement rightsizing group, which Ambassador

Chamberlin is heading up.

That is critically important because, as you know, the most rapid

growth in overseas presence today is law enforcement and it is very

important that that be coordinated. The Attorney General even

went so far as to suggest that there may be opportunities for

memoranda of understanding with some of the law enforcement

agencies who are present in specific posts to assist in the responsibility of other agencies so that we wouldn’t have to have as many

people overseas.

We have had a very active interagency group looking at

rightsizing. They visited six embassies, Amman, Bangkok, Mexico

City, New Delhi, Paris and Tbilisi. The idea was to develop both

general recommendations that we could apply across embassies

and then recommendations for these six posts. They have reports

on each embassy and they have done, I think, an outstanding job.

An interagency group visited each embassy, and the more general

recommendations are that we can begin to bring back administrative functions to the United States with appropriate communications to support them.

The final report from the interagency group will be available

soon and then will go to the Secretary. So the Secretary has not

had the chance to review and endorse the recommendations, but

the interagency group is recommending, for example, that our financial center, which is in Paris in its own large facility, can be

brought back to the United States and operate out of Charleston,

where we also have a financial facility. Our finance people also

think that is possible. So that type of recommendation is on the

table.

In addition, there are recommendations for agencies to share certain administrative functions overseas that would permit staff reductions. For example, in Mexico City every agency has a personnel

specialist who classifies people, and I don’t want to get into that

because it is really detailed and very bureaucratic, but it appears

with the right computer support that we could have just one agency do it for everyone and bring back the other support people. We

are very encouraged by that.

In addition, we have specific recommendations for each embassy.

Ambassador Rohatyn, who has been in the forefront of this effort,

is now in the midst of working with his interagency group at Embassy Paris. We will be complementing his work here by developing

a plan this summer that will substantially change the structure of

that embassy and be a model for other embassies.

In the FBO area, which I know is a particular interest of yours,

quite honestly, I endorse everything you said. I think we need more

money; we need sustained funding. We need a better functioning

FBO and we need the kinds of financial reforms that you talked

about. We have had a group working on it. They are making proposals that will, with the Secretary’s endorsement, be taken forward in the Administration.

We may have what I hope is not a real difference over this corporation. The OPAP report is recommending a performance-based

organization, which requires legislation and is the route that the

Internal Revenue Service took in their reform.

7

Mr. BEREUTER [presiding]. Madam Secretary, may I interrupt

you to tell you that as long as you don’t eliminate the FBO, no matter how sustained the funding is, you are not going to be able to

cope with the huge backlog of security-related consulate and embassy construction, reconstruction, and retrofitting. But you don’t

agree with me entirely because my basic point is that so far the

State Department is rejecting that fundamental reform, am I correct? You are not endorsing a replacement for the FBO?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield for a second?

Mr. BEREUTER. Yes, I yield.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Not to defend the State Department, but my

question is, what is the difference between creating a new kind of

department to do this or just getting the authorities and structural

reforms in the existing operation? Sometimes I find the

disruption——

Mr. BEREUTER. The difference is that the current FBO is not allowed to engage in the more innovative lease and purchase arrangements, and we can’t given the current arrangements, escape

the OMB scoring mechanisms. Therefore all capital construction

costs are up front immediately.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would yield, then what if you

simply gave those same powers to the existing operation?

Mr. BEREUTER. Then you still are left with the requirement to

change the law and make an exception of scoring on OMB, and

that seems to be very difficult for OMB to accept because they are

concerned about the precedent. Of course, it is always more expensive for the government to construct a building by far than for the

private sector to build that same building, and the gentleman

knows some of the reasons.

Under Secretary, please proceed. I went farther in this than I intended in interrupting you.

Ms. COHEN. The rest of my testimony is quite brief. In information technology the State Department has made enormous

progress, again with bipartisan support. Two years ago we had no

Internet. Now we have 85 percent of overseas post on the Internet.

