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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–126 PDF 2009

S. Hrg. 110–684 

A DOMESTIC CRISIS WITH GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS 

REVIEWING THE HUMAN CAPITAL CRISIS AT 

THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 16, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

THOMAS J.R. RICHARDS, Professional Staff Member 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Minority Staff Director 

JESSICA K. NAGASAKO, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2008 

Ambassador Harry K. Thomas, Jr., Director General of the Foreign Service 

and Director of Human Resources, U.S. Department of State, accompanied 

by Linda Taglialatela, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Human Services, U.S. Department of State ............................................................................ 5 

John Naland, President, American Foreign Service Association ......................... 20 

Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann (Ret.), President, American Academy of 

Diplomacy ............................................................................................................. 22 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Naland, John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Neumann, Ambassador Ronald E. (Ret.): 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement by Ambassador Thomas D. Boyatt ............................... 48 

Taglialatela, Linda: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Thomas, Ambassador Harry K. Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

APPENDIX 

Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Thomas, with attachments ....................................................................... 53 

Background .............................................................................................................. 137 

‘‘Report on Senior Executive Pay for Performance for Fiscal Year 2007,’’ 

July 2008, submitted by Senator Akaka ............................................................ 147 

Chart entitled ‘‘Staffing Shortfalls for Foreign Service Officers,’’ submitted 

by Senator Akaka ................................................................................................. 162 

(1) 

A DOMESTIC CRISIS WITH GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS REVIEWING THE HUMAN CAPITAL 

CRISIS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing will come to order. I want to thank 

the witnesses for being here at this hearing. 

Today, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management will examine the State Department’s human capital crisis. As 

we approach an Administration transition, perhaps the greatest 

problem facing the State Department is the lack of adequate staffing resources needed to meet its mission. Eleven-thousand-fourhundred-and-two men and women bring U.S. diplomacy to 162 

countries around the world through 266 embassies, consulates, and 

other posts. This thin line of career foreign policy professionals and 

support staff are our first line of defense in most of the world. They 

are our eyes and ears. In most countries, they are the face of America. 

Our standing and respect in the world is in dire need of improvement and our national security relies heavily on our standing in 

the world. The ability of the United States to execute its foreign 

policy priorities depends on these professionals to implement the 

policy. However, I am concerned that we are not investing enough 

in these employees so that they have the capabilities and means 

to perform their crucial and critical mission. 

Secretary Powell launched the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative in 

2001 to boost the presence of U.S. foreign policy overseas. As a result, more than 1,069 new positions were created. Since then, Iraq 

and Afghanistan have consumed our diplomatic readiness and 

placed high demands on resources and staffing of Foreign Service 

officers and Civil Service personnel. 

2 

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 162. 

To address this issue, Secretary Rice launched the Transformational Diplomacy Initiative in 2006, which included a global 

repositioning effort to move Foreign Service positions from Washington, DC and elsewhere to mostly hardship posts in critical 

emerging areas, including Africa, South and East Asia, and the 

Middle East. However, according to the State Department’s recent 

figures, there is a shortage of more than 1,500 Foreign Service staff 

worldwide. 

As this chart shows,1 there is a 13.3 percent vacancy rate for the 

Foreign Service at home and abroad. Domestically, the rate is 18.2 

percent, and overseas, the rate is 11.3 percent. The most striking 

number is the Near East Asia vacancy rate of nearly 20 percent. 

I understand that this rate is inflated because many vacant positions are filled by Foreign Service officers on temporary duty assignment from other locations. This is fuzzy math, because staff are 

being taken away from their home duty station, creating a deficit 

there, and filling slots that should be served by permanent staff. 

U.S. diplomacy deserves greater stability than that. 

What this chart does not show is the staffing deficit of mid-level 

officers. A lack of mid-career officers has left embassies with junior 

officers performing tasks above their grade while senior officers are 

being pulled in too many directions. Furthermore, since the State 

Department does not hire new employees into mid-level positions, 

this shortage could follow that group of employees in the Department for years to come. 

There are issues in both the career Foreign Service and Civil 

Service. In May and September 2007, the State Department Office 

of the Inspector General issued two reports with more than 60 recommendations for the Director General and the Bureau of Human 

Resources regarding the Department’s human capital. The report 

highlighted a broad range of issues for the Human Resources Bureau and Under Secretary for Management, such as the recruitment and hiring process needs to be improved, there is a deficit of 

human resources professionals, employees need better training and 

professional development, and overall, there needs to be greater 

use of authorized flexibilities and coordination on human capital 

issues department-wide. 

The Director General is aware of these issues and working with 

the IG’s Office to address them. Progress has been made in developing a strategy to respond to most of the recommendations. Fewer 

than 10 items remain open, but these include an external review 

of the future of the Civil Service, certification for human resources 

professionals, improvements to the career entry program, and better financial controls. These are important issues and need to be 

resolved before the next Administration takes over. 

In addition to the IG report, the Foreign Affairs Council, the 

Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Project on National Security Reform, and the Government Accountability Office 

have weighed in on the readiness of our diplomatic corps. In the 

coming months, the American Academy of Diplomacy and the 

Stimson Center will provide a zero-based budget report for investing in the State Department’s human capital. As an Advisory 

3 

Council member, I look forward to reviewing these recommendations. 

Too often, human capital and agency management are lost 

amongst the many priorities of agency leadership. Senator Voinovich and I have worked for years to elevate the priority of these 

issues at all Federal agencies. I am certain we will continue to do 

so with the next Administration. I look forward to hearing your 

strategy for addressing these issues as we approach the transition. 

I am so glad to have our Ranking Member here, Senator Voinovich, and we will call on him after I tell you that yesterday, July 

15, was Senator Voinovich’s birthday, and belatedly, I want to wish 

him a happy birthday. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. Those macadamia 

nuts were well received. My wife and I will enjoy them. 

I just want to say that I am really pleased we are holding today’s 

hearing. Senator Akaka and I have been working with the issue of 

human capital for a long time. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, we had Joe Nye and Dick Armitage testify about 

the human capital challenges in the State Department, and I am 

sure, Senator, as you travel the country and the world, you have 

had a chance to talk to some of our folks from the State Department. I really think that we are on the eve of meaningfull reform. 

At a time when our public diplomacy is arguably at its lowest 

point in history, the State Department is chronically understaffed, 

limiting its ability to overcome significant challenges, including 

shared missions and responsibilities with other agencies. The State 

Department faces a shortfall of about 2,400 personnel focused on 

core diplomatic efforts. One out of every five employees holds a job 

designated for a more experienced person. In restructuring agencies responsible for our national security, such as the Department 

of Defense and the intelligence community, we have largely neglected the soft power needs of the State Department. 

We should consider ourselves lucky that the men and women of 

the State Department have answered the call to serve, and through 

their leadership and dedication helped our Nation avoid the news 

stories which often drive change. These dedicated public servants 

must no longer be taken for granted. 

Last year, the Foreign Affairs Council found that the Department of State lacked the personnel necessary to meet its priority 

missions, a theme carried in other reports by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Foreign Relations Committee, 

as I mentioned, held a hearing earlier this year where we discussed 

the concept of smart power, which seeks to better match our strategies and structures at home to the challenges that we face abroad. 

Senator Akaka, one of the things it seems to me that we have 

to start looking at is how are we allocating resources. Even the Department of Defense sees this need. General Jones spent some time 

with me a year ago discussing the need to reallocate some of our 

funds to the State Department if we really want to make diplomatic progress. That way we can help avoid having to bring in 

military forces. It is going to take some reallocation of our limited 

resources. 

4 

In September, we are going to formally receive the recommendations from the American Academy of Diplomacy Advisory Council, 

which I am honored to be a member of. The Academy will likely 

recommend a 16 percent increase in the State Department’s workforce. Together, these reports demonstrate the need for a strong 

diplomatic corps, recognizing that diplomacy occurs in the embassies and consulates around the world, not inside the beltway. 

I question how many reports it will take before we are honest 

with ourselves and the American people about the challenge we 

face. How we allocate our resources in support of public diplomacy 

is a question that must be answered if we are to meet those goals. 

Too often, we hear agency officials tell us that they have adequate resources to get the job done. Today’s hearing is an exception, however. The testimony from the State Department makes 

clear that Congress’s failure to provide the tools necessary to get 

the job done has resulted in a situation that can no longer be ignored. Although I have often said we need to do more with less, 

there comes a time when our priorities must be reset. 

Ambassador Thomas, I commend you for recognizing the challenge and your responsibility in ensuring the State Department’s 

workforce receives the support necessary to effectively carry out its 

duties. The Department has made significant progress in addressing the recommendations from the State Department Office of Inspector General and your results have been met with some success. 

According to the Partnership for Public Service’s Best Places to 

Work Ranking, the State Department is one of only two large agencies with a double-digit increase in overall employee engagement. 

The same survey showed room for improvement in promoting 

worklife balance and family-friendly culture, and that is why I am 

proud to be working with several of my colleagues to address the 

cost-of-living issue facing less-seasoned officers assigned to overseas posts. 

Going forward, it would be irresponsible to allocate additional 

funds absent an oversight mechanism so we can measure the results of our efforts. We must balance identified needs in critical occupations with new demands resulting from implementation of programs such as the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. 

As we dedicate additional resources, we should take a closer look 

at the training provided to our men and women in uniform and the 

framework provided by the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Training must 

become a cornerstone of the State Department’s workforce planning. 

The inauguration of our next President is 6 months from now. In 

addition to selecting qualified individuals to lead the Department 

of State, the new Administration will have the challenge of presenting its first budget that balances many competing priorities 

and takes into account our growing budget deficit. Future budgets 

must ensure that the State Department is resourced appropriately 

to meet its mission and strengthen its global posture. Otherwise, 

we diminish our ability to foster democratic principles and to influence world opinion. 

The international environment will continue to reflect the dangers and opportunities of today. The State Department should be 

a model for global outreach and negotiation. Creating a more seVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5 

1The prepared statement of Ambassador Thomas appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

cure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people requires a highly skilled workforce that is held accountable for their individual performance. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing 

today. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

I want to introduce our first panel today, Ambassador Harry K. 

Thomas, who is Director General of the Foreign Service and Chief 

Human Capital Officer of the U.S. Department of State. Accompanying him is Linda Taglialatela, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Human Resources, U.S. Department of State. 

As you know, our Subcommittee requires that all witnesses testify under oath. Therefore, I ask you to please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to provide this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you, God? 

Ambassador THOMAS. I do. 

Ms. TAGLIALATELA. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Will the record note that 

our witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

Before we begin, I want to remind you that although your oral 

statement is limited to 5 minutes, your full written statement will 

be included in the record. 

