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

i

40–715 2008

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–95]

INCENTIVES, BENEFITS, AND MEDICAL

CARE FOR FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES DEPLOYED TO COMBAT ZONES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD

OCTOBER 16, 2007

(II)

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky

STEVE DETERESA, Professional Staff Member

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member

ROGER ZAKHEIM, Professional Staff Member

SASHA ROGERS, Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2007

Page

HEARING:

Tuesday, October 16, 2007, Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care for Federal

Civilian Employees Deployed to Combat Zones ................................................. 1

APPENDIX:

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 ...................................................................................... 35

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007

INCENTIVES, BENEFITS, AND MEDICAL CARE FOR FEDERAL

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES DEPLOYED TO COMBAT ZONES

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Akin, Hon. W. Todd, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ............................................................. 3

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Oversight

and Investigations Subcommittee ....................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

McDonald, Larry, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Technical

Assistance, U.S. Department of Treasury .......................................................... 11

Miller, W. Kirk, General Sales Manager, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 7

Swartz, Bruce C., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,

U.S. Department of Justice ................................................................................. 9

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

and Director of Human Resources, Department of State ................................. 3

Ward, Mark S., Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia

and Near East, U.S. Agency for International Development ........................... 5

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Akin, Hon. W. Todd .......................................................................................... 42

McDonald, Larry ............................................................................................... 85

Miller, W. Kirk .................................................................................................. 58

Snyder, Hon. Vic ............................................................................................... 39

Swartz, Bruce C. ............................................................................................... 63

Thomas, Ambassador Harry K., Jr. ................................................................ 45

Ward, Mark S. .................................................................................................. 52

Wolff, Otto J., Chief Financial Officer, and Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ............................................. 90

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Letter from Hon. Frank R. Wolf ...................................................................... 95

Page

IV

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 99

Ms. Tauscher ..................................................................................................... 115

(1)

INCENTIVES, BENEFITS, AND MEDICAL CARE FOR FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES DEPLOYED TO COMBAT

ZONES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE,

Washington, DC, Tuesday, October 16, 2007.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in room

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Dr. SNYDER. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations hearing on Incentives, Benefits and Medical Care for Federal Civilian Employees Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is our subcommittee’s third meeting to discuss these issues.

On September 18, witnesses from the Department of Defense and

Labor and GAO testified before this committee on benefits and

medical care for DOD employees. Following that hearing, on September 24 the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a departmentwide memorandum to remind everyone that military treatment facilities would care for injured DOD civilians and to announce updates on how wounded DOD civilians are to be medically tracked.

On October 2, the subcommittee held an informal discussion with

wounded DOD civilian veterans of Iraq and their advocates about

particular problems they experienced in trying to get medical care

and support after deployment.

Today’s focus will be on civilian personnel from non-DOD agencies who volunteer to serve in a combat zone.

Since September, this subcommittee has been investigating a variety of interagency issues raised by the ongoing wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan. Military means alone are clearly not enough to bring

about success in either country. Civilians from across the Federal

Government are increasingly being called upon to help us achieve

our goals in these dangerous environments through the use of provincial reconstruction teams and other programs.

An unfortunate, but inevitable, consequence of deploying civilians to combat zones is that some of them may be injured or killed,

and this risk was sadly underscored by the recent death of a U.S.

Department of Agriculture employee in Afghanistan. Tom Stefani

was killed on October 4 by a roadside bomb while performing his

duty as an agricultural advisor to a PRT.

2

This committee, as do all Americans, offer deepest sympathies to

the family, friends and colleagues of Mr. Stefani and to those of all

the other civilian personnel who were killed or wounded while serving in high threat areas.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider issues related to the

hazardous nature of this duty. First, given the critical need for U.S.

Government Federal and civilian employees to deploy to Iraq and

Afghanistan, what kind of incentive or benefits are provided to encourage those with the right skills and experience to do so?

Second, what practices and policies are in place to provide medical care for deployed Federal civilian employees both while overseas and upon returning home? We want to be assured that these

veterans, just as with our military veterans, are not forgotten after

their deployment and that they are not abandoned when they need

medical care or help to navigate the Workers’ Compensation process.

One area of particular interest is whether civilians receive adequate diagnoses and treatment for mental health disorders that

commonly occur in combat zones. The State Department’s Office of

Medical Services recently surveyed 877 foreign service officers, including 474 who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, about stress-related

symptoms that appeared after serving unaccompanied tours in dangerous and isolated posts.

The survey showed that 18 respondents probably had symptoms

of PTSD, and 132 possibly had symptoms. Compare these results

with the Department of Labor report that a total of only 11 claims

have been filed for various emotional conditions by employees from

all Federal agencies. I would like to hear from witnesses today how

we reconcile this large disparity.

How we compensate and care for today’s deployed civilians will

be noted by those who are considering the nation’s calls for future

volunteers, such as the expanded PRT program or Civilian Reserve

Corps that the President announced in his January State of the

Union Address. The success of the transition from conflict to stability in regions of national interest will depend heavily on the efforts

of civilians. If our nation asks them to volunteer for these hazardous missions, then we are responsible for their well-being.

We have a good panel of witnesses to help us examine these

issues. Ambassador Harry Thomas, director general of the U.S. Department of State; Mr. Mark Ward, senior deputy assistant administrator for Asia and Near Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development; Mr. Kirk Miller, associate administrator for the Foreign

Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mr. Bruce

Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general, criminal division, U.S.

Department of Justice; Mr. Larry McDonald, deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Technical Assistance, U.S. Department of

Treasury.

I would now like to call on Mr. Akin for any comments he would

like to make.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 39.]

3

STATEMENT OF HON. W. TODD AKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And good afternoon to our witnesses. Thank you so much for

joining us.

Just, first, a piece of housekeeping, Mr. Chairman, if I could submit for the record a letter from Frank Wolf, recommending a piece

of legislation.

Dr. SNYDER. What is the number of that resolution?

Mr. AKIN. It is H.R. 1974.

Dr. SNYDER. 1974. All right. By Mr. Wolf. Without objection.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on

page 95.]

Mr. AKIN. Thank you.

This is actually the third in a series of hearings on this subject,

and our committee is particularly interested in the PRTs and the

work when you bring Department of Defense, State Department

and other different employees together. How do those teams come

together? How are the non-DOD people compensated? Obviously

they can’t be ordered into theatre. Some of the places they are

working are particularly dangerous. How is their health care? How

are they paid? How are the incentives that they receive? And ultimately, how do we in the future design into our government the

capacity to put these kinds of teams together when they are multidepartmental.

And this connects, those of us who work in the military area,

back to the days of the Goldwater-Nichols and the idea of forcing

the Navy, the Air Force and the Army to play as one team. And

the question has been raised in many of these theatres. It isn’t just

DOD that needs to be the team, but it also needs to be State and

a number of other agencies as well. So that is the overall context.

I want to just finish by thanking every one of you and the people

that you represent for taking some very risky assignments and

doing what some of us on this committee think is some pretty exciting work as well. So thank you for joining us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Akin can be found in the Appendix on page 42.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Akin.

Our custom here is we will start the five-minute clock for the

opening statements. It is more as a reminder to you. If you have

things you need to say beyond that five minutes, you go ahead and

do it. There are five of you today, so we will be probably about 20

to 25 minutes anyway, and then we will go on a five-minute clock

for all the members.

I think we will go in the order that I read off: Ambassador Thomas, Mr. Ward, Mr. Miller, Mr. Swartz and Mr. McDonald.

We will begin with Ambassador Thomas.

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

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ambassador THOMAS. Thank you.

4

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for

the opportunity to testify before you today and address the Department’s efforts to support our dedicated employees serving in Iraq

and Afghanistan.

Ensuring that our employees have the necessary support structures which allow them to carry out their duties throughout the

world is a critical component of Secretary Rice’s transformational

deployment. The men and women of the State Department,

through their presence in every corner of the world, serve on the

frontlines in the global struggle against terrorism.

We know terrorism firsthand having lost colleagues, American

and foreign national alike, throughout the years, most dramatically

in the embassy bombings in Tanzania, Lebanon and Kenya.

Our commitment to supporting America’s interests abroad has

remained steadfast and is, in fact, second to none. For our size, and

I would note that the entire Armed Service Corps is less than the

size of one military division, we are doing our part to protect and

defend America. With your support through initiatives such as the

Civilian Reserve Corps, we will be even better able to respond to

the demands our country faces helping build democracy.

Although I have served as director general of the foreign service

and director of human resources for only one month, I have taken

a keen interest in ensuring that the services we provide to our personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan support them and their

families as they fulfill this vital mission.

I am leaving for Iraq today to personally survey the Department’s operations and learn firsthand.

The men and women in the Department serve under dangerous

and challenging circumstances throughout the world. Approximately 20 percent of the foreign service employees have volunteered to serve in Baghdad, Kabul and the 50-plus provincial reconstruction teams throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. We successfully

filled positions in Iraq for 2007, including those in Baghdad and in

the PR teams with volunteers, and we filled nearly all of our unaccompanied positions worldwide also with volunteers.

Fill rates for Iraq are higher than our worldwide fill rate. With

only 11,500 diplomats to staff 267 posts worldwide, the State Department constantly stretches to get the best talent where it is

most needed. To continue to meet effectively the challenge we face

to staff embassy Baghdad and the Iraq PRTs with qualified officers, we introduced in June 2007 the first ever country-specific special assignment cycle for Iraq.

Although we have just begun the summer 2008 bidding cycle, we

have filled 70 percent of these volunteers already and will continue

through our assignment department. We have incentives. Foreign

service and civil service career employees who serve in Iraq are eligible for financial and non-monetary incentives, as outlined in the

Department’s Iraq Service Recognition Package.

This package includes but is not limited to compensation,

thought for families, onward assignment preference, R&R and promotion consideration. The Department is committed to meeting the

medical and mental health needs of our employees preparing for

service in and returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas

5

locations. Our Medical Services Office has operated a Foreign Service Health Unit in Baghdad since July 2004.

Moreover, the Department’s office of Mental Health Services has

a network of regional psychiatrists in the field as resources for employees at other unaccompanied and onward assignment posts.

We take the health and well-being of our employees and their

families seriously. And Secretary Rice has made clear that she is

personally committed to getting our people the help they may need.

The Department is improving its abilities to support employees

who may be experiencing PTSD or other mental issues associated

with high-stress assignments. The Office of Medical Services is reviewing the current pre-assignment briefing and mandatory outreach sessions to determine what changes might be most effective,

such as directing more time to discuss mental health counseling,

resources, insomnia and social withdrawal.

We are also implementing a deployment stress management program that will develop, teach, counsel and become involved in all

activities supporting employees and involved with unaccompanied

deployed.

These are exciting and challenging times. The Department has

adapted to changing conditions throughout our 200-year history. I

am confident that with your support we will successfully do so

again.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Thomas can be found in

the Appendix on page 45.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Ambassador Thomas.

I believe we are having a little light problem, so please follow the

clock along. You did just fine. It is just the light wasn’t on.

I should have said that, without objection, all of your written

statements will be made part of the record.

Mr. Ward.

STATEMENT OF MARK S. WARD, SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA AND NEAR EAST, U.S.

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Akin, members of

the subcommittee, thanks very much for inviting me today as well

to describe how the United States Agency for International Development recruits, deploys and cares for its employees during and

after service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have been a foreign service officer with USAID for 21 years. I

have served in five countries, including one assignment for 18

months without my family in Pakistan after 9/11. No one has more

respect for our military than the foreign service. They help keep us

safe and often work closely with us, in the PRTs for example, to

improve lives and provide hope.

But it means a lot to us that this subcommittee also appreciates

the civilian agency’s contribution in this very difficult and dangerous world today, so thank you for your support.

I think we have made real progress at USAID on employee incentives, allowances and benefits since we returned to Afghanistan

in 2001 and deployed to Iraq in 2003. Sure, there is more that can

be done, but I am proud to say that our Foreign Service officers,

as Ambassador Thomas has said, have volunteered in sufficient

6

numbers to get our work done not just in Iraq and Afghanistan,

but also in the other two countries that we consider too dangerous

for families and normal assignments, Pakistan and Sudan.

Compared with the other agencies represented here today,

USAID is very small. We have 2,400 civil service and foreign service employees around the world, 1,200 of them serve overseas. Despite our small size, we have been able to meet the demanding requirements for foreign service officers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan on a volunteer basis. To date, about 130 employees

have served in Iraq and 180 in Afghanistan, most for tours of at

least 1 year.

That is about 26 percent of our total foreign service workforce.

Four of our PRT veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are here with

me this afternoon in the audience.

Our foreign service officers don’t work alone in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of our overseas officers also employ foreign service nationals, contract employees, some American, some other nationalities,

and in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, where local capacity is

weak, we also employ third country nationals that work for USAID

in other countries in the region, such as India or the Philippines.