Yet we are still concerned. You are considering our budget; we had

asked for $17 million to wire two embassies overseas to allow agencies to speak to each other, and to demonstrate the benefit of information sharing. We were authorized in your markup to do this, but

it was to come out of our existing budget base. But our existing

budget base is really inadequate for our current needs.

In the human resources area you will be hearing from our new

Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources. We have completed the McKinsey and Company study on

the war for talent. We are in the process of implementing the recommendations from that study, and yesterday I went to a very exciting half-day session at FSI where we introduced the new Center

for Leadership and Management Training. In the past the State

Department has not had management training, and management

is key to the Department’s future success. So we are excited about

that.

I know you have heard about the Consular Affairs Bureau. That

is an outstanding example of a bureau that has strong leadership,

is very sensitive to the American public and the kinds of services

8

they need. We are considering the OPAP recommendations in this

area, particularly the ones that give consular services control of

their own people.

The OPAP Report called for Ambassadorial authority to be

strengthened and made more clear. Carolyn Lowengart is here. She

is in charge of this issue for the Department and will answer any

questions. Before you is a letter that goes to new Ambassadors, giving them their charge. We will be working to reform that letter, but

we will wait to make it final until there is a new administration,

since it will be theirs. I know that you have had quite a few presentations on the efforts we have made in overseas security in the

last 2 years under Dave Carpenter and with FBO. I could share

with you the many cables I am now getting back from Ambassadors saying that they really feel, even in facilities that don’t have

adequate setback, that they are getting the kind of attention they

need and are better protected than they had been in the past.

Thank you very much. I would be glad to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cohen appears in the appendix.]

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Madam Under Secretary. I want to

turn first to the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman

from Connecticut, before we go to vote.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of quick questions. I think I like your idea on the back office. If you look at modern businesses, they don’t place in the field every function that

they have, and obviously in smaller areas you might only need twothirds of a person but it is a little hard to achieve that. I also suggest you look at not putting it all in Washington, D.C., but look at

spreading it around to other places where we might have facilities

existing, former military bases, whatever, where we may have

some other functions together.

Some functions that you might need travel for you might look at

regional facilities, for instance, a lot of back offices for American

companies are now someplace else. For functions that might need

some visits, you could pick obviously countries that are friendly

countries, that pose less of a security threat. Countries that speak

the English language or have good access to educated people obviously make it easy. So I think that makes a lot of sense.

Congressman Bereuter and I have, I think, some difference on

the funding issue because I think that it is a general problem

through government that we buy an aircraft, an engine, we pay for

it in 1 year. The advantage obviously for State to pay for these embassies over the long haul is that you can get a lot more of them

started and done, but then we have the general problem with procurement, whether it is a bridge, a building, or something else I

think it is something you have to work out.

Let me ask you, I was not a supporter of the reforms that occurred in the last session of Congress, taking into State a number

of other departments and agencies, and I am getting some information that says that State is now looking at taking over more of

USAID’s functions and ESF and other areas and creating repetitive, in a sense, systems. In some cases maybe USAID doesn’t

have enough staff to do it, but it seems to me now that when you

merge, rather than create a duplicate function to manage these

systems in State, that what you might need to do is add some perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:05 Nov 17, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66308.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
9

sonnel to USAID. But it makes more sense, I think, to keep USAID

functioning and not to just have State and USAID doing the same

kinds of things. Am I wrong in the information that I have that

State is seriously looking at a number of USAID functions and

management of development programs?

Ms. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. That is very good news. I have very few other

questions and it is so seldom that you get such an absolute answer

so that, I will just have to——

Ms. COHEN. Would you like me to go on?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Actually, I would like you not to have any qualifications to that.

Ms. COHEN. I don’t have any.

Mr. GEJDENSON. OK. Great. Go ahead.

Ms. COHEN. This has to do with grants management. What has

happened is that we found, more and more, what had been in the

past grants management from USAID, was drifting over to us as

we spent the money. We really aren’t staffed to do that adequately

or to do it in a way that ensures the protection of the resources.