Ambassador Thomas, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR HARRY K. THOMAS, JR.,1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE AND DIRECTOR 

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY LINDA TAGLIALATELA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador THOMAS. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Voinovich, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today to 

address the Department of State’s efforts to hire, develop, position, 

and support our dedicated corps of Foreign Service, Civil Service, 

and locally employed staff to meet the challenges of our worldwide 

mission. 

The Bureau of Human Resources has the critical responsibility 

to manage the Department of State’s greatest asset, our people. 

Maintaining the highest standards of operational readiness worldwide is an increasingly challenging undertaking, as a number of 

positions at the most difficult and dangerous posts continue to rise 

without a concomitant increase in resources. The Department’s foreign policy objectives have led to a proliferation of much needed 

language-designated positions, many of which require lengthy 

training. 

We have the world’s finest diplomatic service and morale remains high. We are very proud that the Foreign Service attrition 

rate continues to be the lowest in the U.S. Government, and the 

Civil Service attrition rate is half that of other Federal departVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6 

ments and agencies, and that we remain the No. 1 choice for college students seeking a public sector career. But challenges remain 

and we need the resources to meet them. 

State Department employees are serving in more remote, isolated, and dangerous locations than ever before. There are over 900 

positions overseas that are designated unaccompanied or limited 

accompanied for reasons of hardship or danger. That means that 

approximately one out of every 13 Foreign Service personnel is 

serving in a location that is too dangerous for families to accompany. 

The HR Bureau is committed to ensuring that these employees 

and the rest of our personnel receive the support and training they 

need to succeed. We have adapted and streamlined our recruiting, 

hiring, and assignment process in line with the Department’s policy 

priorities and increased our support to employees and families experiencing unaccompanied tours. We have drawn on talented Civil 

Service employees and eligible family members to fill positions in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hardship posts. We are pursuing ways 

to take care of the dedicated locally employed staff that plays a 

critical role in supporting our missions. 

We have introduced a career-enhancing rotational program for 

mid-level Civil Service employees and rolled out a new performance 

evaluation form for Civil Service personnel. We have reinvented 

the way personnel actions are initiated and processed. We have 

automated the Foreign Service retirement process. We are implementing a tiered services concept that consolidates human resource 

functions. 

These initiatives address the vast majority of the recommendations made by the Office of the Inspector General based on their 

late 2006-early 2007 inspection of the HR Bureau. We maintain an 

ongoing dialogue with the inspectors and have accepted or otherwise reached agreement on 51 of the 59 OIG recommendations. We 

will continue to work with the OIG to resolve the eight outstanding 

recommendations. 

As Secretary Rice has repeatedly testified, staffing needs exceed 

our current resources. The talented men and women that we are 

recruiting in the Department are seeking greater responsibilities 

and more management experience at earlier stages in their career. 

So we continue to give the very best of them stretch, or abovegrade assignments, as a means of ensuring that the very best have 

a more rapid means of escalating to the senior ranks. 

One of the unintended consequences of the deficit of officers is 

that only 19 percent of mid-level slots go to mid-level officers. But 

I am pleased to say that these men and women are excelling in 

their jobs. 

The Department’s fiscal year 2009 budget request also includes 

funding for Foreign Service compensation reform, one of our top 

legislative priorities. The Foreign Service compensation reform provisions in the Department’s fiscal year 2008 and 2009 authorization package, if passed and enacted, would eliminate the nearly 21 

percent overseas pay gap in base salary faced by FS–01 members 

and below serving overseas. We look forward to working with Congress to pass these crucial reforms to eliminate the growing financial disincentives to serve abroad. 

7 

With the support of Congress and the enactment of the fiscal 

year 2009 budget request, I am confident that we can continue to 

attract and retain a skilled workforce to serve the American people. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ambassador Thomas. 

Ambassador, in a 2003 report, GAO looked at what characterized 

successful transition planning. They identified successful organizations as those which identify, develop, and select their human capital to ensure that successors are the right people with the right 

skills at the right time for leadership, and what I just said is something that Senator Voinovich always echoes. 

GAO recommended best practices for human capital transition 

planning, and I am asking you to tell us what or if the State Department engages in these practices, and let me mention some of 

these. These include attention and active support for the top leadership, link to strategic planning, identify talent from multiple organizational levels early in career or with critical skills, emphasize 

development assignments in addition to formal training, address 

specific human capital challenges, such as diversity, leadership capacity, and retention, and facilitate broader transformation efforts. 

Can you tell me how the State Departmentapproaches this transition planning? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Senator, Secretary Rice has named Ambassadors William Burns and Patrick Kennedy to lead our transition 

effort. She has also named the Executive Secretary of the Department, Daniel Smith, to be the day-to-day manager of the transition 

process. Senator, it is the tradition in the State Department that 

the Executive Secretary, who is also the Special Assistant to the 

Secretary, manage the day-to-day transition process. 

We are very confident that we will meet with the transition team 

as soon as they would like to present the strategic plan that we 

have for the State Department, and they will include everything, 

as you said, human capital, our efforts to recruit a more diverse 

Foreign Service that reflects America, a more talented Foreign 

Service and Civil Service. We have complete plans, and we are confident that our transition process will run smoothly as it has in the 

past. 

Senator AKAKA. And you have mentioned these names, Burns, 

Kennedy, and Smith—— 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. As being part of this? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes. They have been named by the Secretary. 

Senator AKAKA. The Fiscal Year 2008 Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Act included a $25 million provision for the State 

Department to address its staffing shortfall. The Act also included 

an additional $20 million in bridge funding for fiscal year 2009. 

How do you plan to spend these funds to reduce the staffing and 

skills shortfalls, and are these funds sufficient? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Thank you for that question, Senator. We 

very much appreciate the fact that the Congress of America has 

given us some of the funding that we requested for that. We are 

going to use that $25 million and part of the $40 million in FY2009 

bridge funding to hire 140 personnel above attrition. But as you 

stated, Senator, the Secretary and President have asked for over 

8 

1,000 new positions at the State Department and 300 at U.S. AID. 

So while we thank the Congress for this, we view this as only a 

downpayment on what we will need to accomplish our goals and 

objectives. 

Senator AKAKA. I would like to see a copy of your strategic plan 

for the obligated funds once it is completed. 

Ambassador THOMAS. We would be happy to send it to you, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Ambassador, approximately 20 percent of FSOs 

have served in the Baghdad embassy. I am told that you are not 

staffing the Iraq Provincial Reconstruction Teams with junior officers. There is a 13 percent worldwide staffing shortage and 19 percent staffing shortage in the Near East Asia region and a minimum 

training requirement of 2 years for language training in Arabic, 

one of the more difficult subjects. This calls into question the sustainability of our diplomatic presence in Iraq. What strategy do you 

have to address the short-term and long-term integrity of our diplomatic presence? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, Senator, again, thank you. I would 

like to clarify. We do have entry-level or junior officers serving in 

Iraq and Afghanistan and all of our other hardship posts, including 

the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, sir. What we do, however, is 

we vet everyone before they go to Iraq for area experience, language experience, and ability to serve in a hardship post. 

Last year, in October, when I became Director General, we designed a plan with Ambassador Crocker to vet everyone before they 

serve in Iraq, all of our volunteers, to make sure they are the right 

fit because this is dangerous and a difficult assignment. So we do 

vet them to make sure that they fit. But we take the entire Foreign 

Service. When Ambassador Kennedy visited Iraq in the fall of 2007 

and this year in March 2008, I sent my deputy, Teddy Taylor, to 

Iraq to review each assignment and position description to ensure 

we had the right fit and the right number of people to meet the 

challenge of service there. I am confident that we do, but it is an 

organic process and we continue to review. 

Right before I came here, sir, I briefly stopped by one of the 

luncheons that we have for people interested in unaccompanied 

tours. We had two people home from Iraq briefing people and it 

was an overflow of people, Foreign Service and Civil Service, who 

were interested in serving in Iraq. 

Senator AKAKA. Ambassador, how does the State Department 

identify and develop high-potential employees in both the Foreign 

and Civil Service to take on a future management role? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, sir, as you rightly pointed out, Secretary Powell initiated management and training courses at each 

level for Foreign Service and Civil Service employees and we have 

made those mandatory. And I do not grant waivers except for reason of health or emergency, and everyone knows it is mandatory. 

We have to institutionalize management and training. 

The big cry that I hear from our junior officers is they want leadership and they want training and I think it is incumbent upon us 

in the Foreign Service and the leadership of the Civil Service to ensure that people get this training and that the Foreign Service Institute is doing a wonderful job doing this at each level. For the 

senior classes, I personally go and talk to each one of them to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9 

mind them of the responsibilities they are going to undertake and 

the fact that we expect them to behave with the highest personal 

and professional integrity. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Ambassador. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The 2009 budget is being examined right 

now. In light of the human capital challenges and what the Secretary has recommended, is the Department’s budget adequate to 

get the job done? The next President is going to be living with the 

2009 budget and won’t have a chance to shape the budget until 

their 2010 submission. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How does that 2009 budget look today? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Senator, we believe this is just the first of 

what we will hope will be several increased budgets. Obviously, I 

cannot speak for the next President or Secretary of State. But we 

hope that the 1,500 people that we would like to be hired for the 

State Department and U.S. AID are the initial tranche of what we 

need to train and staff our missions around the world. 

Clearly, it is not only Iraq and Afghanistan. We have had to open 

missions in Asia, in Central Europe, in Newly Independent States 

at consulates and places where we previously did not have them. 

The fact that India, China, Mexico, that they are becoming economic success stories and their people are traveling, wanting to 

study in the United States, put increased burdens on our consular 

staff and that needs to be increased. 

We have, as you know, terrible challenges with narcotics, terrible 

challenges with security. Our diplomatic security staff, we are asking to be increased. So we think this 1,500 is just an initial step 

in what we will need to have a more robust and effective State Department and U.S. AID. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What impact will the continuing resolution 

have on some of your plans? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, sir, what we will do is we will have 

our next what we call A–100 or orientation class for the next fiscal 

year will be in January 2009, and we will have subsequent classes. 