In Afghanistan, for example, of the 227 personnel at USAID

today—that is up from 100, 3 years ago, only 36 are foreign service

officers, 121 of those are foreign service nationals; that is, Afghan

employees. This is our model throughout the world. The small

cadre of foreign service officers serves as the core of our operations,

but we rely a great deal on the services of local and third country

professionals, employees of other agencies, and I join you in saluting Tom Stefani from USDA who was working with us at the PRT

in Ghazni. And not to mention those employed by our contractors

and grantees that we engaged to carry out our projects.

My written statement describes in some details what we are trying to do to attract foreign service officers for assignments in Iraq

and Afghanistan, and I won’t review that now. But more than any

other incentive, I think what matters most is USAID’s worldwide

mission. As a development agency, our mandate is to operate in the

poorest nations of the world, often in areas of extreme hardship

and devastating poverty.

Our employees are not strangers to high-risk environments, the

destruction of war or natural disasters. The tsunami in East and

South Asia and the earthquake in Pakistan are the two recent examples where we have successfully launched major reconstruction

programs under very difficult and dangerous circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that USAID has been able to

fill its staffing needs with volunteers to now, but looking forward

we are concerned that the pool of qualified foreign service officers

willing and able to volunteer is shrinking. In addition, we know

that the Federal workforce is aging. In USAID alone, more than 30

percent of foreign service officers will be eligible to retire in 2007,

including me. And by 2011, that number jumps to more than 45

percent.

While we are using creative approaches to fill positions in Iraq

and Afghanistan, it is becoming apparent that as it is currently

resourced we may not be able to sustain the staffing requirements

in Iraq and Afghanistan or meet any surge requirements elsewhere

7

in the world. So our leadership is seized with the challenge in analyzing how best to meet these urgent needs in the future, including

increasing the number of foreign service officers to create a larger

pool from which to seek bidders for our most dangerous assignments.

The good news, and I do a lot of recruiting for USAID around

this country, the good news is that applications for foreign service

are very high, despite the greater risks our officers face in the

world today.

Again, thanks for your time and thanks for your support.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward can be found in the Appendix on page 52.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Mr. Miller, from the Department of Agriculture.

STATEMENT OF W. KIRK MILLER, GENERAL SALES MANAGER,

FOREIGN AGRICULTURE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am

pleased to be here before you today to talk about the incentives and

benefits and support provided to U.S. Department of Agriculture

employees who volunteer to serve in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rehabilitating the agricultural sector in Afghanistan and Iraq is

critical to the U.S. government’s overall strategy toward the economic, political and security environment in both countries. In Afghanistan, 80 percent of the population is involved in farming and

herding. In Iraq, agriculture is the second largest contributor to the

country’s gross domestic product and employs 25 percent of the

labor force, making it the largest employer in Iraq.

At the onset of my remarks, I want to emphasize how much we

appreciate the work of USDA employees who volunteer to serve in

Afghanistan and Iraq. We are proud of them. USDA employees are

serving as provincial reconstruction team agricultural advisers in

both countries, as technical advisers in Afghanistan and as ministry advisers in Iraq. In addition, numerous USDA staff have

taken on temporary duty assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All of these employees are making substantial sacrifices to apply

their skills and expertise to revitalizing these countries agricultural

institutions and rebuilding agricultural capacity.

We strongly believe that in return we should provide them with

the most equitable incentives, benefits and best possible support

we can. In Afghanistan, 37 USDA agricultural advisers have

served on PRTs since 2003. As early as 2003, USDA deployed staff

to Iraq for long-term and short-term assignments. During the period from 2003 through today, 30 USDA employees have served in

volunteer assignments in Iraq.

Again, we owe them our utmost respect and gratitude for what

they have done and are doing under some extremely difficult circumstances. Beginning in September 2007, all USDA long-term advisers in both countries served on 12-month deployments. They

work actively with the Afghan and Iraqi governments, the U.S.

military, as well as with the other civilians from the Department

of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and non-govVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
8

ernmental aid organizations to help harness each country’s economic potential by assessing agricultural needs, strengths, technical expertise in developing agricultural projects.

In March 2007, as part of President Bush’s New Way Forward,

former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns reached out to all

USDA agencies, encouraging them to allow their employees to volunteer for duty as agricultural advisers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As a result, we received over 80 applications; 45 were interviewed, 25 were deemed qualified and 18 are in various stages of

deployment. All are expected to be in Iraq by November 30, 2007.

We are recruiting and interviewing for 13 additional PRT candidates for Afghanistan and 15 for Iraq. We expect they will all be

deployed no later than March 2008.

Before they are deployed, all long-term USDA volunteer advisers

must be medically cleared by the State Department and obtain a

secret level security clearance. Concurrently, USDA PRT liaison officers in country and in Washington work with the Department of

Defense and the Department of State counterparts to determine

appropriate and individual site placements by matching skill sets

of the agricultural advisers with the technical needs of each PRT.

USDA ensures that all long-term temporary duty staff fully participate in available security and country study programs that are

offered by the Departments of State and Defense. Staff going to Afghanistan attend the joint U.S. Civilian-Military Afghanistan PRT

training program at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. This program covers medical combat life saving training, force protection training,

military and civilian coordination, relationship building with the

Afghan government and PRT simulation exercises.

Staff deploying to Iraq for long-term assignments are required to

attend the Foreign Affairs Counterterrorism Fact Training at the

Foreign Service Institute. The two-week program includes training

on personal safety and area studies related to the assignment. The

course instructs participants in the practical skills necessary to recognize, avoid and respond to potential terrorist threat situations.

Staff going to either Iraq or Afghanistan receive USDA specific

orientation, both in Washington, D.C. and in country after arriving

there. In addition, advisers deploying to Iraq participate in the Foreign Service Institute PRT team training and orientation program.

Upon arrival in country, staff are advised by the PRT liaison officers, by the U.S. Embassy regional security officers and the medical unit.

In Afghanistan, long-term advisers also meet with Department of

Defense intelligence officers.

All staff are issued and trained in the use of protective body armour, including eye, ear and torso protective gear.

Once in country, USDA continues to support our staff through

site visits and regular conference calls, regional workshops and

training. Complete medical care and coverage is provided by the

Department of Defense or Department of State, whichever is most

accessible at the time when care is needed. While a U.S. Government employee is in Afghanistan or Iraq, when it comes to incentives and benefits, USDA follows the model of the Department of

State, Afghanistan and Iraq Service Reconciliation Packages. These

9

packages outline the variety of special pay and leave incentives

available to those serving in these combat zones.

Long-term staff receive a package of allowances and differentials

on top of their regular salary that equates to an additional 75 percent of base salary plus applicable overtime compensation.

In deference to time here, I am going to skip through some of the

rest of this. But finally, it is with much sadness that I make you

aware of the recent death of a USDA foreign service employee, Steven Thomas Stefani, on voluntary assignment with the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service in Afghanistan.

And I appreciate your acknowledgment, Mr. Chairman, and also

that of Mr. Ward, of his honorable service.

He was serving on a provincial reconstruction team as an agricultural adviser, and he lost his life in an explosion that impacted

his convoy near Ghazni. Our heartfelt sympathy and prayers go out

to his family, friends and coworkers in their time of sorrow, and

we pledge to do everything we can to build on the many accomplishments of not only Mr. Stefani, but all of the other USDA advisers. You are providing tremendous assistance to the people of

Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, we want to thank you for the acknowledgement. I know

the family will be pleased to know that you mentioned his service

in your comments.

With that, I am going to conclude my comments, and I will be

happy to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller can be found in the Appendix on page 58.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Swartz, from the Department of Justice.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE C. SWARTZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Akin, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the important and

courageous work done by the men and women of the Department

of Justice in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are three points in particular that I would like to make

this afternoon. First, the Department of Justice has been in both

of these countries from the beginning. Second, we have been

present not only in the capacity of developing rule of law, but in

an operational capacity as well, performing important

counterterrorism, counter-narcotics and law enforcement missions.

And, third, in both countries we have been present with the partnership and support of the Department of State and the Department of Defense.

In Afghanistan, for instance, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has deployed not only a country team, but specialized

teams of agents, so-called fast teams, that have been involved in

significant bilateral narcotics investigations as well as direct interdiction of heroin traffickers.

The FBI in turn has taken on a counterterrorism role from the

start in Afghanistan, deploying not only a country team, but rotatVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
10

ing teams of 30 or more agents and support personnel to perform

counterterrorism and law enforcement tasks.

On the prosecutorial side, the Department of Justice has deployed four senior Federal prosecutors to work with the Criminal

Justice Task Force in Afghanistan. And the benefit of their work,

the value of their work to the people of Afghanistan and to the

United States, was demonstrated again only two weeks ago with

the sentencing in New York of Afghan narcotics kingpin Baz Mohammad, who is the first person to be extradited from Afghanistan

to the United States as a direct result of the work of our Federal

prosecutors there and DEA.

And finally, in Afghanistan, the United States Marshall Service

has provided vital protective services for our personnel, including

the personnel of the Criminal Justice Task Force, as well as working with Afghan counterparts.

Similarly in Iraq, the Department of Justice has from the start

deployed agents and prosecutors both for rule of law purposes and

to carry out counterterrorism and law enforcement missions. More

than 1,500 employees of the FBI have served in Iraq since 2003.

They have done so both in terms of the Legatz country team office

there, as well as in the deployment of rotating teams of agents that

have been assigned to the Baghdad Operation Center for

Counterterrorism Purposes, and as advisers to the major crimes

task force, an Iraqi Department of Justice effort to investigate the

most serious crimes, such as murder and kidnapping, taking place

in Iraq.

Similarly, the other United States Department of Justice agencies have also deployed and performed important and critical roles

in that country. ATF has been present, as it has been present in

Afghanistan in terms of post-blast work and it has deployed 24

agents to the combined explosives exploitation cell. It has also deployed 24 canine handlers to that country.

VA has provided more than 50 agents over the years, including

in support of the major crimes task force.

The United States Marshall Service, courageously operating in

the Red Zone throughout this period, has provided security systems

not only to our personnel there but to the Iraqi judiciary as well

as helping to establish the Iraqi capacity to defend its judiciary and

its witnesses in these critical cases.

All of these law enforcement agencies have as well provided advanced training, specialized training, to their Iraqi counterparts. In

the rule of law context more broadly, the Department of Justice recently was honored to have one of its employees, Jim Santelle, an

assistant United States attorney from Wisconsin, named by Ambassador Crocker to be Rule of Law Coordinator for the embassy in

Baghdad, requiring Mr. Santelle to help coordinate more than 300

personnel and dozens of agencies involved in rule of law training

in that country.

He is assisted in that task by a Justice Department attache, a

former judge from North Carolina, as well as now six, soon-to-be

eight, resident legal advisers. These resident legal advisers are assistant United States attorneys or other Federal prosecutors from

the Department of Justice, and they have been present in Iraq

from the beginning, as well, thanks to State Department funding

11

and support. They have played a critical role in the creation of the

Central Criminal Court of Iraq as well as such organizations as the

Law and Order Task Force that was recently created by General

Petraeus and in working together with Iraqi investigating judges.

As well, we have had Federal prosecutors of the Regime Crimes

Liaison Office, which was created to try the most serious crimes

committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime.

Finally, with the support, again, of the State Department, we

have had police training elements in Iraq from the beginning, including an original assessment team through our International

Criminal Training Assistance Program, through ICITAP. That program now works closely with the Department of Defense through

CPATT in support of the police-training mission. We have two Federal managers, senior managers, involved, working with DOD, as

well as 191 contracted senior police officers and trainers.

Similarly, we have worked directly with the embassy on the creation of the prison service and have as well there two positions and

subcontracted positions as well in that regard.

Those individuals have all performed heroically as well, I might

add, in positions of extreme danger, police academies and prisons.

My written testimony sets out some of the incentives and benefits that the Department of Justice has provided to the people that

it has sent to Iraq, but in closing I would like to note that the men

and women of the Department of Justice who have gone to Iraq

and Afghanistan, like their colleagues who serve in the Department

of Justice overseas worldwide, have done so primarily because of

their commitment to the rule of law and to fulfill their mission to

protect not only the citizens of the countries where they are working, but the citizens of the United States.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swartz can be found in the Appendix on page 63.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Swartz.

Mr. McDonald from the Treasury Department.

STATEMENT OF LARRY MCDONALD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the treasury

department personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition to my written testimony, I have submitted a one-page

table summarizing information relevant to Treasury personnel in

Iraq and Afghanistan. It lays out the facts with respect to numbers

of employees, medical care, deployment incentives and so on. So in

my oral statement, I would like to focus on three points from my

written testimony.