This first came to our attention as different divisions asked for

staff to do grants administration. So under the CFO we put together a group to look at this issue with USAID, and quite honestly, our preference is that the functions stay with USAID. We

will work with them, but we have no intention of duplicating their

very good efforts. I think we have the same objective you have.

Mr. GEJDENSON. That is reassuring. Let me say that information

I have been getting was that people at State thought they could

move a number of these functions to State from USAID without authorization, just by simply taking the action. I think that would be

a long-term mistake, that the idea of having an aid operation that

is focused on its traditional responsibilities makes a lot of sense for

the country; and in every administration it forces a focus not just

on the short-term geopolitical interests of the aid-recipient but the

long-term development interests.

So I thank you for that response and say to you that it is something that I am going to continue to watch.

I think—again, I was not a supporter of the changes and hope

that some lines will be kept there so that there is an aid agency

with a traditional commitment to helping the poor and doing the

right kinds of things there.

I commend you for many of the other proposals you are making

in the area of rightsizing and trying to make the agencies more efficient.

The last thing I would like to say, one of the great frustrations,

as oftentimes we know, the agencies are understaffed. In some

ways, the most visible part to the average citizen of the operation

of the State Department are the consular services, like the Motor

Vehicle Department is the public face by which the people judge

their government. You stand in line for 3 hours at the Motor Vehicle Department, and they tell you to go to another line. It tends

to give you a bad taste for government. I can’t tell you how many

times, and I know they are understaffed, and I know it is difficult.

We had one case where a young lady, a dual citizen, was robbed

of all her belongings in a Latin American country. She could get

10

nowhere with the American embassy. Her other citizenship was

Israeli. She got a passport the same day.

I then called the embassy to get her a visa, the paperwork because now she was traveling on an Israeli passport to come back

to Connecticut. Yes, 5 days later, after several calls from me, she

finally got a visa.

I know people are overburdened. I know that we are—a lot of it

is our fault. We don’t give them the funding. But when Americans

are stuck, and they get no help—we have got to get our consular

officials to understand in a lot of ways what people think about the

State Department, what we do overseas, is a function of that consular office. They still have got to be a friendly face to American

citizens.

Ms. COHEN. If I could just answer that.

I think Mary Ryan has put a lot of attention on this. In fact, the

whole consular bureau is rated one of the top areas by the American people in terms of service to the public. When something like

this happens, it is somebody not doing their job well. Because however overworked they are, their first response is to an American

citizen in trouble.

I would ask you if this happens again to just give me or Mary

a call because that is not the way she wants that office to operate.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much for your comments.

I do think that the way we fund our oversees presence is unworthy of the United States, and there is a lack of confidence in the

State Department on Capitol Hill. It is not a surprise to you, despite the good people—long-term employees, foreign service officers

or otherwise—and my concern is that this report will not receive

the attention and implementation that it deserves in part because

of inertia, in part because of the bureaucratic battles that you will

have to fight within the Department, and in part because of lack

of support here on the Hill.

Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee, Chairman Hal Rogers and I met with Secretary

Albright at a breakfast to discuss about the report; and I really

think we need to keep in close contact with you to build an acceptance and a positive sense of inertia about the implementation of

the report.

I would think we ought to have you up here more often—frankly,

about every quarter—and that there ought at the beginning of the

new Congress to be established a more coordinated fashion to work

with you on the part of the authorizing Committees. Right now, we

are just holding things together with Scotch tape, and it is no wonder that people won’t respond to the concerns of the gentleman’s

constituent, for example, because they are moving from one crisis

and one special demand to another because of the lack of capabilities. That is my assessment. Things are just gradually grinding to

a halt.

I do want to come back and, if possible after recessing for this

vote, talk a little bit about the organization, reorganization, and decentralization initiative of our Ambassador to France and hear

more about the Financial Services Office move that you contemplate there. I would also like to focus a little bit on information

11

technology where I have just heard terrible stories about how bad

our capabilities are within the State Department. I think that is

recognized by you probably and certainly by the report.