It takes us 9 months to 1 year to fully train a Foreign Service officer to be overseas or to be in Washington. For a specialist, our diplomatic security agents, our office management specialists, it can 

take 3 to 6 months to train them to be overseas. So this is a longterm process. For the money that you have given us for the 140 

people over attrition, we will just start to get those people overseas 

in mid- to late-2009, so this is a very long process. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Are you going to be able to begin with this 

Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Ambassador Herbst’s office, sir? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, and also the concept of identifying people in other Federal agencies that—— 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. Can help with some of the challenges that you face. Is this budget going to allow that to begin? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes. That is a separate office. That is Ambassador Herbst’s office and we very much appreciate the funding 

that we got from Congress for that. That is an important office because we have crises all the time that we need immediate response 

10 

to where we, as Foreign Service officers or generalists, will never 

have the expertise. We will never have the civil engineer or the 

veterinarian or the fire response or the bomb response person that 

is needed to staff countries in terms of crisis. So that is the idea 

behind Ambassador Herbst’s office and we do believe that funding 

will enable Ambassador Herbst and the Department to begin work 

on this. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So it is your learned opinion that we have 

enough money to at least get this new initiative off the ground? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir, off the ground. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you have said that you are not having 

any problem with recruiting people, that is—— 

Ambassador THOMAS. To Mr. Herbst. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am talking about the Department’s overall 

challenges in terms of bringing on new people. 

Ambassador THOMAS. No. I think we are very—what we found is 

a clarification. It used to be that 25,000 people registered for the 

Foreign Service exam, but traditionally, only 10,000 to 12,000 

showed up. So last year, when we started the new exam, we put 

an automatic charge to your credit or debit card of $50 if you did 

not show up, and now we get about 99 percent show up. So we are 

really getting what we intended. 

The one thing that we have found with the new exam, the written part remains very difficult, as it should, and merit-based, very 

difficult to pass, but we are having more people, a higher percentage of people, pass the oral exam. So we think that we are on the 

right track. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you do not have to deal with the Office 

of Personnel Management? 

Ambassador THOMAS. No. For the Foreign Service—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. You have your own operation so you don’t 

have to worry about OPM. 

Ambassador THOMAS [continuing]. We do that. Civil Service, we 

do work with them. Sir, we work with OPM. Foreign Service, we 

do ourselves. And I visit colleges and universities. We have 17 diplomats in residence at universities and colleges around the world. 

I think one of the things we are most proud of, when I joined the 

Foreign Service, we had people from about 30 States and really 

about 30 schools. Now, we have people from all 50 States, schools 

all around the country. We visit them. We recruit from these 

schools. We have targeted organizations and we think we are now 

much more broadly reflective of America. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Last year, in a May 2007 report, the Inspector General recommended that the Under Secretary for Management institute a high-level review of the options for the future of 

Civil Service in the Department, and Senator Akaka and I discussed the same issue at our August 2007 hearing. What is the status of this review? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, I am going to ask my colleague to answer that question. 

Ms. TAGLIALATELA. Good afternoon, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Good afternoon. 

Ms. TAGLIALATELA. We have been working very closely with the 

Management Office under the Under Secretary for Management to 

11 

1The report submitted for the record by Senator Akaka appears in the Appendix on page 147. 

discuss what ways we can find to make improvements. We have 

not commissioned an external group, but we do work on this issue 

within the Department. We have done a number of things since the 

arrival of Secretary Powell and then his successor, Secretary Rice. 

We have looked at ways to create one-team, one-mission. We 

have gone out of our way to bring the Foreign Service and Civil 

Service closer together by building a bridge where Civil Service employees provide continuity and institutional knowledge and the 

Foreign Service brings their foreign policy and expertise to the 

table. 

We also have created a mid-level rotation program for our Civil 

Service employees to give them a broader perspective of what goes 

on in the Department. We have over 200 Civil Service employees 

currently serving in Foreign Service positions overseas, again, to 

find a way to bring the two services closer together and to make 

it a more workable arrangement between the two. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You have the recommendations, don’t you, 

the written recommendations from the Inspector General? 

Ms. TAGLIALATELA. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have a document that shows what 

the IG recommended and what the Department has done so that 

you could share that with the Subcommittee? 

Ms. TAGLIALATELA. Sir, that recommendation remains open, but 

we will be submitting a response to the OIG on what we are currently doing. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would like to know, too. Usually 

what we would like to see is when somebody makes a recommendation, the Department either says we don’t agree with them or we 

do agree with them and here is what we are doing to meet the recommends. I would like to have that document and I suspect that, 

Senator Akaka, you would like to have the same thing.1

Senator AKAKA. Yes. 

Ms. TAGLIALATELA. Thank you, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Can you get that for us? 

Ms. TAGLIALATELA. Sure. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

I have a second round of questions here, Ambassador. Two State 

Department Office of Inspector General reports were released in 

2007. Eight of the 59 formal recommendations, I understand, remain open. What is being done to ensure that these remaining 

eight recommendations will be addressed before the Administration 

transition? What is being done? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Senator, we understand that. Some of 

these recommendations, however, are dependent on increased funding because the OIG asked us to hire new people, train new people 

to oversee or to do jobs, and without funding to do that, we won’t 

be able to meet all of those recommendations. 

Senator AKAKA. Are there any recommendations you disagree 

with, and if so, can you explain it? 

Ambassador THOMAS. To my knowledge, sir, there are no recommendations we disagree with. 

12 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Ambassador, I am concerned that FSOs are 

being penalized for taking positions in functional bureaus like the 

International Security and Nonproliferation Bureau. As this board 

shows, according to the tips from the 2007 Foreign Service selection boards, and I am quoting, ‘‘proven and ongoing competence in 

primary cone is a requirement for both classwide and conal promotion, particularly at the FS–02 level and above. Extensive outof-cone service could place employees at a disadvantage for promotion.’’ Why are employees being disadvantaged for out-of-cone 

service? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, I find that surprising. To my knowledge, we have four career Foreign Service officers, including one 

who is a senior Foreign Service officer and a former ambassador, 

serving in the ISN Bureau. So I will be happy to double-check, but 

that is my understanding, sir. 

The way our system works, sir, that when you come in—most of 

us do a consular tour, issuing visas. I am a political officer. After 

that, I did several political jobs overseas, but I also did out-of-cone 

tours, and those out-of-cone tours benefited my career greatly. An 

out-of-cone tour was at the National Security Council. We have outof-cone tours at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). We have out-of-cone tours working at DOD in the Foreign Commercial Service. So I think that out-of-cone tours can 

help, but obviously there has to be balance. As a person rises in 

the Foreign Service, you have a choice of whether you do an outof-cone tour, and when you become a senior officer, you are doing 

everything. 

Senator AKAKA. Would a member of the Foreign Service or Civil 

Service be disadvantaged if they are assigned to another department or agency, such as Defense or the CIA or assigned to a university faculty? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Not at all, sir. Again, I was promoted to 

the senior ranks myself while serving in the National Security 

Council, and I think we have plenty of examples of that and we encourage interagency cooperation and we have increased the number 

of slots, both student and teaching, at the War Colleges. We would 

like to have more slots at the Command and Staff College, but we 

need more people and resources to do that, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Ambassador, the Canadian Government has 

something called the Accelerated Executive Department Program, 

which prepares individuals for senior leadership positions through 

the support of coaches and mentors, formal training events, and 

placements in a series of challenging developmental assignments 

which have individuals work in areas that they are unfamiliar or 

challenging to them in a large number of agencies. The Senior Executive Service is supposed to function in a similar manner. The 

Foreign Service emphasis on staying within one’s cone seems to 

limit that possibility. Could you comment about this? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sure, sir. We very much believe in 

mentorship. We also believe the best should have the opportunity 

for rapid promotion. Each junior officer class, each specialist class 

on their first day has a class mentor, always a senior officer who 

participates in programs through their training process. We have 

a very robust mentorship program at all levels for the Civil Service. 

13 

Again, I, myself, participated as a mentor to a Civil Service person 

who I am proud to say has just gone off to Sierra Leone. We have 

a very robust program in that. There is also a lot of informal mentoring. 

Then we have formal counseling. Each year when you get your 

evaluation, it is mandatory that you have had counseling by your 

supervisor two times before you get your evaluation and we really 

enforce that and we are now enforcing it even more so via technology. We are very proud of that and I think that our system has 

worked very well in giving the best of our officers, specialists, and 

Civil Service personnel increased opportunity. 

I think we are proud that we have one of the more robust Presidential Management Fellowship Programs in the U.S. Government, 

the second largest after the Department of Defense. We have the 

College Entry Program. We are trying. 

Senator AKAKA. According to the Project on National Security 

Reform’s Human Capital Working Group literature review, human 

capital is crucial to the functioning of the interagency system. Furthermore, there is a need to build a joint culture among national 

security personnel. How do you see the Civil Service and Foreign 

Service at the State Department participating in this interagency 

system? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Senator, we very much support that. We 

have people, as I said, in many agencies, USTR, the National Security Council, CIA, DOD, DOE, and Foreign Agricultural Service. 

We very much believe in that. We also have political advisors, and 

in our new budget request, we have set about slots for about 200 

people at different agencies, including political advisors, national 

security professionals, and students and faculty, training at the 

various War Colleges. We very much support interagency. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your responses. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The GAO recommended the Department 

consider an assignment system that allows longer tours of duty and 

consecutive regional assignments. The recommendations were 

made to improve foreign language proficiency and foster greater 

cultural understanding. How is the State Department meeting this 

recommendation? Or did you find it valid? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes and no in a certain sense, sir. Clearly, 

we encourage people to take our super-hard languages, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, and that takes 2 years of study and 

we expect and encourage those officers to remain in that area of 

responsibility. And many, if not most, do. They will go from mainland China perhaps to Taiwan, then to a consulate back to Washington working in the East Asia and Pacific Bureau. 

Some officers who are taking a romance language that they 

would have studied in their first couple of years decide they want 

to broaden their experience, become more skilled, to take another 

language. When I was a junior officer, I studied Spanish. After 8 

years in the Foreign Service, I decided I should broaden myself by 

studying Hindi. Then I decided to study Bengali, and I have stayed 

in the South Asia region. 

So we have a mix and it depends on what languages you are 

studying, but at the same time, we want to give people opportuniVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
14 

ties. So if you decide that after a few years working in Western 

Hemisphere that you would like a new opportunity to go to Asia, 

study Chinese or Japanese for 2 years, we encourage that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The Department of Homeland Security recently issued its changes to the visa waiver program to implement 

the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). It is going 

to require all visa waiver program travelers to either obtain advance authorization to travel using ESTA or obtain a visa before 

traveling to the United States. The GAO estimates that ESTA 

could double the number of visa applicants from visa waiver countries because ESTA could deny an estimated 1 to 5e percent of 

those travelers. 

In May, GAO issued a report and said that State has not developed plans to manage that increased demand or estimated what 

additional resources will be needed to meet the demand for the embassies in the VWP countries. GAO found that 3 percent of current 

VWP travelers have to apply for a visa, it would result in a visa 

demand that would overwhelm the Department’s current staffing 

and infrastructure. 

One of the things that I am sure that the State Department was 

embarrassed about was the fiasco that we had in terms of the 

issuing of passports. 