First, I would like to emphasize, as my colleagues have, that the

Treasury Department places great importance on the careful recruitment, preparation, deployment and reintegration of our overseas personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and

that we take care to coordinate these steps with our sister agencies.

12

Our recruitment effort is informed and indeed substantially guided by information from our colleagues on the ground, both at

Treasury colleagues and their collaborators from the State Department and other agencies at the U.S. embassies in Baghdad and

Kabul.

The preparation and deployment of Treasury personnel taking up

posts in Iraq and Afghanistan is fully integrated with a State Department-led medical clearance process, as well as specialized

training in security matters and other facts of life in these countries, that all officials must be aware of.

Our returning personnel are debriefed with Treasury and other

agencies on all aspects of their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is an opportunity to identify and address not only issues of

substance but also as needed personal and medical matters that

may require attention. In this latter regard, Treasury is considering ways to strengthen our efforts and to coordinate more fully

with others.

Mr. Chairman, the second point I would like to highlight is that

Treasury has had good success in attracting and retaining very

well-qualified and dedicated people to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Throughout the entire period of our engagement in these

countries, from the cessation of hostilities to the present, I have

seen outstanding people step forward and continue to step forward.

This includes current and former Treasury personnel, the Treasury

family, so to speak, as well as outstanding individuals from the private sector and state-level governments who have expertise and a

commitment to public service.

What brings them in and what keeps them coming back? Mr.

Chairman, I know almost every one of them, and I can tell you that

it is not primarily the benefits package. While that package offers

some appropriately attractive incentives, that is not the main motivating element. As others on the panel have indicated, each person

who deploys to Iraq or Afghanistan of course has his own story to

tell, but I would say from my many discussions with them that the

common motivating element is the sense that they can make a difference in matters of historic importance to the United States and

to the countries where they serve.

Which brings me to the third point that I would like to emphasize. Treasury personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have indeed made a difference and their accomplishments have been facilitated by close collaboration and coordination with other agencies.

Although Treasury’s overseas presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and

elsewhere in the world is very small, the importance of the economic and financial issues that they cover is big. In my written testimony, I provide a number of examples of accomplishments in Iraq

and Afghanistan. At this point, by way of illustration, I will note

simply two of them. In Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, one of

the most important and, frankly, little know accomplishments was

the successful introduction and nationwide acceptance of a new national currency.

The new currencies designed by Iraqis and Afghanis and introduced with our help have laid the foundation for stable monetary

conditions, and they serve as a unifying element across both countries. This accomplishment, which involves careful analytical work,

13

planning, public diplomacy, transport logistics and security would

not have been possible without close collaboration among Treasury,

the State Department, USAID, the Department of Defense, maybe

even Justice.

Similarly, the successful negotiation of international debt relief

agreements for Iraq and Afghanistan, a significant accomplishment, was made possible by the expertise of Treasury debt advisers

and, once again, close collaboration among Treasury and other

agencies, in particular State Department and, though not an agency, the NSC.

Here again, many elements had to come together. Technical and

policy analysis, training and diplomacy. Both public and behind the

scenes. These are two examples among many. They illustrate not

only Treasury’s efforts, but also the merits of a coordinated old government approach to reconstruction work. In both instances,

progress was facilitated by drawing upon the comparative advantages of individual agencies and the combined efforts of government officials and civilians with specialized expertise who stepped

forward.

Drawing upon such real world experience in Iraq, Afghanistan

and elsewhere, Treasury is collaborating with our interagency partners and the State Department coordinator for reconstruction and

stabilization to strengthen the U.S. government’s ability to respond

quickly and effectively to future reconstruction challenges.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I thank you

and the members of the committee and would be happy to answer

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald can be found in the

Appendix on page 85.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you all for your written and oral statements.

We will now begin. We will put ourselves on the five minute

clock, going in order back and forth between the sides—for those

who came, who were here at the time of the gavel went down, and

the order in which people came in after that.

Just to put this in context, you know, you all are here because

we think that the work that you and your people do is important.

As the President has said when he talked about expanding the

PRTs, that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified to,

where this committee is coming from, this subcommittee is coming

from, particularly Ms. Davis and Mr. Davis, who head up a working group on interagency reform, but several other members have

an interest in it. We are concerned at multiple levels of government

that there is not very good, not as good as it should be cooperation

and collaboration between different agencies in a wartime setting.

So that is where we are coming from, and part of it is to see exactly what is going on with our personnel there, where the rubber

meets the road, the folks that you care about the most, the ones

in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and so we have had a series of

hearings and you are here as part of that.

I have to say, Mr. Miller and Mr. Swartz, I was struck in your

written statements by the following paragraph. I am quoting now

from Mr. Miller’s.

‘‘To improve our ability to respond to overseas challenges and

provide the personnel expertise needed will require that we inVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
14

crease our numbers of available, trained and deployable personnel

within our department and others and that we support them with

a structure in Washington that conducts planning and coordination. Agriculture is working with interagency partners and a coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization at the Department of

State to build that capacity and to support development of a ’civilian reserve corps,’ of outside experts that we can also call on to fill

additional requirements.’’

And that is the end of your quote, Mr. Miller, from your written

statement.

The challenge I have is that identical paragraph, Mr. Swartz, is

in your written statement. The only difference is, instead of Agriculture, it says Department of Justice. Every word. Not one preposition, not one adjective, not one pronoun different.

And so my first question is, who wrote that, where did it come

from and how did it get in your written statement that you forwarded to this subcommittee today? And you may feel free to consult with whoever provided that language to you.

For members, while they are collaborating, it is on page two of

both Mr. Miller’s statement and page two of Mr. Swartz’s statement.

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I can say that from the Department

of Justice side, that that was drawn apparently from another document involving the discussion of the State Reconstruction and Stability Office, a document that we have worked on, and it was provided I believe by the NSC.

But I think that the larger point, if there is some question of

whether or not that is in fact the position of the Department of

Justice, I would like to make clear, since I was the one responsible

ultimately for that testimony, that that is precisely the position

that we do take with regard to the reconstruction and stability operations. I have worked closely with that office, as have my colleagues at the Department of Justice, to help we believe shape the

future ability of the United States to respond to these types of

issues.

Dr. SNYDER. I will come back, Mr. Swartz, to what it means.

Mr. Miller, how did that language get in your written statement?

Mr. MILLER. As far as I can tell from the staff, I think it came

from the same source document from NSC.

Dr. SNYDER. Can we be provided with that source document?

Mr. MILLER. Certainly. If we can find it, we will provide it.

Dr. SNYDER. Because the problem that it causes for me personally, and I have not discussed this with any other members nor the

staff. We are here to help you. And frankly, there really was not

a whole lot—I mean, your statements are fine. In fact, I can pretty

much come away from your statements thinking things are going

pretty well. They are getting their folks out there. They like their

incentive packages, they are promoting. I mean, you are not ending

up with a paragraph that says here is what we need from Congress.

But when I see identical language, it tells me there is someone

pulling your strings. There is someone sitting out there saying here

is the points, men. We don’t want anyone acknowledging we have

got problems. When I see identical language from two what are

15

supposed to be totally independent agencies, and so it would be

helpful to see that document.

In the final time I have left, I do want to ask you what that language means, since you have included it. When you talk about ‘‘To

improve our ability to respond will require we increase our numbers of available, trained and deployable personnel,’’ that sounds

like a money problem.

Are you saying that your budgets need to be substantially increased in order to provide the kind of personnel and redundancy

that you need to meet these unanticipated needs?

Mr. Swartz, go ahead.

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, let me address the particulars of the

Reconstruction and Stability Office, and I will turn it over to my

colleagues at State as to the status of that office, where it stands

with regard to legislation and funding.

But I think that the point, far from being an attempt to sugarcoat the situation, the very point of that paragraph is that in fact

we do believe that a coordinating structure, as provided by the Reconstruction and Stability Office under Ambassador Herbst, is a

useful way of moving forward. I think we all have discovered in the

course of this extended set of conflicts that the ability to have onboard a group that is trained, a reserved corps that can deploy immediately in these types of situations, is highly valuable.

Of course, the Department of Justice does that now in that regard. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we both are law enforcement agencies and are prosecutorial and police training organizations. We are able to deploy almost immediately and particularly assessment teams.

But the strength of the Reconstruction and Stability Office would

be to have a structure in place, interagency, that would allow us

to move forward in that regard.

So I understand entirely your concern about the same statement

appearing in both, but I would suggest and submit respectfully that

far from being some attempt to hide a problem, it suggests that we

have seen a problem and suggests a way forward.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly would echo everything Mr.

Swartz has indicated here.

I don’t think this was an effort to be—some kind of a sinister plot

of any kind. I think it was a positive statement that we lifted from

the Swartz document, which we will try to provide to you, as we

indicated, to indicate in fact we welcome the opportunity to have

a coordinated effort under the State Department’s leadership, one

desk, one group that will be providing that leadership. It will be

efficient. It will make sure that we all have the same benefit packages we are offering to our civilian employees, and we think that

will be positive.

I would comment regarding your comment about the budget impact, that in fact we have had a budget request in for the last—

the President’s budget for the last two years. In 2007 we had a request in for $5 million for support for our PRT people. That was

not provided. And this year we have got a request in for $12.5 million, and it has not been funded yet either.

16

So we are looking for that funding supporting in line with the

President’s budget request.

Dr. SNYDER. Money that the President requested from Congress

but Congress did not satisfy?

Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Dr. SNYDER. Or money that we requested from the President’s

budget that the President didn’t request?

Mr. MILLER. No. It was money in the President’s budget request

that——

Dr. SNYDER. But we didn’t——

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. That Congress didn’t provide.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I got the same kind of impression listening to you, and I don’t

have any doubts as to your sincerity and the fact that with the resources you have and the way things are set up, you are going over

there and doing the best job you can.

We have heard a fair amount of testimony from the Department

of Defense that feels like their point is, we could use a whole lot

more in most of the areas that you represent. So it wasn’t so much

critical, but it is just saying we still have this joint, this kind of

situation that we need to work on.

So I guess the first thing that I would ask would be, if we were—

let us say that we knew we were going to get into other situations,

such as we did in Iraq, and that those things may come up from

time to time. What is the logical way to structure that? Is it logical

for each agency to have a certain bank of people or a database, at

least, even possibly civilians, that you monitor? Or is it more logical to actually have some separate organization which, I hate to

call it nation building or whatever, but first of all, if you want to

comment about how that might be structured.

At least from my trips to Iraq, when I first went there, we heard

we got the new currency system going. That is really cool. And not

going to be long, and we will be wire transferring money and everything. And now four years later, I go back and they say yes, we

still can’t wire transfer money. You know, it is not very hard to put

a laptop with the software on it, but we can’t find any personnel

that we can trust to actually do the business of operating a branch

office of a bank. And so everybody takes their cash home to their

family when they get their pay from the military.

So, you know, we hear stories about the fact, we have got a jail

full of people, but we don’t have any judges to try them or any, you

know, the justice system is taking time to put that altogether.

I don’t doubt that takes time to do, but just your thoughts. Because that is what we are trying to do. We are a very problem-solving oriented committee. We are not particularly partisan. We are

here to try to take a look, what have we learned, how can we do

things better in the future. And this is something that keeps coming up, is this issue of how do we play as a team, not just State

and DOD but everybody else as well.

Your comments?

17

Ambassador THOMAS. Congressman, we think that the Civilian

Reserve Corps that the President requested is the way to go. We

ask that congress enact legislation for the Civilian Reserve Corps.

As you know, Congressman, the State Department, with our size,

we have mostly generalists. Our specialists are our office management specialists, our computer technicians, our physicians and

such. But to staff Iraq, Afghanistan or any other crisis, we will

need city planners, urban planners, other people who are specialists in organizations, veterinarians, some of which obviously USDA

has provided to the effort in Iraq.

If we go with the legislation that the President has proposed, if

it is enacted, the Civilian Reserve Corps, then we will be able to

reach out to Arkansas, to Charleston, to other places. Get a doctor

who may want to work. Get a judge who wants to work. We will

be able to train them, provide them with a security clearance, with

training, with language training in one facility. They will be able

to train together as a team, much the way the National Guard

does, or the reserve does, and then go home. And when their country needs them, they will be able to come forward to go to wherever

they have the crisis of the moment in a coordinated and efficient

fashion.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you.

Mr. WARD. If I can just add to that. There is also two pieces of

this new model above the Civilian Reserve Corps, and that is within the government, and you alluded to that in your question, sir.

At one level above the Civilian Reserve Corps, which, as Ambassador Thomas said is out in the private sector, akin to what the

Army does with the reserves, is that officers in our agencies will

have been identified and available at the call of this office, this coordinating office at the State Department, to deploy when the need

is determined by the President and the secretary of state.