With those comments, I think I need to recess, and we will resume in approximately 15 minutes. I think Chairman Gilman will

probably be back at that time.

The Committee will be in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. BEREUTER. The Committee will be in order.

Madam Under Secretary, I wonder if you or one of your two colleagues can address your attitudes, first of all, about the recommendations concerning information technology and what it is

you have been able to or intend to implement in the immediate future with respect to upgrading the quality of the information technology and communication technology you have among the personnel stationed abroad.

Ms. COHEN. Thank you.

First, I have to say that I think that the Department’s information technology is not as abysmal as you had heard. We have a new

chief information officer who, for the first time in the history of the

State Department, is an experienced information technology specialist. He came to us from the Institute of Medicine which is well

known for its information technology, and we have made substantial progress.

I have spoken about the Internet. In addition, the Department,

with the exception of a couple of mainframes, is off the dreaded

Wang that used to be the chief complaint, and we are on a standard platform. So we have made progress.

We are offering additional training to information technology

specialists, and we have bonus compensation plans. So we have reduced the turnover of these people, and we have also begun to be

able to recruit new people.

I know you will be hearing from Fernando Burbano, our chief information officer, next week. He has a very comprehensive, long

term plan for correcting the remaining deficiencies of the Department.

I think that the most critical deficiencies are currently overseas.

One is the inability of different agencies to communicate with each

other within an embassy. Because the Department of Agriculture,

for example, will have its own separate computer system making

it easier for them to communicate back to Washington than it is

for them to communicate to the FBI or the Ambassador down the

hall. That is a real deficiency.

The second deficiency is bandwidth overseas. We really need to

upgrade that and get all embassies more bandwidth. We have a

plan to do so and we have the capability, but we are short of the

funds. I endorse the OPAP report wholeheartedly in that area.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

I wonder, Ambassador Raspolic, if you can talk about the

rightsizing and the risk involved in implementing the recommendations for the personnel involved, if any, but mostly about what the

Department intends to do to act upon the recommendations with

respect to rightsizing and consulates.

12

AMBASSADOR ELIZABETH RASPOLIC, DIRECTOR,

INTERAGENCY RIGHTSIZING COMMITTEE

Ms. RASPOLIC. I would be glad to speak to that.

The Committee—the rightsizing committee is very much an

interagency committee. It is not just State Department. I want to

make that clear because that is what exactly the original OPAP

panel has recommended. We have had a very active group with

representatives from every department that you can think of who

are active overseas. We have been working on the project since the

beginning of February. We visited each of the six posts with a team

that fluctuated from 10 to 12 to 16 people; and, in fact, we had one

of the appropriations subcommittee staff members visiting with us

when we went to Bangkok.

We are in the process now of negotiating our Committee report

through the various agencies that are involved, and we will then

submit it to Under Secretary Cohen, who will then submit it to the

Secretary.

One of the major recommendations that we are supporting is one

that appeared in the original OPAP report, and that is the creation

of an interagency senior government board that would create a possibility here for an interagency review in Washington of proposed

major staffing changes overseas, either up or down. It would be a

reflection here in Washington of a process that already exists overseas in the Ambassador’s country team when the Ambassador, he

or she, sits and meets with representatives of all agencies at post.

This would be a mirror image of that here in Washington.

That could be—we are suggesting that it be convened in November, because at that point several of our other recommendations

would have come into being and the various reports and various actions would have been taken through September and October.

This board would also be used to look at things like when there

is a construction of a new embassy facility overseas, this board

could review the staffing implications for that given post and say,

look, is the construction adequate for the projected staffing over X

number of outyears; and this is something that Under Secretary

Cohen has already put into implementation. Our Committee has

been invited to participate in several reviews that Secretary Cohen

is conducting on construction of facilities overseas in the near future.

We have also recommended—we have discussed the recommendation that the Attorney General has proposed creating a

law enforcement pilot project; and we have—on the basis of our visits have recommended that the law enforcement project take place

at Embassy Mexico City and Embassy Bangkok because we felt

that those posts offered the most productive mix of law enforcement agencies and the fact that those agencies had a certain

amount of depth at each of those posts.