I would just like to know whether or not you are at all aware 

of this issue—— 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, sir—— 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. And what is being done to plan 

for it. I think you know that one of the reasons why we changed 

the visa waiver program and allowed other countries to apply for 

entry was that this was a major public diplomacy problem. If we 

find ourselves with another embarrassing situation as we had in 

the past, it is not going to look very good for anyone. 

Ambassador THOMAS. I agree with that, sir. I am clearly aware, 

as all Department employees are. I am not, however, responsible 

for consular affairs. We have a brand new Assistant Secretary. I 

will ask her to send you a report on that. 

But I will say that we have—our consular needs are expanding. 

Last week, I visited Monterrey and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where 

we have many entry-level officers performing consular work, to observe that work. Last fall, I worked on the Passport Task Force to 

see what challenges we face, and they are numerous. 

We are dedicated to protecting America and making sure that 

only those who are qualified to travel are able to enter our country 

and doing this in an efficient manner, but I would have to ask the 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs to answer that question. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. You will get that for me, then? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Ambassador Thomas, Ambassador Naland’s testimony suggests that the State Department may 

be moving to leave unfilled about 20 percent of the Foreign Service 

jobs due for reassignment next summer. What is the rationale behind such a plan and how were these positions selected? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, I am not sure where Mr. Naland got 

that information from and that 20 percent, but I will say this, we 

are doing a freeze. Unfortunately, we have had to do freezes sevVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
15 

eral times in the last 25 years. This is not new and this results because we don’t have enough personnel or resources. We want our 

people to—because we don’t have enough, we have to prioritize. 

Where do we need the most people and resources? 

And what we have done is we have looked at approximately 200 

positions overseas and in Washington that will not be filled next 

year. What we have done is we have worked with the regional bureaus and the function bureaus and the assistant secretaries. We 

have given them each a number on a proportional basis and we are 

allowing them to decide which jobs will be filled and which will not 

be filled. That report from them is due to us at the end of this week 

and then we will make a decision. It is not something that we 

would like to do, but we have to do because we don’t have enough 

people. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Maybe I am not understanding it right. Several minutes ago, you indicated that you had a budget to get you 

off the ground and I assumed that it meant that you would be able 

to take care of positions that you would be losing through attrition 

or otherwise. Are you saying that the reason why you are doing 

this is because of the fact that these jobs are no longer needed? 

Ambassador THOMAS. No, sir. What I said was that, and pardon 

if you misunderstood me, is that we had enough money to get off 

the ground for Ambassador Herbst’s office, the Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction. In terms of jobs that we are trying to fill 

for next summer, right now, we have to do that now for next summer because people have to be trained, assigned, and decide where 

to go, and we always do that a year in advance. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So you don’t have enough money to do that? 

Ambassador THOMAS. We don’t have enough people to do that or 

money. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So what you are saying is that the money 

that has been made available isn’t enough? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. Well, that is not what I heard the last 

time. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, I am sorry, sir, but I was only talking about Ambassador Herbst’s job. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Well, maybe what you ought to do is divide up the various ambassadors’ jobs and give us a breakdown of 

where you have the people to do the job and the areas where you 

don’t have the people to do the job so we are at least aware of the 

bureaus which need additional resources. 

Ambassador THOMAS. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. If they will let you do that. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes. Happy to do that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. We would be most grateful. We recently 

authorized $50 billion under PEPFAR to combat AIDS overseas. 

Are you familiar enough with the budget, your foreign operations 

budget? Will that money have to compete with other things that 

are already in the budget? One of the concerns that we have is 

that, although a very good public diplomacy program with significant support, it is a significant sum of money. What worries many 

of us, including who voted for the authorization, is that we know 

PEPFAR is going to compete with other priorities in the foreign opVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
16 

erations budget. What is going to give in order to make money for 

that program? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, you might be talking about PEPFAR, 

I am not sure. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, I am. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Again, I don’t have responsibility for that 

or that part of the budget, but we will be happy to send you the 

Department’s position on that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, it might be good to just get 

them all in here to talk about human capital throughout the place 

and where are we at. So often, we get the impression that things 

are going to be fine, and then really when we pierce the veil, we 

see a different picture. The sooner we get the real information, the 

better off we are going to be. Perhaps maybe when we get these 

reports back from these various organizations that we will have a 

better understanding, at least from their point of view, whether or 

not we have got the resources to do the job that we think needs 

to be done. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, Senator Voinovich. Thank you. 

We will do another round here. Ambassador, the 2007 State Department IG report discusses a shortage of mid-level Foreign Service officers. However, only FSOs are hired as entry-level officers. 

This could affect the Foreign Service, of course, for years to come. 

How do you plan to address the immediate and long-term issues of 

a shortage in current mid-career officers? 

Ambassador THOMAS. In two ways, sir. We believe that our current promotion statistics will erase that mid-level deficit by 2010. 

We also will continue to recruit robustly. We believe that it is essential that we, along with the military, remain the up-or-out systems, where you have to come in as a junior officer, learn the art 

of diplomacy, take the same training, work the same jobs, and then 

manage and supervise your way up the chain. That is the most effective way and that is what we plan to continue to do, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Ambassador, of the Foreign Service generalist 

positions, public diplomacy is understaffed and underfunded. 

Changing the perception of Americans, especially in the Middle 

East, is critical to our national security. There are many inexpensive ways of reaching out to the younger generation of people 

through the Internet and news media. What training are you providing on the use of news media, technology, in support of public 

diplomacy? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, the R Bureau, which is responsible for 

public diplomacy, and the Foreign Service Institute have many 

training programs at all levels for people in public diplomacy, not 

only in speeches, but in how to interact with different organizations. We have plenty of programs, sir. We have cultural programs 

at our missions. We take advantage of technology. We use 

Facebook, we use the Internet to advertise, to push our message. 

We use pop-up technology, all these things that we find the rest of 

the world familiar with. 

But we also do our traditional cultural programs where we bring 

music groups. We have jazz ambassadors. We have Kennedy Center cultural programs that we bring overseas. We also bring people 

to America, exchange programs. We are very excited that we have 

17 

brought people not only from Iraq, but from Iran—wrestlers and 

weight lifters from Iran. We have brought poets from Iraq to America. So we have a very robust two-way program. Clearly, the needs 

are great and there are more things we could do and we have to 

take better advantage of technology because these cultural programs are very expensive. 

Senator AKAKA. While you all have indicated that you have plenty of applicants to the Foreign Service, I have many concerns about 

the recruitment and hiring process for Civil Service servants. 

Ambassador THOMAS. OK. 

Senator AKAKA. Agencies often aren’t using news media technology, such as social networking websites, to maximize the potential to find the right applicants. What are you doing to attract the 

most qualified candidates for Civil Service positions? 

Ambassador THOMAS. We do some of the same things we do for 

the Foreign Service, sir. We have a very robust website at careers.state.gov. This summer, we are having an intern summit. We 

are asking all of our interns who would like to take the Foreign 

Service exam to take that. For the first time, we are going to be 

tracking our interns, something we did not do before. And again, 

we have diplomats in residences at our colleges and universities. 

We work closely with organizations, fraternities, sororities, and 

professional organizations, to recruit the broadest part of America. 

Senator AKAKA. This is my final question, Ambassador. After you 

have found the right candidates, too often the hiring process requires candidates to fill out more information than should be required for an initial screening. This issue came up in one of the 

Subcommittee’s hearings in May on recruiting Federal workers, 

and this deters highly qualified applicants. What are you doing to 

reform the hiring process so it is more streamlined and candidatefriendly? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, sir, we agree with that assessment 

and we have done something about it. We looked at the biography 

part of the Foreign Service exam. It was taking some people two 

to eight hours to fill out. This was a new exam, and we heard some 

criticism of it. We tried something new and we found out that it 

was taking people too long and it was discovered and we decided 

to shorten it. So we are shortening the biography part of it. 

But I would like to point out, when we wanted to shorten the registration to just a post card, it would have cost us over $1 million to do that in terms of contracting, in terms of the Federal 

Paper Reduction Act and other issues. So we had to only spend 

about $200,000 to shorten it and we will seek funds in the future 

to streamline it even further. 

Senator AKAKA. I said that was my final question, but let me ask 

one more question. I want to go back to the issue of transition, 

which I began with. 

Ambassador THOMAS. OK. 

Senator AKAKA. What are your top three recommendations for 

the next Administration as they look at human capital issues within the State Department? 

Ambassador THOMAS. I would ask the new Administration to 

give us sufficient funds to enable us to hire talented Civil Service 

and Foreign Service employees and to retain locally-employed staff. 

18 

Our locally-employed staff around the world are the institutional 

backbone of our embassies, and because of FOREX exchange losses 

and increased opportunities that they have that they did not have 

in previous years, some of the most talented ones are starting to 

leave us. I would also ask for more funds for technology to enable 

every employee to have a FOB, a Blackberry, or a laptop, which 

would make them much more efficient. 

And I would ask for some type of consideration that will allow 

us to have more flexibility with the Civil Service. Foreign Service 

has rank in personnel, which works very well. Civil Service, we 

really need some kind of pilot program so that we can retain the 

best and the brightest so they will not feel stifled and that they can 

get fairly rapid promotions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator 

Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I understand that in your testimony, you 

mention that the Department is pursuing ways to ‘‘take care of locally-employed staff.’’ 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Could you give me some examples of the 

steps the Department is taking? Are you running into any difficulties in terms of getting locally-employed people to come to work for 

the State Department? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, one of the ways we are looking at assisting local-employed staff is through a brand new voluntary retirement scheme that would allow us to have a voluntary retirement scheme for locally-employed staff worldwide where it would 

be like a Thrift Savings Plan ‘‘lite’’, where they would put some of 

their funds in. The U.S. Government would not match it, but they 

would put it in a very well-known investment house. That will 

help, because what we have is some countries where people have 

pension plans that they can’t trust or other countries where inflation or foreign exchange is hurting people, and we don’t want people to live in penury after years of dedication to the U.S. Government. So that is one of the things—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. But it is a separate pension system? In other 

words, they live in the country and they are part of that country’s 

pension system, and what you are saying is that in some instances, 

they are a little bit leery of their own governments: You are saying 

to enhance the attractiveness of their coming to work for the State 

Department, that you would offer them a retention incentive. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, and to retain them. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Ambassador THOMAS. And to retain them. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Recommitment and retention are key factors. As an example, I have a very good friend and very talented 

young lady and I thought she was going to go to the embassy and 

she decided instead to go to the E.U. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How about integrating civil servants into 

overseas posts? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, right now, we have civil servants, sir. 