And there will be a group that is called the Active Response

Team or Corps. And it is the team not unlike the disaster resistance response teams that USAID deploys after a natural disaster.

They will be the ones that deploy very quickly after the President

makes a determination to go.

Then there is a group within our agency that is larger that will

deploy for a longer term, and then they will be for an even longer

term, they will be supported out of the Civilian Reserve Corps that

Ambassador Thomas is talking about.

So there are three layers of this, and we are working out the details on this now. I sound a little bit more informed about this because I actually got a briefing from Ambassador Herbst about this

yesterday, because we are all asking the same questions. And so

that is my understanding of how it is going to work.

Mr. SWARTZ. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, Mr. Akin, at the risk

of sounding like it is pre-programmed, I can say as well that from

the Department of Justice point of view, we think that the strength

of this proposal is that the active reserve corps would draw upon

and actually supplement personnel at the Department of Justice,

particularly the personnel that we already have assigned to our

international operations both on the law enforcement side and the

prosecutorial side.

18

And that group, which has the expertise, would be both strengthened and provide the nucleus for the reserve corps and the more

extended deployments.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see my time has run out, so we can move on to the next——

Dr. SNYDER. We will now go in the order in which members arrived after the gavel. Mr. Bartlett, followed by Ms. Sanchez.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

It is said that we are always fighting the last war. Which means

that in the war that we are now fighting, we have trouble distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. It is said of

past wars that for one person on the frontline, we have, what, five

or six people in support roles. So we had one person in harm’s way

and five or six that were not in harm’s way. And clearly, everyone

who is in the theatre now is in harm’s way because of the IEDs

and so forth.

Also, in the major wars of the past, they were all fought by regular military and the guard and reserve were what they were intended to be. They were in reserve and they were called up when

we were in the extremes.

Today, of course, we cannot fight without guard and reserve. It

is clear that a 19-year-old cannot have the skills of a 39-year-old.

And so many of the skills necessary for fighting are resident only

in the guard and reserve. So clearly they have to be there. They

didn’t really anticipate that when they signed up, and it wasn’t the

kind of thing they did in the past.

And in addition, in today’s war we have, what, about two-thirds

as many civilians there, many of them pretty much in harm’s way,

as much as the soldiers, sailors and so forth are.

Clearly, we have to rethink how we structure ourselves for fighting, how we take care of those who are in harm’s way, because we

have had very sad stories here of civilians having difficulty in getting the quality of health care that the soldier right beside them

got because they were civilians, and he was a soldier, and we were

structured to take care of the soldier, and we had never anticipated

civilian casualties right next to the soldier.

So the question I want to ask you is whose responsibility is it to

think through two things, one of them how we structure ourselves

to fight this kind of war in the future and second, who has the responsibility of deciding how we take care of the people who are in

harm’s way and injured? If we just continue business as usual,

they will still be fighting the last war in the war after this. So we

clearly have to change. Whose responsibility is it to decide how we

are going to structure ourselves to fight when a lot of the fighting

today is really nation building, not what we were training our military people to do.

So whose responsibility is it to think that through and restructure that? And whose responsibility is it to decide how we take care

of the wounded, whether they be civilian or military?

Ambassador THOMAS. Congressman, thank you for that.

I would like to deal with the latter first.

In terms of medical personnel, whether they are State Department or military, if they are wounded, the military will take care

of them. We have a medical doctor, we have a nurse, we have a

19

social worker, we have regional psychiatrists from the State Department, who will take care of people who have ordinary challenges in Iraq or Afghanistan. But if somebody is wounded, the

military would take care of them right there.

We have had two cases of traumatic brain injury. Both were in

Afghanistan. They were civilians. They were brought back to the

U.S. and treated at Walter Reed. And successfully treated.

In terms of post traumatic stress syndrome, our able medical

staff is treating people who already exhibit. We are concerned, and

we are working with the interagency process about people who may

have that in the future, because we know that may take time to

exhibit.

We have a deployment stress management program, a high

stress assignment program. So I think we are very good on the

medical side these days for people in the theatre and people, at

least in the foreign service and our civil service, who come back to

Washington to the State Department. We work an interagency

process to make sure the benefits are the same.

I cannot speak to who is responsible for war planning. I believe

that would be the President in consultation with the Congress. But

in terms of the interagency process, I would like to be clear that

not only Ambassador Herbst’s Civilian Reserve Corps but the entirety, we meet regularly. We are trying to work out any bureaucratic problems and hurdles so that we can bring banking and

other things to people in a quick and efficient manner. We understand that they are challenged to deliver that.

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Sanchez for five minutes.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So Ambassador Thomas, let me just get this straight, because in

the September 24 memo from Deputy Security of Defense England,

he talks about health care treatment service to non-military being

provided by the military personnel. But it also says that it has to

be under compelling circumstances and authorized for these civilians.

So is that just a blanket authorization already set in place or is

there an authorization that has to happen each and every time a

civilian gets medical care from DOD?

Ambassador THOMAS. I have not seen Deputy Secretary England’s letter. But my understanding is that if you are wounded,

wherever, in Iraq or Afghanistan, and a military doctor is available, he will take care of you, or she will take care of you.

If you have a regular medical issue, the State Department, or

doctor who is there, takes care of you, or we can call in a regional

psychiatrist.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay.

Mr. Ambassador, you also mentioned that the State Department’s current staffing levels permit only five percent of the foreign

service to be in long-term training of any kind.

What impact does having only five percent have at any one time

have on the rotation cycle of the foreign service? What would be

the ideal percentage to be in long-term training?

Ambassador THOMAS. Thank you for that question.

We would like to have a training compliment of about 15 percent,

which is equivalent to what the military does. For example, someVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
20

one who is taking Arabic, it takes two years to study Arabic, two

years to study Chinese, so you need some two people behind and

in front to be deployed.

When you can’t have that, can’t provide the type of training that

you need so that people can learn Arabic, can learn Chinese, can

forward deploy into the villages and cities and let the American

people know what is going on.

Ms. SANCHEZ. My understanding of the normal process is that

usually language training is for a year. So are you saying that you

are not—that if you are going to cite Arabic or Chinese for somebody, that they are going to get the two years or they are only

going to get the one year? Or are you saying that you need to plan

five moves ahead on the chess board so that the Arabic is covered

for the next ten years or something?

Ambassador THOMAS. No, ma’am.

Arabic, Chinese, Korean and Japanese are two years.

Ms. SANCHEZ. In the foreign services?

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, ma’am.

Hindi, Urdu, Farsi, Hungarian are one year. So you will do two

years, you will do one year of Arabic, for example, at our Foreign

Service Institute. Then you will go to Tunis. Same thing with——

Ms. SANCHEZ. Then you will do three years in Tunis?

Ambassador THOMAS. No.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Two years?

Ambassador THOMAS. Second year of language training in Tunis,

one year in Washington, Virginia, one year in Tunis.

Ms. SANCHEZ. And then be deployed?

Ambassador THOMAS. And then you will be deployed.

Ms. SANCHEZ. For how long?

Ambassador THOMAS. Excuse me, ma’am?

Ms. SANCHEZ. For how long, typically?

Ambassador THOMAS. Two to three years, depending on where

you are going. And that is done based on whether it is a hardship

assignment. We have posts that are dangerous posts—it will be 15

to 25 percent or 5 percent, but most people assigned Arabic are

going to 2-year assignments.

Ms. SANCHEZ. So you are basically talking about having firstyear and second-year students, basically, in these languages, so

that the overlap is there?

Ambassador THOMAS. What we need, ma’am, is that if I assign

someone to Arabic training today, that for two years we have to

have somebody to go to that job in two years and somebody to follow behind this officer in two years.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any

other questions.

Dr. SNYDER. What we will do, gentlemen, we will stand in recess

here.

I am going to ask the staff to distribute each of you a copy of

Secretary England’s letter and call your attention to the next to the

last paragraph, in which it talks about non-DOD civilian personnel,

and we may ask you to comment on your thoughts about that letter

after you have had a chance to look at that.

But we will be in recess probably for 20 minutes, in that range.

[Recess.]

21

Dr. SNYDER. The other doctor on the committee, Dr. Gingrey, for

five minutes.

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I didn’t hear all of the witnesses testify. I came in a little bit

later.

But, Ambassador Thomas, I want to maybe direct my question

to you. This idea of a civilian volunteer corps, and I think you referenced maybe comments that the President made in the State of

the Union in regard to volunteerism in general and what people

should, could, would do to serve their country in ways other than

serving in the military, as an example, and I thought that was a

good idea.

I just wonder where we are in regard to that. You may have, in

your written and oral testimony, may have already spoken to it,

but I missed that. And I am curious to know what we have done

and how that would work. I think it is intriguing, as an example,

would, as Dr. Snyder just referenced, our prior life, the two of us

as physicians, would you go after medical personnel and maybe a

family doc, you know, who might want to step forward and work?

Are there any definitive plans to do that, to bring people in, and

once they make application, say, draft them forward and train

them?

So if you can elaborate on that a little bit more, I think that is

a very intriguing concept.

Ambassador THOMAS. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Ambassador John Herbst’s leads the Office of Stabilization and

Reconstruction, under which we have the active response corps and

the civilian reserve corps.

As the President stated in the State of the Union, this is before

Congress to enact legislation to allow us to fully realize this proposal. It is extremely important, as my colleague Mr. Ward said.

First group of people would be from the interagency process, the

interagency group. These are people who already work for the government who have expertise, who would go in for the short time,

the way our USAID dark team does.

The second group, however, would be the Civilian Reserve Corps,

where we would look for trained people who are doctors, lawyers,

veterinarians, whomever, who might be able to respond to a crisis

to support their country, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or another crisis

place that we cannot foresee today.

The important thing is to have these people ready so that we can

respond and help people. Why we want to do it through one organization is because people have to have medical clearance. They need

to learn languages. They have to have security clearances. They

need the same training. They need to have team building.

Dr. GINGREY. In what organization would that be?

Ambassador THOMAS. That would be under the State Department.

Dr. GINGREY. The Department of State?

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir.

And we believe we are ready. And again, we are asking that Congress enact that legislation.

Dr. GINGREY. Great. Well, I think that sounds good.

22

I have got a little bit of time left, and I want to propose this

question either to Mr. Ward or Mr. Miller or any of the panelists

in regard to people who have served on provincial reconstruction

teams.

As they come back, I am assuming that you debrief them and

learn best practices so that you can, the next cadre that moves forward into the field, that deploys, that they will be able to do an

even better job than the ones that have already served in that capacity. And I wanted to ask you, how do the folks that are coming

back after a year or a year and a half or two years in a very difficult, exciting assignment, how do they fit back into their regular

job structure? Is it working well or is there a little bit of struggle

getting them back into the routine of things when they come home?

Mr. WARD. Maybe I will start.

As I said, you weren’t here, I brought four veterans of the PRTs

with me this afternoon, and these are four officers that are now

working in the Asia Near East bureau at USAID.

And I would say they fit in pretty well. But it is—some have now

taken other foreign service assignments overseas. Others are working for USAID in Washington. Others have gone back into the private sector or if we borrowed them on a detail from another U.S.

Government agency, they may have gone back to their agency.

I think one thing I am very proud of that has happened in the

few years now of experience that we have, is you asked, do we debrief them. We not only debrief them, we charge them with training the next crowd going out. We really tap their expertise as best

we can, because they truly are the pioneers. And I think all credit

for progress that we have made in improving the effectiveness of

the PRTs goes to them, because these brave men and women have

really written the book, they have written the doctrine on what

works and doesn’t work.

And I am certain that if Deputy Secretary England were sitting

here with us today, he would agree that the level of cooperation between the civilian advisers and the PRT commanders, certainly in

Afghanistan and we are getting better and better all of the time

in Iraq, where we have had a little less experience with this, is

very much a function of people seeing a common goal and deciding

let us put our glossaries behind us, let us learn each others’ terminology and let us focus on what it is we are trying to do for the

Afghan people, or the Iraqi people, and let us get it done. And I

think everybody is very proud of how far we have come with that.

I hope I don’t sound like I am sugarcoating it. Because, yes, we

could do better. We could do better training before they go. We

could do better in terms of doctrine and making resources available. But I have seen so much progress in that in the last four

years, that I wanted to share that with you.

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Ward.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if Mr. Miller wanted to make a comment, but I see my time is expired. If we——

Dr. SNYDER. Go ahead, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman——

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. For the opportunity to respond to the

question.

23

I think that Mr. Ward’s comments were certainly right on point,

and I think that we would echo those comments.

Our people come back enthused about their experience. I have

had the opportunity and pleasure of talking to several of them who

have come back, and so far I have had none of them report back

to me that the experience wasn’t as enriching to them as it was the

experience and the information that they left with the Afghani people.