Mr. BEREUTER. Those are meant to be tests or prototypes?

Ms. RASPOLIC. Correct. I believe that was Attorney General

Janet Reno’s original implication, that these would be—that whatever is developed from these projects could be used elsewhere. But

I am sure Ambassador Chamberlin can speak more adequately on

that subject.

13

One thing we have found, though, if you can assume that our visits to six posts are illustrative of all posts overseas, which perhaps

is a major jump, that it makes no sense to implement some cookiecutter template and force all posts overseas to, in effect, look alike.

Because in effect what we found is each post is absolutely unique,

depending on the strategic goals of that post, depending on the mix

of agencies at that post, depending on what it is that the Secretary

and the Department of State have and the Ambassador have chosen to emphasize at that post; and the mix is constantly changing

and requires different staffing of each agency at each embassy.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you are ready, I

will take another time later.

Chairman GILMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Ms. Cohen, your statement mentions your monthly interagency

meetings. Have you prepared an action plan to implement the

OPAP recommendations and are you measuring progress on the

various recommendations. Also what measures are being used to

evaluate the progress on implementation?

Ms. COHEN. We do have monthly meetings, and it depends on the

specific area. I have seen a draft report, and the draft report does

have action steps recommended in each area, and it says the status

of each area and the timing. It doesn’t necessarily have monthly

objectives.

For example, in FBO, I receive quarterly reports on our high-priority projects. I receive similar updates on our personnel initiatives. As we go forward with the rightsizing, the additional reforms

of FBO and the other recommended steps, I anticipate that we will

have quarterly progress reports.

Chairman GILMAN. Does the Department have a structured timetable for implementation as it relates to the OPAP’s recommendations and can it be made available to this Committee if you have

such a program? Has the President been briefed on the progress

that the Department is making on OPAP recommendations?

Ms. COHEN. The interagency task force, when established by the

Secretary, was asked to report back to her at the end of this

month. We anticipate that it is on schedule and that she will get

a report. She will review the report, and then share it with the Administration. Then I am sure it will be available to you.

Chairman GILMAN. Has the President expressed interest in the

report?

Ms. COHEN. We have had very strong support from the White

House all along, and we have had a senior official from OMB sitting in on our monthly meetings.

Chairman GILMAN. With regard to the Chief of Mission authorities, the Department’s March report on the panel’s recommendations states that, given the time required to complete interagency

review coordination clearance, and I quote, ‘‘we should defer new

documentation outlining Chief of Mission authority until next year

when it can be taken up by the next administration.’’ Can you

elaborate on the COM authority and how it is conveyed and what

is the interagency role in that matter and is the authority under

discussion by your rightsizing Committee?

Ms. COHEN. I think I will defer to Carolyn Lowengart, who is our

expert.

14

Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Lowengart, will you step up to the mike

and indicate your title? Did you hear the question, Ms. Lowengart?

Please identify yourself.

CAROLYN LOWENGART, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE

OF MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. LOWENGART. I am the Deputy Director of the Office of Management Policy and Planning. I have been with the Department

nearly 30 years, so I have seen this Presidential letter of instruction through several administrations.

Chairman GILMAN. Thirty years and still learning.

Ms. LOWENGART. The reason for the timeline is that it historically takes between 12 and 24 months to get this letter written and

negotiated interagency, so there isn’t enough time left in this Administration to get it all the way through.

Chairman GILMAN. How long a time does it take to get a letter

written?

Ms. LOWENGART. The last one took 18 months to get it negotiated. Written, it takes about a day.

Chairman GILMAN. It is a little faster than what we do up here,

I guess.

Is the authority under discussion by the rightsizing committee?

WENDY CHAMBERLIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. No, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. Not under discussion.

What recommendations for changes in the Chief of Mission authority would you make to the next administration? Any of the

panelists.