We have approximately 200 Civil Service personnel working overseas. Our agreement with the American Foreign Service AssociaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
19 

tion is about 50 Civil Service personnel each year go overseas to 

jobs that Foreign Service officers, for whatever reason, are unable 

to fulfill, and we find that this is remarkable. It allows the Civil 

Service personnel to broaden their skills or obtain language skills. 

Some of them decide they would like to enter the Foreign Service 

and take the examination. Others decide they would like to come 

back to their jobs, and we encourage that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How long is their tour? 

Ambassador THOMAS. It depends where they go, sir. Some posts, 

1 year. Others, 2 years. As I said earlier, sir, my mentee, who 

wanted to go overseas this year, when he first started looking, all 

of the civil servants for the posts he was looking at were extending 

because they liked the work, the challenge of the work that they 

were doing. So this is something that we very much—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. But there is some option to those people that 

are there, you give them like a year, and if they want, they can 

re-up for another year? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I have always thought that many don’t 

want to be away from their families for that long. In many instances, they do have their families with them. It just seems that 

sometimes people just get to know the culture and key folks. It is 

time for them to move on. Does the Department ever look at the 

situation in which these individuals find themselves and say, based 

on the circumstances in the country, etc., that rather than sticking 

to the 3-year rotation, that we will allow them to stay for another 

year because of—— 

Ambassador THOMAS. Sure. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. The importance of the post? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, we do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I was just thinking that so many of our slots 

are filled with political ambassadors. They are only there for a 

short time and then they all have to submit their resignations with 

the change in Administration. 

Ambassador THOMAS. All ambassadors, sir, submit their resignation at the election—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Ambassador THOMAS [continuing]. And then it is up to the new 

President to accept or reject career or political. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have any statistics on how long they 

can remain in their posts? 

Ambassador THOMAS. It is up to the new Administration, sir. 

What has happened with Secretary Albright and Secretary Powell, 

they did not—some people chose to leave on January 21. Others 

said, I have a kid in school or I have a medical need or I am negotiating something. Can I stay 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, and each 

Secretary made the decision by him or herself, and I suspect that 

probably would happen again in the future. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Even with somebody who has been there— 

that is a member of the Foreign Service who has been there for a 

year and they would say goodbye? 

Ambassador THOMAS. Well, sir, again, it is up to the President 

and the Secretary of State. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What is the custom? 

20 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Naland appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

Ambassador THOMAS. The custom with the Foreign Service has 

been, a career officer, is that they are allowed to stay on average 

3 years. This is something that Secretary Shultz put in place and 

subsequent Presidents have followed pretty much. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That is good. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

I want to thank our witnesses, Ambassador Thomas and Ms. 

Taglialatela, for your responses and to tell you that it will be helpful to us. As you can tell, we are trying to get information to help 

us with the decisions we need to do here. So again, thank you very 

much for being here. 

Ambassador THOMAS. Thank you both for your questions and 

your support, and I promise that we will endeavor to get the answers to your questions sooner. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Now, I would like to invite the second panel to come to the desk. 

We have John Naland, President, American Foreign Service Association. We also have Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, President, 

American Academy of Diplomacy. 

As you know, our Subcommittee rules require that all witnesses 

testify under oath, so I ask you to please rise and raise your right 

hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. NALAND. I do. 

Mr. NEUMANN. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Let the record note that 

the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

I just want to remind you that your full written statements will 

be included in the record. Mr. Naland, will you please begin with 

your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN NALAND,1 PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. NALAND. Sir, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Voinovich, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) welcomes this opportunity to speak on the subject of the Department 

of State’s human capital crisis. Our Nation’s career diplomats are 

grateful to you for convening this hearing. 

The title that you selected for today’s hearing could not be more 

accurate. As America prepares to hand over unprecedented foreign 

challenges to a new President, our Nation’s lead foreign affairs 

agency is hobbled by a human capital crisis. My written testimony 

documents many of these problems. They include approximately 12 

percent of overseas Foreign Service positions are now vacant. Approximately 19 percent of mid-level positions are held by employees 

stretched into those jobs. Many positions are held by people lacking 

necessary language proficiency. 

21 

Diplomats continue to be shortchanged when it comes to training, especially long-term professional training. As a result, today’s 

Foreign Service does not have to a sufficient degree the knowledge, 

skills, abilities, and outlooks needed for 21st Century diplomacy. 

Because our Nation has underfunded diplomatic engagement 

while building up military muscle, the overstretched U.S. military 

has increasingly taken on tasks once assigned to our diplomats and 

development professionals. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave 

another outstanding speech just yesterday warning of this trend, 

and I really commend that speech to you, sir. 

The work of diplomacy is becoming increasingly dangerous. Since 

2001, the number of unaccompanied positions has quadrupled to 

over 900. The Foreign Service is facing an unprecedented operational tempo. Over half of the Foreign Service has served at a 

hardship post in the last 5 years. Over 30 percent has served in 

an unaccompanied position in the last 5 years. Over 20 percent has 

served in war zone Iraq or Afghanistan. With two-thirds of the Foreign Service forward deployed overseas and two-thirds of them 

serving in hardship posts, there is no remaining bench strength 

with which to staff future new contingencies. 

I have to disagree with the Director General. In my view, morale 

in the Foreign Service has declined. Inadequate staffing, insufficient budgets, and poor management have left the Foreign Service 

a career out of balance. Many employees have concluded that their 

loyalty has been a one-way street, as their employer has not reciprocated with needed resources and benefits. These harmful trends 

have been accumulating for a number of years. Unfortunately, little 

has been done to ameliorate them. 

The Bush Administration dramatically increased Foreign Service 

staffing demands without taking decisive action to increase personnel. While AFSA strongly endorses the Administration’s fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for over 1,000 additional employees, we 

regret that the Administration waited until its final year in office 

to seek these long-needed staffing resources. 

For its part, in all honesty, sir, Congress did not even fund the 

Administration’s inadequate fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2008 

budget requests, which sought to add an additional 760 State Department positions. Again, while AFSA lauds Congress for including some funding for new positions in the recent Iraq supplemental, much more is needed. 

Congress has yet to correct the growing inequity in the Foreign 

Service pay schedule. Due to the exclusion of overseas Foreign 

Service members from receiving the locality pay adjustment given 

to other employees, junior and mid-level employees take a 20.89 

percent cut in base pay when transferring abroad. 

As a result of these factors, the next Secretary of State will inherit a human capital management system that is in crisis and a 

Foreign Service that is at a tipping point. This will saddle the next 

Administration with serious logistical constraints when implementing their foreign policy initiatives. Thus, now is the time to 

address these urgent human capital needs. The next President will 

want a strong diplomatic corps to work hand-in-hand with our 

strong military. Delaying sending in diplomatic reinforcements 

would reduce the new President’s flexibility in crafting a foreign 

22 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Boyatt submitted by Mr. Neumann appears in the Appendix 

on page 48. 

policy. Thus, I urge timely passage of the full pending fiscal year 

2009 budget request for the State Department and U.S. AID. 

To sum up, it is vital to reverse years of underinvestment in Foreign Service staffing and training. Today’s Foreign Service is too 

small and lacks the proper mix of skills, knowledge, and abilities. 

We need a grand bargain that couples the significant expansion of 

the Foreign Service with a strengthening of the professional development system. The Foreign Service needs a 15 percent training 

complement like that afforded to the military. Also like the military, we need benchmarks for required career-long training to ensure that we receive preparation needed to be effective agents of 

foreign policy development. 

Thank you again for holding this timely hearing and I would be 

happy to answer questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Naland. Ambassador 

Neumann. 

TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR RONALD E. NEUMANN (RET.), 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DIPLOMACY 

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, thank you for 

inviting me today to replace my colleague, Ambassador Tom 

Boyatt. You have his full statement and I would request that it be 

entered in the record.1

I would like to make a few oral remarks. Simply put, the Secretary of State lacks the tools, people, competencies, program, and 

funding to meet U.S. foreign policy demands effectively. 

To examine this problem, the American Academy of Diplomacy 

joined the practical background of many with government experience with the budget expertise of the Henry L. Stimson Center. We 

are grateful, Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich, that you have 

agreed to work with us. Essentially, this is a study to match resources with known requirements for all parts of the Function 150 

account under the authority of the Secretary of State. We are looking at four broad areas: Core diplomacy, developmental diplomacy, 

public diplomacy, and crisis response. We have also looked at authority shortfalls. 

The problems are longstanding, growing over many years and 

Administrations to a magnitude that now threatens the successful 

conduct of diplomacy. Let me note just a few examples. 

In Afghanistan, where you know I served until last year, our Provincial Reconstruction Teams have each one State Department and 

one U.S. AID officer. With the best luck with rotations, we will only 

cover this need 10 months out of every 12. Two months out of every 

12, we will be gapped, and that is our best. 

U.S. AID lacks the contracting officers and supervision to flexibly 

manage its work. Since 1990, we have expanded the assistance 

budget 60 percent and reduced the workforce by about one-third. 

Is it any wonder that supervision is lacking and contractor problems dominate the headlines? And the world has changed. NGOs, 

multilateral organizations, and businesses all play a more promiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Jun 17, 2009 Jkt 044126 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44126.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
23 

nent role in foreign affairs, but we have not staffed to deal adequately with these actors. 

We have no reserve in personnel or budgets to deal with crisis. 

We pay a serious opportunity cost in time lost as we struggle to 

reprogram funds, enact supplementals, and scrounge staff. The 

staff we grab for crises, leave great gaps behind, work undone. 

Funds come too late for initial impact, when we could do the most 

good. And we pay for this in our performance in crises and elsewhere as we pay for the lack of proper advance training. 

For these reasons and on the basis of our study, we will endorse 

the State Department’s request for additional State Department 

and U.S. AID personnel and for a crisis fund. We fully support passage of a Civilian Response Readiness Corps, S. 613, that has already passed the House. 

Because our study looks further, 5 years, than a single budget, 

we call for more. These changes need to be part of the base budget 

because the needs are continuing. We call for a rebalancing of the 

remilitarization of diplomatic and development functions, the same 

issue to which Secretary Gates spoke yesterday. I have a copy, by 

the way, if your staff needs it, of his speech. This is not an issue 

of protecting bureaucratic turf. Rather, it recognizes that putting 

everything on the military detracts from their prime war fighting 

mission. 

And second, the military lacks the ability to couple short-term response with long-term development. They can build a school quickly, but they cannot get the support for that school into the national 

education program. They can outperform U.S. AID in building a 

generator for a small city in Afghanistan, but they cannot integrate 

it into a national grid or long-term development of revenue collection to keep it functioning. There is room for everyone, but the civilians need the resources and authorities to hold up their end. 