They are doing some wonderful things, they are proud of it.

These are great opportunities for the both the Afghani people and

also for the Americans who get a chance to go over there and serve

and contribute to this process.

And I think also Mr. Ward was right on when he talked about

the fact, this is relatively new enterprise for all of us. We are in

the process of just within the last year or two starting to do this

type of effort. We have never done it before. It is new turf. It is

new territory. We are all learning from it. I think there are things

we can do better. And I think that, you know, to the credit of the

people that are involved in it, we are all trying to do better as we

work through this process.

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, with your permission may I just add

the Department of Justice’s point of view on this as well.

We have had experience over the last two decades in terms of deploying people overseas for rule of law positions and we have had

people in more than 80 countries in that kind of role.

But nonetheless, I would fully agree with what Mr. Ward and

Mr. Miller have said. We make sure that everyone who comes back

from the PRTs or other service in Iraq or Afghanistan has an opportunity and in fact an obligation to make presentations about

what they have done in connection with their experience there on

the rule of law side.

And we also try and find and frequently find that they want to

extend their deployments or serve overseas in other positions as

well. And I also have a number of veterans from our overseas programs in Iraq and Afghanistan with us here today.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Swartz, would any of you like to introduce the people that

are either still with us or were with us earlier? Some may have left

during the break. If you would like to name they by name.

Mr. SWARTZ. I would be delighted.

Behind me, Doug Allen, who served in multiple positions—Doug,

do you want to stand up—including as a resident legal adviser.

We have in the back Carl Trabilion, who was there in 2003 for

a police training program and helped create the foundation for all

we have done.

And Terry Bartlett, who did the same for the prison training program.

You folks stand up.

Dr. SNYDER. They waved in the back there.

Thank you.

Mr. SWARTZ. I wanted you to see Terry’s size.

Dr. SNYDER. Would you like to name your four people?

24

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I am embarrassed to say that during

the break I sent them back to the office to get to work.

Dr. SNYDER. That is all right. If you know their names and would

like to mention them by name, you should feel free to do that.

Mr. WARD. Well, I know Chris Runyon was here. Help me out.

Monica McCleary was here. Kathleen Hunt, whose just come back

from Iraq. Who was the fourth? Is that it. Okay. Thanks very

much.

Dr. SNYDER. We will go a second round here if you want to start

the five-minute clock again.

Did you all get a chance to read Secretary England’s letter? Was

it distributed to you?

You don’t have to make a comment if you don’t want to, but the

gist of his letter is that DOD’s civilian personnel need to be treated

just the same as military personnel. And then this one paragraph

that refers to non-DOD U.S. Government civilian personnel on the

second page, ‘‘The undersecretary of defense, personnel and readiness, under compelling circumstances, is authorized to approve additional eligibility for care in MTS for other U.S. Government civilian employees who become ill, contract diseases or are injured or

wounded while forward deployed in support of U.S. military forces

engaged in hostilities or other DOD civilian employees overseas.’’

Do any of you have any comments about that language?

Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador THOMAS. Sorry. I would like to say, as I said before,

sir, the two cases we have had of traumatic brain injury, under

compelling circumstances the military has responded and both

have been treated at Walter Reed.

For our foreign service and civil service personnel, they are treated in theatre. If someone comes back, the foreign service and civil

service personnel have private insurance carriers who will treat

them. But we also have an excellent medical staff who looks into

all aspects of their health.

Dr. SNYDER. Anybody else?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that after the unfortunately incident that we had a couple of weeks ago with Mr.

Stefani, the military took Mr. Stefani to a field hospital where they

gave him the best available care they had.

And, you know, we have nothing but compliments for the treatment that our people have gotten from the field commanders and

the staff and the military personnel out in the field.

Same thing when our people have been at post in Baghdad or

Kabul. They take advantage of the Department of State services

that are provided there.

So I think that right now we certainly are complimentary in the

services we have gotten from the other branches of government.

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, we too have relied on Department

of Defense or the Department of State in theatre for medical care.

Dr. SNYDER. I wanted to ask—I am sorry, Mr. McDonald. Go

ahead.

Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, our experience has been similar,

but I will say that I would like to understand better the language

there. The word ‘‘compelling’’ is something that I would want to unVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
25

derstand better. And ‘‘authorization’’ is something that I would

want to understand better.

But again, we have had excellent, excellent care, and excellent

working relationship in the field.

Dr. SNYDER. In the spirit of collaboration, you all may want to

collaborate and do your own follow-up letter with Secretary England, because it is obviously a very good faith effort on his part to

clarify the policy.

We have used the term ‘‘volunteer’’ several times, that your folks

volunteer. I think you, Mr. Ward, used the phrase sign on to worldwide availability was, I think, your phrase.

You all do have the ability to contractually require people when

they take a certain job that is subject to availability. In fact, it is

not a volunteering. It could be this is the job you took at the time.

Would each of you discuss when we use the phrase ‘‘volunteer,’’

is that an accurate statement?

Mr. McDonald, we will start down here. Poor Ambassador Thomas has been getting the first question all afternoon.

Discuss that issue of the availability of personnel and what we

mean by volunteer.

Mr. MCDONALD. For us, for the Treasury Department, volunteer

means that it is their choice, whether they want to step forward

and serve overseas, whether it is in Iraq, Afghanistan or other

places in the international community.

We don’t have a foreign service per se, whether it is a foreign

service of the kind that the State Department has, the Agricultural

Department and USAID, whereby when someone becomes a member of that service, and I will be ready to stand corrected by my

colleagues if I mischaracterize this or misstate it, but there is an

expectation, and I think, even indeed a commitment to serve overseas, at least for a certain period of time, a certain part of one’s

career.

The Treasury Department has overseas attaches. They are very

small in number. Currently we have eight. And we have a technical

assistance program, as I have described in my written statement,

that includes 55 resident advisers and about 70 short-term intermittent advisers who go out from time to time.

But these are individuals who go because they choose to. There

is no obligation on the part of Treasury Department officials to

serve overseas. That said, as I mentioned in my oral statement and

indeed underlined, we have had very good success and seeing people step forward includes former deputy secretary of the Treasury,

former assistant secretary of international affairs for the Treasury,

the deputy general counsel, people at the staff level.

So while volunteer for us means truly volunteer, the spirit of volunteerism has been extremely strong at Treasury and we——

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Swartz.

Mr. SWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Department of Justice, as I mentioned earlier, has had a

long set of programs deploying people overseas, but those are as

well people who volunteered for that service. So turning first to the

prosecutorial side of matters, we have individuals deployed overseas through our international affairs office. These are Federal

26

prosecutors who are overseas for operational cooperation and liaison work.

We also have more than 40 attorneys deployed overseas, Federal

prosecutors, thanks to funding from the State Department, taken

through international narcotics and law enforcement in rule of law

capacity.

In Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, those are definitely volunteers, the prosecutors we have over there. These are individuals

who agreed to leave their current positions as prosecutors and be

in those countries with a goal of trying to pursue the same type

of rule of law work we are doing around the world.

In the law enforcement context, the issue is I think similar with

this difference, that many of the individuals who deployed overseas

have volunteered to serve within specialized groups within the various Department of Justice law enforcement agencies, so that a

number of these individuals would be country attaches for their organization through their international affairs offices or with specialized enforcement groups, such as the Special Operations Group

of the United States Marshall Service.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, at USDA, as has been indicated, we

do have foreign service officers. As a part of their contract, they do

agree to serve overseas, but they have obviously opportunities to

opine for which posting they would like to be assigned to.

We have a special provision where we make available priority

status for ongoing assignments for those folks who would like to

opine and opt for an assignment in Iraq. I don’t think we call it,

we don’t have a foreign service officer right now in Afghanistan.

We serve that out of Pakistan.

All the other folks that we have go are purely volunteers. I mean,

even the foreign service officers that go to Iraq, as I have indicated,

are volunteers. They opt for that assignment. But they do get priority status on going.

The other civil service persons who apply from the other agencies

like Natural Resource Conservation Service, Forestry Service or

any other branches of the USDA that apply, they are purely volunteers, whether they apply directly to USDA or they apply through

the State Department service.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Ward.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, we had a wake up call about three

years ago. I remember it very well. We put out our worldwide bid

list. It included a lot more positions in Iraq and Afghanistan than

we had had before, and we got very few bidders. And we came very

close, I mean, to be very technical, like, you know, that close, to

forced placement, telling officers, reminding officers that when they

joined the foreign service, they signed a statement that they would

be available for worldwide and that we were going to have to call

them on that.

But we decided that we would try one more time and increase

the incentive package——

Dr. SNYDER. May I interrupt you Mr. Ward? Just to be clear, so

you do have how many foreign service officers——

Mr. WARD. We have 1,200.

27

Dr. SNYDER. You have 1,200. You have the authority. All 1,200

of those sign an understanding that you do have that authority to

send them to a place like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Mr. WARD. That is correct, including me. I mean, I signed that,

too.

Dr. SNYDER. Go ahead. Excuse me.

Mr. WARD. So we decided to, as I said, really increase the incentive package and then make another effort to get those volunteers

that everybody is talking about, people that would willingly bid on

those jobs, and, knock on wood, it has worked since then. We have

scaled-up the incentives. We have done a lot more in terms of just,

you know, getting the word out, how important this is, making people that have served there available to talk to people so they understand what the real risks are, what the rewards are, and to date

we have not gotten close again to having to force place people.

Dr. SNYDER. Ambassador Thomas, any comments?

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir.

We have been able to staff Iraq and Afghanistan strictly with officers who wanted to volunteer. We have very proud, and we salute

them for their service.

If, however, we would need to do direct assignments, the secretary has the authority to direct assignments.

Dr. SNYDER. I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one other quick question, and that is, my understanding is

within DOD if you are an officer and you are sort of climbing up

the ranks of leadership, there are certain basic kinds of assignments that look awfully good on your resume. You almost need to

have them if you are going to, you know, maybe reach general officer rank or something like that.

Are there any incentives like that, particularly within State, and

maybe they are not as appropriate in some of the other agencies

as much as State, but are there incentives that way, where the fact

that you have done a couple of years in a hard assignment—obviously, the experience you get there is going to be unlike anything

you would get anywhere else. Are there any incentives like that to

try to encourage people to build that type of resume?

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir.

We are commissioned officers. We have boxes, as we call them

informally, that we have to check in terms of language and assignments if you want to be promoted, and that includes service at

hardship posts. Secretary Rice likes to refer to those of us who

have served in hardship posts as her ‘‘hell-hole gang.’’ Today, 67

percent of the foreign service are serving in hardship posts for

worldwide, and we make sure that you have to do that to get promoted.

Mr. WARD. ‘‘Yes’’ is the answer for USAID as well.

When we assign officers to their next assignment, whether junior

officers or senior officers, you know, with grey hair like me, one

way we look out for those that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan and the south and Sudan, is we take care

of them first. We look at their bids and we promise them in black

and white that if you served in one of those places, you are going

to get one of your top three bids, and I am proud to say that I

28

think, with only one exception last year, they got one of their top

two bids, every one of them.

The point is that we take care of them first, and the rest of the

bidders, those serving in other counties around the world, have to

wait. And that has given opportunities for upward mobility to people that have served in these two places in particular that you are

not sure they would have had otherwise if they were competing

with a much bigger pool of officers.

Mr. AKIN. That is all I had.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

I had a few other questions I wanted to ask you.

I wanted to go back to this statement that Mr. Miller and Mr.

Swartz and I were talking about, the quote I was picking on you

on in your written statements. Which it is a good quote. I mean,

there is nothing wrong with it. I mean, your staff obviously recognized good language and, you know—the second sentence is about

the Civilian Reserve Corps that you all discussed.

It is the first sentence I want to talk about, because the second

sentence says that we can also call on the civilian reserve corps,

but in the first sentence is something you are going to do apart

from that civilian reserve corps, which it says, ‘‘To improve our

ability to respond to overseas challenges, provide the personnel expertise needed will require that we increase our numbers of available, trained and deployable personnel and that we support them

with a structure in Washington that conducts planning and coordination.’’

Then it goes on and says, ‘‘We also would benefit from a Civilian

Reserve Corps.’’

What does the—I will ask Mr. Swartz and Mr. Miller first and

then comments from the other three of you. Apparently the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture and the National Security Council agree with this. What should this structure—what does this structure—this is what some of us are trying

to get at. What should the structure be that we don’t have now?

Mr. Swartz.

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, that is a reference to the civilian—

excuse me, the State Reconstruction and Stability Operation itself.

As I believe Ambassador Thomas mentioned, or perhaps Mr. Ward,

the notion is that there would not only be a Civilian Reserve Corps,

but a structure above that consisting of the active response corps

that would itself be the coordinating mechanism. That is, we would

have an augmented number of personnel in our various agencies

that could address and be available to address those kinds of

issues, but would be working as well both in terms of coordinating

activities ahead of time and working to plan how the civilian reserve corps would be deployed.