Ms. COHEN. We have not developed those yet. We are in the process of getting the report, and then over the summer and into the

fall we will be implementing what we can and developing strong

recommendations for the next administration. We agree with you

that it is really an outstanding report, and our major objective is

to see that additional studies don’t get done but rather that implementation is carried forward.

Chairman GILMAN. We don’t want to study this to death.

Ambassador Raspolic, what criteria are you using to evaluate the

posts for the purposes of determining appropriate staff levels?

Ms. RASPOLIC. Mr. Chairman, that is a very interesting question

because it has been the source of much discussion among our Committee Members. We have tried various criteria. We have tried to

look at the mission’s strategic goals which is—in bureaucratic

terms—part of the mission performance plan. It is a document that

is negotiated at every post around the world by the Ambassador

and the various interagency members of the country team.

We have looked at the goals that have been given top priority at

each individual post. Then we have looked at how the various

agencies are selected to implement each of these goals and how a

goal cuts across agency lines and what kind of cooperative effort is

taking place at a given post. We have looked at whether or not a

15

post is providing regional services, because this directly affects

their staffing, also.

We have looked at whether a post uses a process that was initiated by Ambassador Rohatyn in Paris, and that is the American

presence post. Are they using satellite post activities? We have

found this in two or three posts but in different variations.

In France, it is one American and two Foreign Service national

employees at a given post, very low budget, very low key, and in

most instances quite effective.

In India, they have been doing this for an even longer period, but

it does not—in their implementation it does not involve an American officer. It is Foreign Service nationals who are running small

outlying foreign commercial service operations, and then they report back to the local consulate.

It seems to be very, very effective; and it has proved very useful

for American business overseas.

In Mexico, I believe, we saw some operations—some DEA activities in cities where there formerly had been a consulate, where the

consulate has been closed but a DEA officer operates independently.

So there are many variations. These are all some of the criteria

that we looked at, and this ultimately is what brought us back to

what I had referred to earlier and that is that each post is so very

different and so unique that we felt we could not simply sit back

in Washington and apply some template that would be appropriate

to all overseas posts.

Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Cohen, it seems to me it would be useful

to institute some market forces such as a capital surcharge for

agencies at posts noted in your statement and to make certain the

Department captures the full cost of staff presence at the post. Presumably, that would influence the decision process of other agencies that are increasingly responsible for growth overseas. Do you

think a capital surcharge or other like ideas would provide an incentive to encourage participation in rightsizing?

Ms. COHEN. Absolutely. We have support from the other agencies

for such a concept as long as the first time we apply it they get

a budget bump-up to cover the surcharge. But I think in the long

run that would be money well spent for America. I anticipate that

we would, with the Secretary’s support, go forward with that recommendation in our budget proposals and our suggestions to the

next administration.

One of the real problems we have is that space in our embassies

is free to agencies. So when a department, and I won’t mention any

departments, decides to send five people to an embassy and then

wants three Foreign Service nationals as support, they think only

of the salary costs and not of the space. As you know full well,

space in our embassies is unbelievably expensive because of the security requirements.

Chairman GILMAN. Speaking of security, recent press reports indicate that there are seven Ambassadorial nominees that have incurred over 100 security violations and infractions. What are your

thoughts on that and what personnel actions should be instituted

against those who commit egregious security violations? Do you

think there ought to be a change in the regs that govern the acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:05 Nov 17, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66308.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
16

tions taken against those individuals? Should there not be more severe consequences?

Ms. COHEN. Diplomatic security and personnel are in the process

of working out again changes with the legal office right now. I

think that the history of the State Department has been that the

penalties have not been as clear as they should be, they haven’t

been applied uniformly, and in some instances they probably

haven’t been as stringent as they should be. But this is a different

security environment and I anticipate we will have recommendations for action.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very interested, by the way, in what our Ambassador of

France is attempting to do with the decentralized effort. Despite

some of the people who aren’t enthused about leaving Paris, I think

that probably we are providing better and more effective service to

our constituents, to business, and to interfacing with the French

public.