Our precise recommendations are still in review, but I can give 

you a general sense of where we are coming out. We believe that 

there will be a need for about 1,250 additional personnel each for 

core diplomacy, for U.S. AID, and for training. We will have precise 

recommendations in the early fall, and I hope we will be able to 

review them with you in detail. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, the next Administration of 

whatever composition will have to deal with multiple problems, 

from terrorism to globalization, environmental degradation, and 

failed states. Opportunities also abound, from nonproliferation to 

improving financial systems and systems in the reach of law. These 

critical challenges and opportunities can only be met effectively 

through a significantly more robust capacity that features skilled 

diplomats and foreign assistance professionals. 

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to respond to 

your questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

You heard the State Department’s response to our questions and 

I just want to ask you both, do you have any comments on their 

responses? Mr. Naland. 

Mr. NALAND. Well, sir, as representatives of the Administration, 

the Department’s spokesmen, spokespeople, need to toe the line, 

toe the Administration line, so they can only go as far as the Office 

24 

of Management and Budget has approved. And so the Director 

General, because there is a robust fiscal year 2009 request out 

there, he was able to speak to that, but I don’t think he is in a position to go much more beyond that, whereas we—I, representing 

the union, and Ambassador Neumann, as a retired ambassador— 

are more free. 

So I would say that the Department’s spokesmen painted a rosy 

picture, but that is kind of his requirement, I believe. So I would 

paint it not so rosy. 

Senator AKAKA. Ambassador Neumann. 

Mr. NEUMANN. Thank you. I am not sure if this is a disagreement—I don’t actually think so—with Director General Thomas. I 

think the bottom line to the question you asked him at one point 

is they do not have enough. They are asking for more, and if the 

2009 budget were funded, they would be in a better position. But 

I would—and again, I think this is not disagreement—I would underline that means we will be in a better position in 2010 or 2011, 

after you take the money of 2009 and you hire the people and you 

train them and you begin to deploy them into the field. 

We are in bad shape and we have to recognize that with the best 

plans now, including what the Department is asking for, and your 

response, we have serious time lags that we will continue to pay 

for, and the time lag question is one that—I think perhaps if you 

permit me to just take another minute—we need to focus on more 

because I think Washington is sort of a policy town. When we have 

made a policy decision, there is a sense of action completed, and 

we often don’t focus on how long it takes. 

I was very aware of this in Afghanistan, where, for one example, 

the Administration made a correct decision in 2006 to ask for a 

large budget in 2007, in the supplemental. That goes up in February, is voted on in the summer. Funds get out in the fall. By the 

time you do engineering studies, say, for a road, winter is setting 

in and you turn dirt in 2008 for a decision you made in 2006, and 

that is a long time in the middle of a war. 

When we do not keep personnel costs in balance and when we 

do not keep the flow of people and of training and resources moving 

steadily, then we have that same kind of price to pay in our personnel and in our effectiveness and the same inability to speed it 

up. So that is my biggest concern. 

I did hear, I think it was Senator Voinovich, asking about length 

of tours. I strongly believe that there are certain places where we 

need to keep people much longer. Not everyone every place. There 

are prices to be paid in family and welfare, and some of these jobs, 

of course, you can get a little hurt in. But we paid a terrible price 

for effectively having an institutional frontal lobotomy once a year 

in the Embassy of Afghanistan. We turn everybody over. Now, you 

have some very dedicated people who offset that, my colleague, 

Ambassador Ford, who is going back to Baghdad this summer for 

the third year. I had people in my embassy who had been in Afghanistan for several years who stayed. But there are very few and 

it takes a long time to build up the competence. Not everybody 

needs to be there, but you can’t all go dumb at the end of the year. 

That, I think, is more than enough. Thank you, sir. 

25 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Naland, to be more specific, the 

State Department talked about using Civil Service personnel to fill 

FSO billets. What do you think about that? 

Mr. NALAND. Well, sir, that program has been around a long 

time. I have served at overseas posts where Civil Service employees 

were filling in and it has worked very well. The concern I have is 

if you get a much more expanded program or if you start targeting 

the counselor section or the deputy chief of mission, that is when 

you start putting in Civil Service employees who don’t have the 

overseas experience in a position that I think you really need experienced people. And then you take away that opportunity from a 

Foreign Service member who is, one, in an up-or-out system, and 

two, who hopefully you are preparing to be a deputy chief of mission or ambassador. 

So I completely understand the value of having Civil Service employees who are in Washington working on foreign policy to have 

an overseas experience so they can see it operating on the ground, 

but there has to be a balance, and if you start flooding overseas 

posts with Civil Service employees who don’t have the experience 

and if you put them at an upper or mid-level position, then you are 

taking those developmental opportunities from the Foreign Service, 

which the Congress, in the Rogers Act of 1924, said that the Foreign Service is the main group of people who are going to be doing 

this stuff. 

So I understand the need and the interest in giving Civil Service 

employees more of a rounding over there, but you need to carefully 

balance the fact that the Congress has created a Foreign Service 

as a separate system to have the brunt of these responsibilities 

overseas. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Naland, you heard how the State Department plans to invest part of the funds appropriated from the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal years 2008 and 

2009. How much of the $45 million in funding for staffing resources 

do you believe needs to be invested in the training and professional 

development of current employees versus the hiring and training of 

future employees? 

Mr. NALAND. Sir, there is no one more in favor of training than 

I am, but the situation the Department faces right now are these 

gaping gaps overseas. The Director General said it was 200. I had 

heard that it was a higher percentage. But if he says the money 

that has been appropriated will hire 140, those 140 need to be 

hired tomorrow and put in the orientation training and the consular training and the other training and then they just need to go 

straight out to posts to fill these positions that are unstaffed. 

I think it will be the 2009 budget, and the American Academy 

of Diplomacy project, I think, will document this. Once, if the Congress does appropriate more, higher numbers, and I am talking the 

1,076 that the Administration is requesting, once you get those 

numbers appropriated, then you can start building in the training 

complement that Secretary Powell wanted to build, but he started 

and then it went to Iraq. 

So now it is an urgent need to get those new positions out overseas doing the jobs, unfortunately. But as more funding is appropriated, if it is, new positions above that hopefully will go into 

26 

training because as my testimony states, I think we do need a 

Goldwater-Nichols II kind of thing. 

I had the opportunity to go to the Army War College. I had the 

opportunity to work in industry. But that is rare for a Foreign 

Service officer. I think all of my colleagues need to have at an NGO 

or Homeland Security or the Department of Defense or CIA—and 

all of my colleagues need to attend some kind of service college. 

The State Department used to have its own senior seminar, but we 

abolished that. So there is no one more in favor of training than 

I am, but I just don’t think we can do that right now until a lot 

more positions are provided. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We are going to be anxious to get the reports 

from the Academy, Ambassador Neumann. It seemed that when 

Secretary Powell came on board and brought Dick Armitage with 

him, that there was a shift in the management of the State Department, and that somebody was paying attention to the people employed by the State Department and the human capital challenges. 

Then he was replaced by Secretary of State Rice. I will never forget that when they suggested Zoellick for that job, I was quite concerned because I didn’t really think that Zoellick should have that 

job. I didn’t think that management was his forte. And then he left 

and we had Henrietta Fore, and now we have Mr. Kennedy, who 

everyone says is kind of good. 

Are any of these reports going to come back with recommendations on what the relationship with the Secretary should be and 

where human capital ought to be in terms of its priority in the Department? Senator Akaka and I started out when human capital 

was given little consideration here. Now we have the Chief Human 

Capital Officers Council that meets together. I would be interested 

in your comments about perhaps a job description for the person 

that should have that responsibility and what the relationship 

should be. 

I just think that in spite of Secretary Rice’s conscientious focus 

that we have really fallen down in the last several years. I am concerned that morale is really low. The question is whether or not 

folks are going to stick around until the next group comes in to find 

out whether or not things are going to get any better. But I would 

be interested in your comments, both of you, for that matter. 

Mr. NEUMANN. Did you want me to start? 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. NEUMANN. I spent 37 years in the Foreign Service and I 

have often thought that there must have been some really golden 

age of morale, because in 37 years, I think I heard every year that 

morale was lower than it had ever been before. So it must have 

started very high, indeed. [Laughter.] 

That said, I would say, first of all, in answer to your particular 

question, there is nothing in the reports we are now working on 

which goes directly to what you asked about, that is creating this 

sense of downward loyalty and respect. I think that is an important 

question, but it is not the question of numbers and direct fiscal resources and personnel which we have focused the report on. 

My own observation—Mr. Naland will have his—is that this is 

an area in which the Department has not been good throughout my 

27 

career. When I was an Army officer, an infantry officer, we were 

very keen on the idea that loyalty had to be a two-way street. You 

had to have loyalty down in order to get loyalty up to get esprit. 

I don’t think Secretary Rice is particularly bad. I think she does 

care about people. But I think the Powell-Armitage period, coming 

with their military background, was a particular blip. That was the 

outlier. It was a good outlier, but that was the outlier of the system. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It would be interesting to look at the management style and what they did and why was there receptivity to 

their plans. 

Mr. NEUMANN. Because people felt like they cared about them. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What are the things that they did that—it 

is an intangible to a degree, that may help the next Secretary of 

State improve morale, or in the alternative, maybe even have 

something put together for the next President in terms of the kind 

of person that they should be looking for to hold the Under Secretary for Management port. We must address the problem of low 

morale, given the number of State Department employees that can 

retire tomorrow. 

Mr. NEUMANN. So far, they are not. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. NEUMANN. I mean, up until now, cross my fingers, knock on 

wood, but the attrition rates are staying pretty close to historical 

norms. I think Mr. Naland has noted that there is a little blip, but 

it is not clear if it is changing. 

I do think, sir—I agree with you, but I think it has to go much 

deeper. I think we are talking about an institutional culture. We 

have to have a series of Secretaries and a series of leaders who 

demonstrate by their own action that they are fighting for their 

people, they are fighting for their budget, and they are fighting for 

their welfare. And that has to be replicated all the way down. 

We have not particularly taught that, nor have our officers necessarily exercised the kind of leadership that they complain about 

not getting from their superiors. And I have known for 30 years 

secretaries who felt they didn’t get enough respect from junior officers, which suggests to me that they are not treating their subordinates any better than the folks on top are treating them. We have 

to work on the entire culture up and down the chain if we are to 

really change that part, but at the end of the day, it begins at the 

top with leadership. 

I hope that isn’t too long of an answer to say, yes, I agree. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it would be welcome if there was some 

evaluation of what some of the ingredients that should be present 

for this to occur. I mean, I know when I was governor, we trained 

56,000 people in Total Quality Management. I went to school for 

a week with my labor leaders. I made it a top priority. Frankly 

speaking, one of the biggest problems I had was with middle management because they had grown up in a system where they were 

told what to do and then they got there and they figured, now it 

is my turn to dish it out. So we had to break that. 