So the notion is not simply that there be a reserve corps to draw

upon——

Dr. SNYDER. Right.

Mr. SWARTZ [continuing]. But that there be a structure with the

State Reconstruction and Stability Office providing the overall

structure, but the government agencies involved having augmented

personnel and differing responsibilities according to the task.

29

Dr. SNYDER. Now, did you adopt that statement, that that structure is something different than what we have now?

Mr. SWARTZ. Well, it would be the reconstruction and stability

operation, where we thought that is where we do have the outlines

of what that structure would look like, as Ambassador Thomas

mentioned, in legislation.

Dr. SNYDER. But it is still a work in progress, though.

Mr. SWARTZ. The office is a work in progress. We give actually

detailed personnel from the Department of Justice to that office because we believe that it is a valid way, in fact a very important

way, of trying to put in place a structure for the future of these

types of operations.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Miller, did you have any comments?

Mr. MILLER. I was just going to say that I was told by my staff

during the break that during the break, NSC inserted that when

our statements were circulated through NSC for clearance, that

that is where that language was added to our statement. We didn’t

come up with it on our own. It was added for us during that clearance process.

But the point that has been made already by both Mr. Thomas

and Mr. Swartz, that this structure that is envisioned for the future, having a standby reserve corps, all of those things we talked

about earlier, is certainly something we would support. We have

been asked to detail someone to the secretariat who will be working on this as well at the State Department and we look forward

to that. We think it is the most efficient way to, rather than duplicate that activity in every one of the agencies, it makes a lot more

sense to have it centralized and coordinated in one place, and we

think the Department of State is the best place to have that.

Dr. SNYDER. I asked the former secretary of state some months

ago about what this person thought interagency reform should

occur, and the response was, we don’t need interagency reform, we

just need a National Security Council that functions properly.

Which is interesting to me, but I don’t know if that is right or not.

I wanted to ask a couple of detailed questions. Let us see, who

was it that talked about—Mr. Ward—the aging workforce. You

mentioned you and other potential retirees.

Does there need to be a congressional response to this? What

should be the congressional response to your concern about the depletion in the numbers of people? Are you not having the numbers

of people interested in USAID, or are you concerned that you will

have people there but your force will go from being a very experienced force to a very junior force?

Mr. WARD. The numbers are pretty stark, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. That is what I saw in your statement, yes.

Mr. WARD. Yes, if you look at the number of foreign service officers with USAID back when I was in high school, say back in the

early 1970’s, it was, I don’t know, 15,000 or 16,000, ten times our

size today. Now, I am not saying we have to be that large again.

But as our leadership looks at the challenge of responding to needs

for surges and the ability to help out with what Ambassador

Herbst is trying to put together, in terms of this new conflict and

this new stabilization office. I mean, a lot of those officers are going

to come from USAID foreign service. These are not separate.

30

We are concerned, and so they are looking at a number of ways

to solve the problem. The good news is that, and I mentioned this

in my oral remarks, when I go out and talk to young people and

when I look at the numbers of applications we get for opportunities

in the foreign service with USAID, the world in which we work is

not scaring young people away. That is very encouraging.

We need the resources to hire more of them, and that is what

our bosses are looking at now, is, you know, how to better get those

resources or make some adjustments within our own budget to accommodate that.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Akin, you want me to finish my questions?

Mr. AKIN. Sure, go ahead.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Swartz, I had two questions for you. One is related to your statement in which you have kind of a range of assignments to these combat zones. Some are 90 days, some are 120

days. You certainly have people that stay a year or two. But I

think it was maybe the DEA folks that maybe have 120-day turnovers. That is a fairly—I am sure it seems like to somebody who

hasn’t had to spend, you know, 3 days in Iraq let alone 3 months

or 15 or 20 months, but in terms of the kind of work that they are

doing, that is a fairly quick turnover. Has that been an issue? I

suspect the longer the rotation, the less interest in it. but has that

worked out relatively well, that 120 days, or does it seem there is

a lot of catch up with new people coming onboard?

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I think it has worked from an operational point of view, and I should say that in both countries the

law enforcement agencies particularly, it depends on the nature of

the task, but it may have a country attache who is there for a year

or longer. May have several people in that regard that form the

backbone, if you will, of the liaison relationship, so that if the FBI

has personnel in both countries, the DEA has a country attache

team in Afghanistan that is there long-term.

The reason for the deployments is, it can work that way, is largely because they are there for specific law enforcement purposes, oftentimes operational matters, and oftentimes for a number of these

law enforcement agencies, teams are rotating back in and out, so

it is not a new group of people every time. Some people volunteer

to return. That is not an uncommon matter to see.

And it is also I think fair to say, it reflects the fact that these

people have important law enforcement missions back in the

United States or elsewhere worldwide. These are oftentimes specialized teams of counterterrorism, counter-narcotics experts, so

they may have——

Dr. SNYDER. Overseas experience.

Mr. SWARTZ [continuing]. And they have ongoing case responsibilities there. But we find that the differing deployments work according to the agency and we have let the law enforcement agencies make those kind of operational decisions.

Dr. SNYDER. I wanted to ask one question to you, Mr. Swartz,

mainly because of your legal background, but you may choose to

defer on it today. The issue of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and I

think I want to maybe not address this as to a war zone situation,

but when we have civilian personnel of the United States government that are overseas, and let us suppose they are seen by a U.S.

31

Government care doctor or nurse or whatever, and feel like they

were not—they or a family member were not properly treated, is

it your opinion that the remedy is appropriate at this time, or do

we have some cloudiness in the current state of Federal tort law.

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would be

glad to take that question back to my——

Dr. SNYDER. Why don’t you take that for the record.

Mr. SWARTZ [continuing]. Civil colleagues at the Department of

Justice, and we will certainly get you an answer on it.

Dr. SNYDER. That will be fine.

Mr. SWARTZ. And may I also mention two other members of my

team who served in Iraq? Michael Jeffroy, who served in the Marines there, and John Uler, who is both a Marine and also served

in Iraq with the Department of State as well.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you.

And then, I just want to give any of you any comments you want

to make, because Mr. Akin and I have been tossing this around for

some time, and some of you alluded to it, but any final comments

that you may want to make about this issue that has been out in

the press, that there has been some discontent on the part of the

Department of Defense and the military with regard to the ability

of the civilian positions to get filled in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you feel that was fair or unfair? Have we caught up? Do we

still have a ways to go?

Mr. Ward, you acknowledged that three years ago we had a problem. Do you feel like you have caught up? Or maybe you don’t want

to comment.

Does anyone have any comment on that issue?

Ambassador Thomas.

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, I would like to say that every year we

have filled our positions with volunteers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We expect that we will be able to do that again.

I don’t know where this urban legend, if it is, has come, that we

have been unable to fill positions, but the State Department has,

through foreign service, civil service and contractors filled positions

that Ambassador Crocker, General Petraeus and their predecessors

have requested of us.

With me I have Barbara Stevenson, who was our PRT specialist

working on this every day at State and throughout the interagency

process.

Mr. WARD. I would just add to that, with all due respect to our

colleagues at the Pentagon who may have said that, the requirements are set by an interagency group that includes the military.

And we, as Ambassador Thomas has said, we have met those.

Now, we sometimes perhaps were not as quick as they want us

to be because we have to get security clearances for people if we

are hiring them from the outside for a particular expertise, or there

may be a health issue, but we are up to date.

And the other point that I would make, which I also make in my

written testimony, is I don’t believe that the answer is necessarily

send a whole lot more civilian officers over there. If it were in a

dangerous environment, it is not necessarily a good thing to have

a whole bunch of civilian officers inside Embassy Kabul or inside

32

Embassy Baghdad or any PRTs where it is not safe for them to get

out and do their job.

Dr. SNYDER. I think the issue though is once the slots have been

determined—you know, I understand what you are saying.

Anyone else have any comments?

Mr. SWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, from the law enforcement side, the

Department of Justice believes it has met the requirements that

have been both suggested and has gone beyond the case of law enforcement agencies that have their own missions to perform in

these countries on counterterrorism and counter-narcotics. Certainly as our roles have expanded on the rule of law side, with regard to assisting the United States attorneys or other Federal prosecutors, we have tried to increase our recruiting process to meet

the additional needs, for instance with law and order task force or

taking on the rule of law coordination responsibility.

We now have six on the ground. We expect to have eight by the

end of November and decrease the numbers thereafter.

Dr. SNYDER. I think Ambassador Thomas, just in closing, I don’t

think we need to consider that an urban legend. I mean, Secretary

Gates has made some public statements expressing some frustration about not having civilian side slots all filled.

I think part of the confusion has been distinguishing between

State Department foreign service officers and other civilian personnel. I think that may be part of it.

I also think that part of it has come from the first report I think

of the special inspector general for the reconstruction of Iraq. And

Ginger Cruse sitting in that chair testified here several weeks ago

that I believe it was only 68 percent of the civilian personnel had

been identified that are going to fill in these slots, identified by the

end of this year.

Well, she may be wrong, and we will have other opportunities to

deal with the special inspector general for the reconstruction of

Iraq, but that is not urban legend. That is somebody doing some

counting whose conclusions are different than what you all are telling us today, so——

Ambassador THOMAS. Sir, with all due respect, our season, our

Iraq bidding season begins now. We are just starting to fill positions for 2008 before——

Dr. SNYDER. You are talking about foreign service officers?

Ambassador THOMAS. Foreign service officers.

Dr. SNYDER. Foreign service officers.

Ambassador THOMAS. Yes, sir, and civil service. We also hire contractors. But we, the State Department, has filled these positions,

and all I can say is maybe the numbers, and I do not know Ms.

Cruse, and I did not know of her testimony, we are at 70 percent

today of the people that we need for 2008. Our bidding season in

which people can volunteer for Iraq, Afghanistan and other posts

is still going on and has not closed yet.

33

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Akin, do you have anything further?

We appreciate you all being with us today, and you should feel

free to, if you have anything that you want to submit to the record,

take this as an open invitation to make any additional comments

you want to make.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

OCTOBER 16, 2007

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

OCTOBER 16, 2007

(39)

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

OCTOBER 16, 2007

(95)

96

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

OCTOBER 16, 2007

(99)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER

Iraq

Dr. SNYDER. 1. Please provide the following information regarding the workforce

planning to staff all the different types of PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan:

a. As of this date, what it the total number of non-DOD civilian personnel required for all the different types of PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ambassador THOMAS. Approximate 400.

Dr. SNYDER. b. What skills and experience are needed for each of these positions?

Please include existing and currently planned PRTs in this summary. Please also

count the non-DOD civilian agency positions that are or will be temporarily filled

by DOD (military and civilian personnel.

Ambassador THOMAS. The skills and experience needed vary by position. In addition to core teams, listed below, all teams have a complement of technical specialists, the composition of which is based on the needs of their particular province or

area of operation. Core teams are composed of the following:

1. Team Leaders: Senior DOS FSOs

2. Deputy Team Leaders: Usually military officers

3. Senior Development Specialists: USAID FSOs

4. Civil Affairs Officers: Military officers

5. Bicultural Bilingual Advisors: DOD contractors

Specialists: All specialist position descriptions are posted on the USAJobs website

and can be viewed there. These include: business development, public health, public

diplomacy, industrial specialists (including construction, electricity, and oil and gas),

urban planning, city management, cultural heritage, governance, rule of law, and

budget advisors as well as provincial program managers.

Dr. SNYDER. c. What is the current schedule (dates and numbers of positions) to

fill all of these non-DOD civilian PRT positions, including positions that have already been filled and those filled or to be filled temporarily by DOD personnel?

Please include the schedule to replace all the DOD personnel temporarily assigned

to civilian agency PRT positions with non-DOD civilian personnel (Foreign Service

Officers, civil servants, contractors).

Ambassador THOMAS. The 99 DOD-provided specialists are due to be replaced in

accordance with an agreement on the backfill process reached between DOS and

DOD in October 2007. This agreement calls for replacement on a rolling basis from

November 2007 through August 2008. The DOD specialists arrived in roughly four

groups beginning in March 2007, with the last arriving in October 2007. All 99 will

depart on or before their tenth month of service in accordance with the backfill

agreement of October 2007. It should be noted that the plan has always been to replace these specialists with DOS Executive Order 3161 appointments. USAJobs is

the primary means of recruiting and hiring these individuals.

Dr. SNYDER. d. How many civilian agency PRT positions are currently filled by

DOD personnel?

Ambassador THOMAS. As of 16 October 2007, the 99th and last DOD specialist

had just arrived. As of January 3, 2008, 92 DOD specialists are still in theater.