Madam Under Secretary, I think your statement says you are

recommending a capital surcharge to agents at post to assist with

capital costs. You mentioned a personnel cost just a minute ago.

What is the status of that recommendation and do you have an estimate of how much money this would generate for the Department?

Ms. COHEN. The status of that recommendation is that the FBO

subcommittee of the interagency task force has, in a preliminary

report, indicated that they will be strongly recommending a capital

surcharge. We haven’t had the final meeting, it will be held next

week, but I anticipate that there will be a recommendation and

that it will have interagency support. They may have numbers that

give an estimate of that, but I don’t have them today.

Mr. BEREUTER. What are your thoughts about creating an OPAP

czar to oversee the OPAP’s recommendation and track the Department’s progress? Or are you the czar?

Ms. COHEN. Up here or down there? At the State Department?

Mr. BEREUTER. At the State Department.

Ms. COHEN. I am opposed to that. I am opposed to all these special things. I think there are people at the Department who have

responsibility for whatever the specific things are, and they should

be held accountable for implementing them. If you created a special

czar, then I would have the opportunity to relax.

Mr. BEREUTER. I did not hear, unless you pursued it when I was

out of the room, the issue of the Chief of Mission authorities. Did,

in fact, you then ask for recommendations for changes in the Chief

of Mission authority? You got their impressions of recommended

changes in Chief of Mission authorities?

COUNSEL. They deferred.

Mr. BEREUTER. Are you in a position to give me an indication of

what rank and file Foreign Service officers think about the recommendations of the report? For example, where might they take

greatest exception or have the greatest concerns, if at all? I know

17

they are going to be generally supportive, but if you had to say

where they had particular concerns, any, distinguished ladies,

where would it be?

Ms. COHEN. If I can start, I would not speak for the Foreign

Service. You will have Mark Grossman up here who is our new Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources in a month or so. I have only been at the Department for

3 years and don’t have the background, but I will say this.

We have had a town meeting where Lew Kaden came and talked

about the report. We videotaped it. We sent it overseas. We sent

the text of the report overseas. He has met with AFSA. My impression is, on the whole, it has very strong support because it is meant

to strengthen the State Department and the Foreign Service and

training and our attention to their personnel needs. There may be

specific things that are at issue which he would address, but perhaps you have different ideas.

Mr. BEREUTER. Ambassador Chamberlin, you are our Foreign

Service Officer. You can’t speak for them all, but you can give your

impression.

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I can’t speak for them all, but I can speak from

25 years of experience. As the newest member of this team, I am,

I guess, the closest thing to an outsider on the OPAP team.

The Kaden report was not done haphazardly, and it was not done

piecemeal. It was exhaustive. They even came to Laos.

Mr. BEREUTER. They even came to Capitol Hill.

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Wow. They really reached far and wide to

gather our thoughts and our impressions. Believe me, Foreign

Service Officers around the globe offered very candid views. A year

later, when I read the final report, I was extremely impressed. I

was enormously impressed and can say personally I wouldn’t be

able to answer your question. I don’t know what I would object to

in that report. I am not just saying this because I am sitting next

to Under Secretary Cohen. It is a personal view that I believe.

But to echo what you have said, implied in some of your questions, I think the rank and file’s view would be, OK, we have seen

a lot of these reports in the past. We would also like implementation. Because, let’s face it, the results of this report would strengthen security and this means security for not only ourselves but our

families. So I find support, but I would find a restlessness to see

it implemented.

Mr. BEREUTER. Ambassador, would you care to comment?

Ms. RASPOLIC. If I can add a few words. I agree with what both

of my colleagues have said.

I would also add, in our visits to posts overseas, we were struck

by the enormously welcoming approach that every post had. Individual officers are very interested in sitting back and looking at

how the Department works and how the Foreign Service operates

and what can be done to improve it. These are thinking, intelligent

individuals who understand that technology has changed the world,

perhaps not as quickly within the Department. They are very, very

interested in the idea of an IT subcommittee looking at these

issues, and they see how it could be used to improve their own output. I think they are very, very interested in supporting OPAP.