But maybe that is an approach that could be used. I think it is, 

again, intangible, but I think it is one that, if identified, can be addressed. 

28 

The other thing that I am interested in is that we have a new 

enemy out there today that is a little different than what we have 

had before. It is Islamic extremists, religious fanatics that have hijacked the Koran and persuading people that the way to heaven is 

jihad. 

Would either one of you want to comment about how this has 

placed a different dimension on the State Department in terms of 

its relationship with the Defense Department? I have Secretary 

Gates’ speech here and I will read it. Would either one of you want 

to comment on this? Is this something new that needs to be taken 

into consideration in terms of how we deploy people and what we 

ask them to do? 

Mr. NALAND. Well, sir, my next assignment is to Forward Operating Base War Horse in Baquha of Diala Province in Iraq, and it 

is the first time I will have led a Provincial Reconstruction Team, 

I can tell you that. So the Foreign Service has changed dramatically. We have 900 unaccompanied positions, which is—if you think 

of DOD, 900 sounds like a teeny number, but for the Foreign Service, it is a huge number. So the Foreign Service career has changed 

dramatically, and so we are working more with the military. 

As Secretary Gates has said, the military has taken on tasks 

that they really shouldn’t be doing. A general once said, don’t 

equate enthusiasm with capability. The gung ho—and I was an 

Army officer. The Army will try anything if there is a vacuum, but 

there shouldn’t be that vacuum. The Foreign Service should have 

the strength and the training, not just point us there and say, go 

do it, but give us the training. 

So the world has changed. It is more dangerous for the Foreign 

Service. We had a consulate in Turkey attacked last week. And 

that raises a whole other issue of the kind of embassies we are 

building around the world and where are they and risk management as opposed to risk avoidance. So the Foreign Service is a 

risky occupation and that is just the way it is. As long as the Congress appropriates funds for embassy security and we hopefully 

build reasonably secure embassies from which we can do our job, 

not just sitting on some mountaintop, the Foreign Service will be 

out there, will be working with the military, and I am sure Ambassador Neumann could—— 

Mr. NEUMANN. I seem to have a certain talent for picking the 

kind of places you were talking about, Senator Voinovich, since I 

was ambassador in Algeria where there was a blanket death threat 

to all foreigners and about 16 months in Baghdad before going to 

Kabul. I have served also in Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, Iran before 

the revolution, and Yemen. 

I think there are two different kinds of challenges that are coming. One is specifically with the military interaction. The other is 

more generally in the Muslim world. On the military, I think what 

you are seeing is, first of all, we are operating jointly at a much 

lower level than we have ever done before, and that is putting a 

strain on the military, as well, because even though they are far 

more geared to the idea of joint training and training their people 

for joint work, that traditionally was something that began at the 

lieutenant colonel, upper lieutenant colonel level, and colonel level. 

Now you have all these PRTs run by lieutenant colonels who have 

29 

never had joint experience themselves, with mid-level State Department officers who have had no training in jointness. 

This goes back to, again, the need that Mr. Naland and our report are flagging for training. I have been giving lectures at Fort 

Leavenworth at the Command General Staff College. They are 

avidly seeking State officers to participate in their training. That 

training has been substantially re-geared since I was an officer 

many years ago. It is now much broader in concept. They are very 

aware of the need for this jointness. But they can’t get the civilians 

to play because there are no civilians to send. So we need more of 

the training. 

The other is the civilians do not have the resources in personnel 

and in authorities to hold up their end. It is causing a lot of frustration in our military colleagues and you get a lot of finger pointing back and forth. There are a lot of reasons for that. I won’t take 

your time today. But there is an authority gap at the middle. We 

are very focused on policy, somewhat on resources. We are not producing the changes in the ability to handle, what I would call the 

operational level overseas. I think this is a significant issue in Afghanistan. 

More broadly outside the military, we are suffering from the absence of people who can hold their own in public discussion in Arabic. We have all the staffing gaps, things we talked about, but Arab 

countries are very oral and personal and we get a lot more out of 

the person who can engage in a smaller forum directly because of 

the ripples that spreads. It is very counter intuitive for Americans. 

We are very focused on electronic media, what gives you the most 

hits, Internet sites. These things have very little credibility in the 

Arab world. Much more credibility is gained by the individual who 

can make an effective back-and-forth with people, and we have 

very few personnel with the language level. 

We have a lot of people intellectually who can do it, very few 

with the language level to be able to actually interact in that way. 

I think if we had 100 people who spoke really top-flight Arabic, we 

would get five times more out of them than we would get out of 

any amount you could put into television and broadcasting. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am sorry, Senator. I took much more time 

than I was alloted. 

Mr. NEUMANN. I am sorry for such a long answer, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That is fine. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Ambassador Neumann, in your testimony, you mentioned the 

need to fill all current vacancies and increase staffing by over 3,000 

positions. However, the State Department only hires FSOs into 

entry-level positions. It will take years before these employees have 

the experience required for mid-level supervision, and you mentioned that in your responses it takes time before they are finally 

in service. How would you recommend the State Department address the current shortfall in staffing? 

Mr. NEUMANN. I do think we should meet it as the Director General has said, as the Ambassador has testified. I do think we 

should move people up inside for a whole variety of reasons that 

have been mentioned. I think it is a problem, but when you look 

30 

back at the expansion of our armed forces in war, we are capable 

of moving people rapidly. 

I don’t know whether this question has been looked at already, 

what kind of accelerated training do we need to be designing now 

in order to put the people in place if we get the money and get the 

positions that we are asking for? I hope that we are already in the 

Director General’s Office of FSI thinking about how we are going 

to do internal rapid promotion to deal with expansion, what supplementary training are we going to have to do rather than just learning by having problems. I have not asked that question. It is certainly one worth looking at, and I suspect that we are going to 

have to have some authority to deal with some of the increased positions through temporary hiring, as U.S. AID is doing. 

U.S. AID for many years has not had the personnel it needs to 

run its jobs. It has done personal services contracts. We might look 

at some of that for key positions—well, key positions is a bad word, 

but for certain things to bridge a gap. It is not a good way to build 

a career service because you lose a lot of people you get in. They 

learn and you lose them. They walk out the door. 

But I think we should be looking at internal promotion. We get 

into a lot of other issues if we try to break out of that. But how 

do we do it most effectively? How do we have the foresight to run 

it and what steps do we look at to ameliorate the gaps between 

when we have the positions authorized and when we have built a 

full Foreign Service. 

Mr. NALAND. Sir, if you look at the Inspector General’s report, 

the September 2007 volume, there is an Appendix A that has a 

chart, and Director General Thomas, I believe, referred to this, 

showing how the existing mid-level deficits will be closed in approximately a year and a half through normal promotion from 

within. 

Mr. NEUMANN. Not if you are taking them for training. 

Mr. NALAND. Not if you are taking them for training. So the existing gaps with continued hiring and attrition will be closed 

through training—I mean, through promotions. If there are large 

numbers coming in, which we obviously recommend, I am sure that 

Congress would phase that in, and so it might take 4 or 5 years 

for the full number to be phased in, and then you might have to 

wait 5 years to have the mid-level training course that the Foreign 

Service doesn’t have but all the uniformed services do. So it might 

take a little while, but by the second term of the next President 

or the first term of the President after that, it will be taken care 

of. 

Senator AKAKA. You both have backgrounds in the Foreign Service. What is your perspective on the Civil Service and the interaction between the two services? Mr. Naland. 

Mr. NALAND. Well, sir, I represent the Foreign Service, so I 

speak from that perspective. There has been—and Secretary Powell 

very much tried to get past this rivalry. There has been a rivalry 

between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. I am not an expert on the Civil Service system. You all are much more experts 

than I am, but the Foreign Service system makes a lot of sense to 

me. It is a rank in person position. You can move around to different jobs and you don’t take a pay cut, unless you go overseas, 

31 

but that is another issue. Whereas the Civil Service, you are what 

your position is and it is a much more rigid system. 

So I think, as maybe Linda Taglialatela or maybe the Director 

General was saying, more work needs to be done on reforming the 

Civil Service to give them some more opportunities, and if they 

weren’t in such a straightjacket, then they wouldn’t feel so envious 

sometimes of the Foreign Service. 

So some reform is needed, I certainly agree to that. But again, 

I go back to the Rogers Act of 1924 that said we need a Foreign 

Service to do the Foreign Service thing. So there is going to be 

some crossover there, but if the Civil Service just floods into the 

Foreign Service, then it would destroy the Foreign Service. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Ambassador, do you have any comments 

about that? 

Mr. NEUMANN. I fundamentally agree. I mean, I have more of the 

overseas perspective because most of my domestic jobs have not 

had a lot of Civil Service contact, so I don’t want to speak to things 

you know more about than I do, sir. From the overseas position, 

I have been enormously grateful to very dedicated civil servants 

who have come out on volunteer tours and worked in my section 

in Baghdad and my embassies in Kabul and Bahrain. They have 

been vital to us. 

I favor a flexibility at the margin for both services. I would not 

favor taking away the Foreign Service, or for that matter, trying 

to shoehorn a great many people who want a certain amount of stability in their lives into accepting the requirements for regular 

movement. Remember, under normal practices with the five/eights 

rule, a Foreign Service officer has very limited time back in Washington and then you have to get yourself back overseas, often to a 

difficult job. 

If we were to deal with some much larger merger, you would either impose a great many demands on the Civil Service, which people did not sign up for, or you would have to make a great many 

exceptions. I think this simply takes a limited number of problems 

that we have now, which we are beginning to get a sense of how 

to fix, and gives us a whole shovelful of additional problems that 

we have no idea how to cope with. So I would stay away from that 

one. 

Senator AKAKA. Following his questions, I will ask my final questions. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Would either one of you want to comment on 

the problems that you have experienced over the years because of 

continuing resolutions and how they have impacted your operations? The reason I am asking this question is I am trying to put 

together a paper right now on the downside of continuing resolutions in terms of the management of our Federal Government, and 

in some instances, it now contributes to the spending of a lot of 

money that probably wouldn’t have to be spent if we managed our 

government the way we were supposed to. 

Mr. NEUMANN. I would comment a little bit. Obviously, I think 

one should be careful not to attribute to the continuing resolution 

problems which are inherent in year-by-year appropriations. You 

don’t know when you are in the field what your final number is 

until you have a final number. That is true of both. 

32 

The continuing resolution, though, has, at least in my experience—let me just focus on Afghanistan—two particular problems, 

one which is worldwide. That is it does not make any allowance for 

major changes in circumstances from the previous year, like inflation, so that in effect, a continuing resolution may be a resolution 

to decrease the effective budget. 