Dr. SNYDER. e. How many are currently filled by non-DOD civilian agency personnel, broken out by status (Foreign Service Officers, civil servants, contractors) and

required skills and experience?

Ambassador THOMAS. The following chart provides the breakdown of staffing levels as of December 31, 2007 by individual agencies which have contributed personnel.

DOD DOS * USAID ** USDA DOJ Total

Agency

Totals 140 168 81 16 6 411

* DOS includes 70 FSOs, 73 Executive Order 3161 appointments, 12

contractors and 13 from other DOS elements.

** USAID includes 26 FSOs and 59 contractors.

100

Dr. SNYDER. f. When all currently planned non-DOD civilian personnel are finally

filled, how many will be filled by Foreign Service Officers, by civil servants, and by

contractors?

Ambassador THOMAS. As noted above, the majority of these positions will be filled

by Executive Order 3161 appointments to federal service. The primary means of recruiting and hiring these specialists is USAJobs. In addition, USDA, DOJ, DOC and

other federal agencies continue to offer detailed employees for many of these positions. A small number will be DOS contractors.

Afghanistan

Dr. SNYDER. 1. Please provide the following information regarding the workforce

planning to staff all various types of PRTs:

a. As of this date, what is to total number of non-DOD civilian personnel required

for all different types of PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ambassador THOMAS. Afghanistan only has one type of Provincial Reconstruction

Team (PRT). There are 58 non-DOD civilian personnel at PRTs including NATO

HEADQUARTERS and Regional Command Centers: 24 State, 28 USAID and six

Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Dr. SNYDER. b. What skills and experience are needed for each of these positions?

Please include existing and currently planned PRTs in this summary. Please also

count the non-DOD civilian agency PRT positions that are or will be temporarily

filled by DOD (military and civilian personnel).

Ambassador THOMAS. No civilian PRT positions in Afghanistan are filled by DOD

personnel. State Department PRT positions are filled by experienced Foreign Service Officers from any of the five cones, political, economic, consular, management,

and public diplomacy at a rank roughly equivalent to the PRT Commanding Officer

or Brigade Commander at Regional Commands. The ability to speak the language

of the host nation at non-US led PRTs is also considered in the selection process

as are other factors such as prior military experience that might be relevant. USAID

looks for people with international development and program management experience, with prior USAID experience and work in conflict situations. Experience working within the USG interagency structure and/or working with the military is

strongly preferred, as is prior experience in Afghanistan. Staff must have the interpersonal, consensus-building and teamwork skills required to establish and maintain strong contacts with counterparts both inside and outside of USAID, and to effectively explain USAID program policies, objectives and procedures. Additional criteria include the ability to work independently, communicate effectively, exercise

sound judgment and innovation while operating in a challenging environment, and

work calmly, tactfully, and effectively under pressure.

In addition to cross cultural skills, USDA advisors have technical skills in one or

more of the following areas: dryland agriculture, especially improvement of wheat

yields and crop diversification; production and processing of horticultural crops, especially dried fruit and nuts, fresh melons, pomegranates, and grapes; improving irrigation and farm water use efficiency and storage; tree production, reforestation,

re-vegetation; improving livestock health and animal production (sheep, goats, cattle, or poultry); agricultural extension; and engineering for a variety of agricultural

needs.

Dr. SNYDER. c. What is the current schedule (dates and number of positions) to

fill all of these non-DOD civilian PRT positions, including positions that have already been filled and those filled or to be filled temporarily by DOD personnel?

Please include the schedule to replace all the DOD personnel temporarily assigned

to civilian agency PRT positions with non-DOD civilian personnel (Foreign Service

Officers, civil servants, contractors).

Ambassador THOMAS. All Department of State PRT positions but one are currently filled. The unfilled position is due to a medical condition of the incoming officer. All State PRT positions in Afghanistan are 12 month assignments and are filled

through the regular Foreign Service selection process. The selection process for the

Summer 2008 and Summer 2009 (via language training) rotation has just begun.

USAID has 28 total positions: 20 Field Program Officers (Field Program Officers)

assigned at the PRTs and 8 Development Advisors (DevAds) that are assigned to

Regional Command, Task Forces as well as NATO Headquarters. Of the 20 Field

Program Officer positions, we currently have three vacancies, which are expected to

be filled by mid-February. A twenty-first Field Program Officer position is being established to staff the new Czech PRT in Logar which is scheduled to start operations in early 2008. Of the eight Development Advisors, we have one vacancy and

are currently recruiting to fill it. USAID is also hiring Afghan project specialists to

work with the Field Program Officers at the PRTs—five are on board to date, 10

are in the recruitment stage. USAID PRT assignments, whether career Foreign

101

Service Officers, or non-career officers (also known as Personal Service Contractors)

are a year long in duration. Both career and non-career officers often extend beyond

the one-year cycle (approximately 60%). Career officers, like the State Department,

are selected through the Foreign Service assignment process, while non-career officers are recruited in cycles, arriving at Post incrementally as their security and

medical clearances are received. USDA plans to provide 12 advisors to serve at USled PRTs in Afghanistan by February 2008, plus one coordinator in Kabul.

Dr. SNYDER. d. How many civilian agency PRT positions are currently filled by

DOD personnel?

Ambassador THOMAS. None in Afghanistan.

Dr. SNYDER. e. How many are currently filled by non-DOD civilian agency personnel, broken out by status (Foreign Service Officers, civil servants, contractors) and

required skills and experience?

Ambassador THOMAS. See also answer 1e. All civilian agency PRT positions in Afghanistan fall under the NATO umbrella. State, USAID and Department of Agriculture officers are placed at the PRTs at the request of the country staffing the

PRT. All 11 US-led PRTs have State Department employees (10 Foreign Service Officers and one civil servant). Nine of the 11 non-US led PRTs requested and are

staffed with State Foreign Service Officers. All State Department PRT positions are

filled through and meet the Foreign Service selection process.

Four PRTs have not requested a USAID representative, Kunduz (Germany lead),

Badghis (Spanish lead), Wardak (Turkey lead) and Maimana (Norway lead). USAID

has positions at 20 of the 25 current PRTs, Regional Command Centers and NATO

Headquarters. USAID is establishing a position for the Czech-led PRT in Logar in

early 2008 at their request. USDA will provide 12 career civil servants to staff USled PRTs plus one civil service coordinator.

Dr. SNYDER. f. When all currently planned non-DOD civilian agency PRT positions

are finally filled, how many will be filled by Foreign Service Officers, by civilian

servants, and by contractors?

Ambassador THOMAS. All but one of the 29 Department of State PRT positions

are currently filled (28 Foreign Service Officers and one civil servant). This number

includes State PRT officers at NATO HEADQUARTERS and Regional Command

Centers and Embassy Kabul. The one vacancy is due to medical reasons.

USAID has 28 total positions that are assigned to the PRTs, Regional Command

Centers, the Task Forces as well as NATO Headquarters. Of these, 12 are currently

career USAID Foreign Service positions and 16 are non-career personal service contractors positions. USAID is in the process of moving towards more career Foreign

Service positions.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that the State Department has filled all its FSO slots

in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please clarify this statement. Didn’t Secretary Rice ask

DOD to fill civilian-designated slots with DOD personnel temporarily for 2007 and

into 2008? Were the slots filled by DOD personnel ones that would not typically be

filled by FSOs?

Ambassador THOMAS. Foreign Service Officer and civilian specialist staffing are

two separate but complementary processes. DOD provided 99 specialists with expertise in business development, public health, city planning, agricultural development,

etc., to Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and embedded-PRTs (ePRTs) from

April 2007 to October 2007 for one year assignments. We are now in the process

of ‘‘backfilling’’ those DOD positions with Department of State temporary organization hires (3161s), detailees, and contractors. None of those 99 specialist positions

were ever intended for Foreign Service Officers.

The success of PRT civilian staffing represents an unprecedented level of interagency cooperation. Details from Departments of Agriculture, Justice, Treasury,

Commerce, USAID, and other smaller agencies work together with Department of

State personnel to provide interdisciplinary teams managed and led by the Department of State.

Afghanistan

Dr. SNYDER. Is the State Department or the Defense Department or both responsible for ensuring that the DOD personnel who are/were temporarily placed in civilian agencies PRT positions have the appropriate skills and experience for the assignment? Can you verify that they do/did.

Ambassador THOMAS. Afghanistan PRTs do not have nor have they had DOD personnel filling civilian agency PRT positions.

Iraq

Dr. SNYDER. Is the State Department or the Defense Department or both responsible for ensuring that the DOD personnel who are/were temporarily placed in civilVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
102

ian agency PRT positions have the appropriate skills and experience for the assignment? Can you verify that they do/did?

Ambassador THOMAS. DOS and DOD worked collaboratively to ensure that all of

the DOD specialist personnel in PRTs have the appropriate skill sets and experience

for their assignments.

Iraq

Dr. SNYDER. Were all federal agencies asked to provide personnel for civilian

agency PRT positions before the Department of Defense was asked to temporarily

fill these positions with DOD personnel? Please provide a list of civilian agencies

that the State Department has solicited for volunteers (e.g., Health and Human

Service, Education, Homeland Security, Transportation, etc.).

Ambassador THOMAS. Through an interagency, NSC-approved process, original

planning called for DOD to temporarily staff these positions, as it was the government agency with both the dedicated resources and experience to move personnel

quickly into a war zone. The focus of PRT staffing is not explicitly for all agencies

to be represented at PRTs on a quota basis, but rather to secure the best personnel

for each position. One of the key lessons learned from staffing the 10 original PRTs,

prior to the surge, was that details from smaller federal agencies and entities was

often burdensome for them, both in terms of funding, as well as staffing gaps. Shortly after the surge was announced, DOS launched an Interagency Staffing Sub-Group

with representatives from several agencies, in order to manage this process. Thanks

to funding provided in the FY07 Iraq supplemental, State also was able to offer reimbursable details for any agency willing to provide personnel. The DOS Iraq Transition Assistance Office (ITAO), the principal office charged with selection, hiring,

and support of Executive Order 3161 appointments to the federal service for Iraq,

also coordinates the deployment of detailees from other USG agencies. To date, the

following agencies have provided employees on details to serve in PRTs: USDA—

20, Commerce—3, DOD—3, White House—1, Transportation—1, DHS (FEMA)—1,

and HHS (CDC)—1.

Afghanistan

Dr. SNYDER. Were all federal agencies asked to provide personnel for the civilian

agency PRT positions before the Department of Defense was asked to temporarily

fill these positions with DOD personnel? Please provide a list of civilian agencies

that the State Department has solicited for volunteers (e.g. Health and Human

Services, Education, Homeland Security, Transportation, etc.).

Ambassador THOMAS. The Department of State has not requested any other federal agency, including DOD, to fill any PRT positions in Afghanistan.

Dr. SNYDER. Ambassador Satterfield has said that one reason the State Department was unable to initially fill all the civilian agency PRT positions was the delay

in receiving funds that were appropriated in the FY07 Supplemental budget. Was

there no other mechanism to fund civilians for these positions while waiting for passage of the FY07 Supplemental budget? Did the State Department consider reprogramming funds from other activities?

Ambassador THOMAS. There was no other mechanism for funding additional personnel and there were not sufficient funds available that could be reprogrammed

from other activities for that purpose.

Iraq

Dr. SNYDER. How are the military personnel who are temporarily filling these civilian PRT positions being funded?

Ambassador THOMAS. They are funded by DOD.

Afghanistan

Dr. SNYDER. How are the military personnel who are temporarily filling these civilian PRT positions being funded?

Ambassador THOMAS. There are no military personnel temporarily or otherwise

filling any civilian PRT positions in Afghanistan.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that the State Department filled 90% of its positions

in Baghdad and PRTs in Iraq for 2007 with volunteers. What is the actual number

of PRT vacancies for 2007 that the State Department filled?

Ambassador THOMAS. Pre-surge, i.e., prior to early spring 2007, we had 42 positions in the PRTs and 32 have been filled. We currently have 80 positions and all

have also been filled for the 2008 transfer season.

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard of at least one State Department person who did not

volunteer to deploy on a PRT who was sent anyway. You testified that all State Department personnel deployed to PRTs were ‘‘volunteers.’’ Is volunteer a term of art?

Please clarify.

103

Ambassador THOMAS. Volunteer is not a term of art. We have a mechanism in

place for directing assignments where no willing and qualified volunteers exist. We

have not yet had to use that mechanism as all volunteers were just that. We are

unaware of the case cited above.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that Barbara Stephenson of the State Department is

the specialist for PRTs. Please clarify: Is Barbara Stephenson the specialist for

PRTs in Iraq? Who is the specialist for PRTs in Afghanistan?