18

Mr. BEREUTER. If I could switch questions on you, in particular,

Ambassador, just as my final question here today at least, will the

rightsizing group make recommendations about specific embassies

that perhaps, given the qualified personnel we have spread around

the world, should be downsized—actual embassies or consulates?

Ms. RASPOLIC. Sir, if I may say, I think our recommendations are

a mixed bag, just as the initial report was. In some instances, we

are recommending a downsizing in the sense of changing—eliminating some positions and transferring some positions overseas

back to the United States to decrease or lower the official presence

overseas. In a couple of instances, we are questioning whether or

not these posts need more people to perform the many obligations

that had been laid on them. So it will be some of each, I suspect.

Mr. BEREUTER. Do you think the way the world is evolving and

with the information technology we have and with the multiagency

reputation in our embassies today that the Ambassador’s job is

more challenging or that it is less manageable, that is, less attractive for a political appointee or for a career officer? Are you looking

in any detail as a result of this data yet, the Ambassador’s duties?

Ms. COHEN. I meet with almost every Ambassador who goes

overseas or comes back to the United States, and they find it very

challenging. They find it some of the most interesting work they

have ever done, and it is very special in a foreign country to represent the United States. But, as a person, they are shocked when

they get overseas to see the condition of our embassies, which I

know you all have seen, to see the condition of our data processing

equipment, to see that they have positions that they consider critical that go empty because we don’t have people to fill them. So

they are more challenged than they would like to be.

Chairman GILMAN. Would the gentleman yield for a point? What

would it take to bring all our data processing equipment up to date

in all of our embassies? It seems to me that is a basic tool we have

today. Why can’t that be a priority?

Ms. COHEN. It is a priority for us. That is why I mentioned the

$17 million. I met with your staff yesterday. They cited I think it

is the CSIS report that said it would take $400 million. My experience prior to the government is that you never really know the cost

in data processing. That is why we wanted $17 million, to be able

to implement two large embassies and a small embassy and then

come back to you and say, all right, this is exactly what it will cost.

It will be, a couple hundred million dollars. But as I said in my

beginning statement and, I suppose after——

Chairman GILMAN. Let me interrupt you. It seems Microsoft

could use a little goodwill these days. You might approach them.

They are doing it for schools. Why not do it for our embassies? We

go out and reach out to the art community to furnish the State Department. It seems to me that we could welcome some donations

from the telecommunication industry.

Ms. COHEN. I defer to you, sir.

Chairman GILMAN. I defer to you. You are the czarina in charge

of this.

Ms. COHEN. I have very strict, stringent fund-raising restrictions

on me.

19

Chairman GILMAN. I think we ought to explore it. Mr. Houghton

is in charge of mainstream business people. We will work with him

and see what can be done in that direction.

But, seriously, it should be a priority and not just wait for an example of what happens in one embassy. These are serious problems

in all of our embassies.

Ms. COHEN. Honestly, we really appreciate your support, all of

your support. This is, for me, very refreshing to hear. This is a Department that needs investment, and I said at the beginning our

diplomats are there ahead of the military, and it is hard to explain

why there is as little investment as there is in our personnel——

Chairman GILMAN. Time we got rid of the smoke signals and got

some real telecommunication.

Mr. Bereuter, any further questions?

Mr. BEREUTER. No. I would just say this is a Department whose

overseas presence, as it is funded, is not worthy of this great country. I said that earlier. It is not, and it is getting relatively worse.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. I want to welcome this update. I want to

keep communication open with you on your recommendations and

the implementation. Rightsizing has been talked about for years,

and maybe we are finally getting some traction on that issue. Properly aligning our posts to the policy mission is fundamental to modernizing the State Department.

We thank our panelists for being able to be here. Sorry you were

delayed today because of our markup. I want to thank our colleagues who stood with you to the end. Thank you.

The meeting stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(21)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 15, 2000

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38