Second, it makes it very difficult to tell where you are going, so 

that, for instance, one planning example that goes to, I think, the 

question you asked, sir, we were dealing with trying to lay out 

what we would do with the 2007 supplemental, which had not yet 

been voted on, and with the proposed 2008 supplemental and how 

to cross-level programs between them so that we—for instance, you 

would use some money to do an engineering study so that by the 

time you got the next appropriation, you would be ready to move 

and build a road rather than starting a whole process in that 

project. 

When the decision was made to do a continuing resolution for 

2007, that effectively required us to relook at three budget years 

in order to redo that cross-leveling process, because we were going 

to be, I think, if I remember right, about $150 million lower by virtue of continuing resolution than we had expected to be in a new 

appropriation, which seemed to have fairly broad support. 

Now, that wouldn’t always be true in every country, where you 

wouldn’t necessarily know or have the same level of support, but 

in that case, it did slow us down and require a pretty considerable 

expenditure of effort to try to figure out, if you couldn’t do the 

things you were going to do, which pieces would you do where and 

how would you move them around. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Over the years, I have been involved with 

pay-for-performance in the Senior Executive Service. I can remember being in an embassy 4 or 5 years ago where I was having dinner and talked about pay-for-performance and the wife of the ambassador said, ‘‘Well, here is the deal. You have five people who are 

OK. You have got five people that are a little better. And then you 

have got five of them that are really super-hitters and the fact is 

they all get kind of treated the same way.’’ Would either one of you 

want to comment on that in terms of management and rewards? 

Mr. NALAND. Well, sir, the Senior Foreign Service is now under 

pay-for-performance—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. NALAND [continuing]. And the pay increase that the Congress voted for last year was apportioned according to a pay-forperformance-graded schedule and the top performers, as judged by 

their promotion selection boards, got a higher increase than the 

people in the middle and the people in the lower end. I am not Senior Foreign Service myself, but my understanding is that it has 

been implemented by the Department of State as intended and 

that not everyone got the same thing. It was the better performers 

who got—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. But what has the feedback been, good thing, 

bad thing, neutral? 

Mr. NALAND. Sir, I really couldn’t address that. There have been 

no complaints, I will put it that way. 

33 

Mr. NEUMANN. My overall sense is that it has worked reasonably 

well. It is much harder to do in the governmental environment 

than it is in a private business because you don’t have the bottom 

line of dollars and cents, which allows a much clearer determination in private business. So there is always going to be a subjective 

quality to pay-for-performance when you try to apply it to something like the Foreign Service. What is the bottom line that you are 

measuring? It becomes rather subjective. 

My sense overall is that in the Senior Foreign Service, it has 

worked reasonably well, probably not worth throwing out the baby 

with the bathwater, but I think you can make too much of a theoretical argument in favor of it given the problems of implementing 

it. 

I would be very dubious about trying to push it down into the 

system as a whole. That is only my personal prejudice. I think the 

redeeming element now is that you have the promotion panels 

making these judgments. If you get to the point where it is a supervisory judgment, the risk of politicizing the process would, I think, 

be very serious and I would have great reservations about it. But 

I have not studied it fully. It is my horseback judgment. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Akaka talked about the Civil Service and maybe expanding those assignments into some new areas. 

Do you think that we are managing the locally-hired people as we 

should? My gut tells me that if you have some locally-hired people 

and they are pretty good folks, that it is a pretty good public relations thing for the local embassy. 

I think we ought not to send any non-Foreign Service person or 

political appointee, to be an ambassador to a country where they 

don’t speak the foreign language. When you have people who know 

the language they have a real ability to do a whole lot of good. Do 

you think we are utilizing these people enough, or—— 

Mr. NEUMANN. No, I don’t. On the local employees, I think we 

could do better by them. Obviously, it is a question that has a lot 

of variation. When you are talking locally-engaged employees in 

London or Paris, you have quite a different situation. In developed 

countries, they usually have a national retirement scheme of some 

kind into which we, as an employer—my understanding is we also 

pay. I think that is correct. 

The biggest problem is in many countries where there is not an 

adequate scheme, if they are developing countries, or if there is, 

there is very little confidence that the law will actually be reflected 

in the reality. In those places, I believe we really ought to do a bit 

more. I am glad we are going to be prepared to invest their money 

for them, if I understood the Director General correctly, but our 

sole contribution, if I understood him, seemed to be that we would 

waive the brokerage fee. I think we should be a little more generous in terms of retirement contributions. I have not studied it. 

I certainly don’t want to pronounce for the Academy. 

There are limits to what we can do with locals. There are many 

countries in which they come under political pressures, under familial pressures that you also have to understand how far you can 

ask them to be fully loyal. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Right. 

34 

Mr. NEUMANN. But they do an awful lot for us. They make it possible for us to survive. I had employees in Afghanistan who worked 

two generations with the embassy, some of them who took care of 

the embassy in the many years when we had no Americans there. 

Some of them were tortured by the Communists and then by the 

Taliban for protecting our facilities or for presumed knowledge. 

One of them hid out for 3 days in the basement until the rockets 

let up so he could come out again. And they remained loyal all this 

time. We do extraordinarily little for those kind of people. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

My final question to both of you, if you had three recommendations you could make to this Administration in its last 6 months 

and also to the incoming Administration to address the human capital and management issues at the State Department, what would 

they be? 

Mr. NALAND. Sir, I guess I would focus on the next Administration. I would say that the next Administration, if they want a 

strong diplomacy, really need to come forward and ask for the resources for diplomacy. And they really need to look at the training 

issue. There is this feeling in the Foreign Service that we don’t 

need training, and I understand the Navy used to be like this, that 

if you weren’t at sea, you were wasting your time. And in the Foreign Service, there is sometimes a feeling that if you are not overseas, you are wasting your time. 

There needs to be this understanding that has gone through the 

military now after Goldwater-Nichols that you need training, and 

if the Congress has to put benchmarks that have to be followed, 

then yes. So I would say focus on training. 

And then the next Secretary, whether he or she wants to or not, 

needs to focus some time on these management issues. We have 

had extraordinary Secretaries like George Marshall, George Shultz, 

Colin Powell, who just did it naturally, but whoever the Secretary 

is, whether they want to or not, they really have to spend some 

time on these issues because when the Secretary does, then all of 

the people below him pay a lot of attention. And it is kind of like 

a university president. Whether they like to or not, they have to 

raise funds. They just can’t be a scholar. Well, the Secretaries, they 

can’t just be a policy wonk, has to focus on management. So those 

are the things that I would recommend. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Naland. Ambassador 

Neumann. 

Mr. NEUMANN. I had the benefit of being able to think a little 

while Mr. Naland had to jump into that question. I think the first 

thing is—and again, it really is the next Administration because 

the time is up for getting new resources. 

First, is to recognize that there must be a paradigm shift in the 

State Department budget, that it is really the national security 

budget. The things that need to be done in the magnitude that 

need to be done cannot be incorporated by percentage shifts on the 

margin of the existing base, and that requires an acceptance that 

they are not starting from the existing budget plus or minus 2 or 

3 percent. If they don’t do that, they will try to shoehorn, cram 

35 

things somehow, tease them out, and get a supplemental. None of 

those things will work. 

Second, I would say to the Secretary of State, you have to fight 

for the budget within the Administration. If you do not have acceptance from OMB that this paradigm shift is going to occur in 

the budget, then you will spend a lot of time putting it together in 

the Department and watch it come back to you in shreds and tatters. 

And third, the Secretary has to work personally with Congress 

to craft acceptable ways of going forward that both parties and 

both Administrations can accept and to build a base that can sustain a different approach over multiple years, over time, over Administrations and parties. We may not get back to bipartisanship 

in foreign policy, but we have to get back to bipartisanship in the 

establishment of a qualified diplomacy. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I want to thank both of you very much for 

your responses. The lack of adequate investment in the State Department’s most valuable asset, which Senator Voinovich and I feel 

are the employees, is reaching critical mass. In the next 6 months, 

I hope the current Administration continues to develop strategies 

to invest in the staffing shortfalls, and we need to look at the incoming Administration. I hope that we can continue to work together to develop recommendations and elevate the priority of 

these issues we have been discussing. 

Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

The hearing record will remain open for one week for Members to 

provide additional statements or questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 


44126.001
38 


44126.002
39 


44126.003
40 


44126.004
41 


44126.005
42 


44126.006
43 


44126.007
44 


44126.008
45 


44126.009
46 


44126.010
47 


44126.011
48 


44126.012
49 


44126.013
50 


44126.014
51 


44126.015
52 


44126.016
53 


44126.017
54 


44126.018
55 


44126.019
56 


44126.020
57 


44126.021
58 


44126.022
59 


44126.023
60 


44126.024
61 


44126.025
62 


44126.026
63 


44126.027
64 


44126.028
65 


44126.029
66 


44126.030
67 


44126.031
68 


44126.032
69 


44126.033
70 


44126.034
71 


44126.035
72 


44126.036
73 


44126.037
74 


44126.038
75 


44126.039
76 


44126.040
77 


44126.041
78 


44126.042
79 


44126.043
80 


44126.044
81 


44126.045
82 


44126.046
83 


44126.047
84 


44126.048
85 


44126.049
86 


44126.127
87 


44126.051
88 


44126.052
89 


44126.053
90 


44126.054
91 


44126.055
92 


44126.056
93 


44126.057
94 


44126.058
95 


44126.059
96 


44126.060
97 


44126.061
98 


44126.062
99 


44126.063
100 


44126.064
101 


44126.065
102 


44126.066
103 


44126.067
104 


44126.068
105 


44126.069
106 


44126.070
107 


44126.071
108 


44126.072
109 


44126.073
110 


44126.074
111 


44126.075
112 


44126.076
113 


44126.077
114 


44126.078
115 


44126.079
116 


44126.080
117 


44126.081
118 


44126.082
119 


44126.083
120 


44126.084
121 


44126.085
122 


44126.086
123 


44126.087
124 


44126.088
125 


44126.089
126 


44126.090
127 


44126.091
128 


44126.092
129 


44126.093
130 


44126.094
131 


44126.095
132 


44126.096
133 


44126.097
134 


44126.098
135 


44126.099
136 


44126.100
137 


44126.101
138 


44126.102
139 


44126.103
140 


44126.104
141 


44126.105
142 


44126.106
143 


44126.107
144 


44126.108
145 


44126.109
146 


44126.110
147 


44126.111
148 


44126.112
149 


44126.113
150 


44126.114
151 


44126.115
152 


44126.116
153 


44126.117
154 


44126.118
155 


44126.119
156 


44126.120
157 


44126.121
158 


44126.122
159 


44126.123
160 


44126.124
161 


44126.125
162 

Æ 


44126.126