Ambassador THOMAS. As Deputy Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Coordinator for Iraq at the State Department, Barbara Stephenson has played a lead

role in designing and implementing the ‘‘civilian surge,’’ including a significant expansion of the PRT program.

Sandra Ingram, an officer on the Afghanistan Desk, is responsible for coordinating the State Department’s PRT efforts in Afghanistan.

Iraq

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard that extensive leaves authorized State Department

personnel, while a great incentive, cause continuity and leadership challenges at

some of the PRTs (Iraq and Afghanistan). What actions could mitigate these challenges?

Ambassador THOMAS. For Iraq: All teams have a Team Leader, a Deputy Team

Leader, and Senior Development Specialists. In addition, many teams have more

than one of their key specialists—such as governance advisors, city managers or

rule of law advisors. As a result, coverage of critical tasks and projects is planned

in advance of leaves for any key staff members. We have not heard of cases where

leave for DOS team members has significantly impeded program progress.

Afghanistan

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard that extensive leaves authorized for State Department personnel, while a great incentive, cause continuity and leadership challenges

at some of the PRTs (Iraq and Afghanistan). What actions could mitigate these challenges?

Ambassador THOMAS. The Department of State believes it has struck an acceptable balance between the needs of the service and its obligation to preserve and protect the health and well being of all its employees particularly our civilian officers

serving in war zones. One way in which we mitigated personnel gaps in Afghanistan

was by creating a rover PRT position to fill short term staffing gaps. The current

rover incumbent has prior Afghanistan PRT experience, and has ably used his

Italian language skills while filling in at the Italian-led NATO PRT in Heart, has

served at PRT Fara ahd is currently spending 25 per cent of his time filling a gap

as a liaison with the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

Dr. SNYDER. Would the PRT veterans you brought to the hearing fill out our PRT

survey? Would you widely distribute this survey to PRT personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan and the veterans who have returned?

Ambassador THOMAS. The Department of State has been working jointly with

USAID to conduct a survey of employees who have served, or are actively serving,

on PRTs. We would be happy to share the survey analysis results with the Committee upon their completion. It is our goal to continue improving PRT communication,

as well as ensuring that PRTs are responsive to the political, security, and economic

challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr. SNYDER. Does the State Department or USDA have responsibility for filling

the agricultural PRT advisor position made vacant by the tragic death of Tom

Stefani? When do you expect a replacement to be deployed?

Ambassador THOMAS. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for filling all

Agriculture PRT positions. USDA is in the process of hiring another person to fill

the vacancy left by Tom Stefani’s tragic death.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that 20% of all State Department FSOs have deployed

to Iraq or Afghanistan so far. SIGIR testified two days later that 40% of all FSOs

have served in Iraq alone. Please clarify. What is the percentage of FSOs, broken

out by organization of assignment, who have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan

since 2001?

Ambassador THOMAS. Approximately 1200 FSOs, or just under 12%, of the Foreign Service has served in Iraq. Approximately 20% of the Foreign Service has

served in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that the State Department had a sufficient number of

FSO volunteers to fill its slots in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Ward testified that

USAID FSOs did not initially volunteer in sufficient numbers until additional incentives for deployment were provided. Did Secretary Rice add incentives for FSOs at

104

all agencies to deploy in larger numbers in order for the State Department to fill

its FSO slots?

Ambassador THOMAS. Secretary Rice only has statutory authority over the benefit

package afforded Department of State Foreign Service personnel. Other agencies

with Foreign Service personnel often choose to match the benefit packages offered

by the Department of State but are not under any statutory obligation to do so.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that the State Department had 11,500 employees to fill

267 posts worldwide. How many positions does this represent (at the 267 posts) and

does this include Main State? What is the percentage of fills at Main State?

Ambassador THOMAS. The Department currently has 11,690 Foreign Service Positions. This includes 8,079 (69%) overseas and 3,611 (31%) domestic positions. Of the

domestic positions, 2,520 are located in the DC Area. Seventy six percent of the DC

area positions are currently filled.

Dr. SNYDER. Are there plans for and will Congress see a request to increase the

number of FSOs?

Ambassador THOMAS. The Department is dealing with a deficit of mid-level Foreign Service Generalists due to hiring shortages in the 1990s. The deficit is particularly acute at the FS–02 level where we have 210 more positions, mostly in the Public Diplomacy and Management cones, than officers. While our planning models

show that the overall mid-level deficit could be eliminated by September 2010, there

will likely still be a deficit of 75 02-level officers. To address this shortfall, the Department requested funding for 254 new positions in the FY 2008 President’s Budget to implement the Secretary’s Transformational Diplomacy initiative. This request

includes Foreign Service generalist and specialist positions, as well as the corresponding Civil Service positions which we see as a down payment for future

needs.

Dr. SNYDER. You clearly articulated how State Department personnel get care for

combat zone injuries and illnesses in theater and Germany. How do they get care

once back in CONUS, and do they know they can apply for a waiver to get care

at Military Treatment Facilities?

Ambassador THOMAS. The wounded and ill State Department patients who require care in the States receive their care from the private health care system. The

few patients who tried the Military Treatment Facilities after returning to the

United States did not elect to continue.

Previous information shared with the Hill includes reference to the Federal Employee health insurance program AND the use of Worker’s Compensation benefits

through Department of Labor. The DOL issue is particularly sensitive because private insurance will not cover care for a work related injury or illness unless DOL

has declined a claim. Dr. Brown mentioned at his last briefing that State employees

are being advised of the DOL paperwork requirement during the Iraq outbrief process.

Dr. SNYDER. When is the three-layer response corps—Active Reserve Corps,

Standby Reserve Corps and Civilian Reserve Corps—projected to be operational?

Please provide any planning documents and directives. Which civilian agencies in

the USG are involved?

Ambassador THOMAS. The Active and Standby Response Corps are already operational, although still modest in size. There are currently ten members of the Active

Response Corps (ARC), all within the Department of State. They have been deployed to such places as Darfur, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Haiti, Chad, Liberia, Iraq,

and Kosovo. For Fiscal Year 2008, the Administration is requesting funding to increase the ARC to 33 persons and to add staff positions in S/CRS to provide the

necessary planning and deployment support for them.

The Standby Response Corps (SRC) currently has almost 300 members, all of

whom have been drawn from current or retired State Department personnel. Last

year, one current Foreign Service Officer served in Darfur and another in Eastern

Chad.

Given the challenges we will face in the coming years, it is essential that the ARC

and SRC expand not just in State but in USAID and other civilian agencies such

as Justice, Commerce, Treasury, and Agriculture. We plan to expand the size and

training requirements as resources allow.

The Civilian Reserve Corps (CRC) has not yet been established. We appreciate

Congress making available up to $50 million for the CRC in the FY 2007 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 110–28). This level of funding would allow us to recruit,

hire, and train the first 500 CRC reservists and to pre-position equipment so that

they are fully prepared to deploy. However, obligation of this funding is contingent

upon the enactment of authorizing legislation. Senators Lugar and Biden and Congressmen Farr and Saxton have proposed such authorizing legislation (S. 613 and

105

H.R. 1084, respectively). Enactment of these bills is an important priority for this

Administration.

Dr. SNYDER. When were Human Resources and leadership at USAID first briefed

on the three response corps systems? The testimony of Mr. Ward indicated he was

briefed by Ambassador Herbst just one week before the hearing. When were the

other participating USG agencies briefed, asked to participate?

Ambassador THOMAS. State Department Human Resources and USAID have been

integrally involved in the development of the three response corps from the start.

Perhaps Mr. Ward’s testimony was referring to the latest briefing in this process,

in which Ambassador Herbst met with all USAID Assistant Administrators on October 15 to update them on progress the interagency has made to build civilian response capacity.

In developing the three-tiered response corps, S/CRS has drawn heavily upon the

expertise of personnel detailed to it from across the federal government, including

USAID, and from the S/CRS-led interagency working groups established to implement the President’s Directive for management of stabilization and reconstruction

operations (NSPD–44).

These working groups were stood up in June 2006. More than twenty agencies

and bureaus have participated, including USAID, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and

Human Services, Treasury, Justice, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as a number of State Department bureaus including the Bureau of Human Resources. One

of these working groups was devoted to the design and framework for the three tiers

of civilian response capacity.

In late April of this year, the Department formed an interagency task force that

was charged with tackling remaining questions regarding the design of the Civilian

Reserve Corps. The task force was led by S/CRS, and participating organizations included USAID, the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce,

Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Defense, and four State Department bureaus—Human Resources, Office of the Legal Adviser, International

Narcotics and Law Enforcement, and S/CRS.

Dr. SNYDER. In answer to Dr. Gingrey’s question about why S/CRS and the CRC

are taking so long, you replied that the State Department was waiting for Congress

to enact legislation. Please be more specific about what legislation is either pending

or required?

Ambassador THOMAS. The State Department is committed to improving the U.S.

Government’s ability to respond to reconstruction and stabilization crises, and

progress is being made in this area. We appreciate Congress making available up to $50 million for the Civilian Reserve Corps (CRC) in the FY 2007 supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110–28).

This level of funding will allow us to recruit, hire, and train the first 500 CRC reservists. It will also allow us to pre-position equipment so that they are fully prepared to deploy. However, obligation of this funding is contingent upon enactment

of authorizing legislation.

Both the House and Senate have proposed bills that would satisfy this requirement and strengthen the U.S. Government’s ability to prepare for and respond to

crises arising in weak and failed states. In the Senate, Senators Lugar and Biden

have proposed S. 613, the Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management

Act of 2007. In the House, Representatives Farr and Saxton have proposed companion legislation, H.R. 1084. These bills would improve the State Department’s capacity to provide civilian response and foreign assistance for reconstruction and stabilization, as well as providing the authorizing legislation required to obligate the

supplemental funding made available for the CRC.

Enactment of these bills is an important priority for this Administration.

Dr. SNYDER. What is the relationship between State/Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) and the regional bureaus? Who has the real authority

and power and funding when it comes to structure and process to manage Reconstruction and Stability operations and implementation of NSPD–44?

Ambassador THOMAS. Under National Security Presidential Directive 44 (NSPD–

44), the President has vested in the Secretary of State the responsibility to coordinate and lead integrated United States Government efforts to prepare, plan for, and

conduct reconstruction and stabilization activities. S/CRS has been charged by the

Secretary with implementing this Directive. In carrying out this responsibility, S/

CRS works closely with the regional bureaus as well as with other State Department bureaus and with other Departments and Agencies as appropriate.

Within the Department of State, the Secretary determines which office will take

the lead role in responding to any particular situation. Should a decision be made

to activate the Interagency Management System for Reconstruction and StabilizaVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
106

tion (IMS) to address a particular crisis, the Country Reconstruction and Stabilization Group (the Washington-based interagency policy coordination body for the situation) would be co-chaired by the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization,

the Assistant Secretary of the relevant regional bureau, and an appropriate regional

senior director from the National Security Council.

With regard to the question of funding, the Department of State currently utilizes

various resources to carry out reconstruction and stabilization operations, including

reprogramming within existing assistance accounts, the supplemental appropriations process, and transfer authorities. In addition, in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007,

the Department of Defense transferred $110 million to the Department of State for

reconstruction and stabilization activities under authorities granted in Section 1207

of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006.

Dr. SNYDER. What are your specific concerns for future staffing of assignments for

non-DOD federal civilian employees in any combat zones? For example, will you be

facing a significant reduction in qualified personnel due to an aging workforce? Do

you anticipate difficulty in attracting suitable skilled and experienced volunteers for

these positions? Are there laws or policies that restrict your ability to deploy personnel or deploy personnel involuntarily? What is your agency doing to mitigate these

potential staffing problems?

Ambassador THOMAS. State Department personnel have always been ready and

willing to serve in dangerous and unstable environments where their skills and expertise are needed. We do not anticipate a reduction in qualified Foreign Service

personnel due to an aging workforce or an inability to attract personnel. The Foreign Service remains a highly competitive and sought-after career. Our attrition

rate is one of the lowest in the U.S. Government. Currently, sixty-eighty percent of

Foreign Service Officers are stationed overseas, with more than 700 serving in unaccompanied positions at our most difficult posts. Since 2003, over 1500 State Department personnel have served in Iraq alone. All 250 positions opening in summer

2008 in Iraq, including those in Baghdad and the Provincial Reconstruction Teams,

have already been filled with volunteers. Nevertheless, should the need ever arise,

the Secretary of State is authorized by the Foreign Service Act to assign Foreign

Service personnel to such positions to ensure the Department’s diplomats are best

placed to address critical national security needs. We are continually evaluating how

we might best support our employees serving in our most difficult posts—both during and after their assignments—and may, in the future, seek Congressional assistance. In our current FY 2008 budget, we have requested an additional 254 positions,

all critical to fulfilling the Department’s mission. For example, it would expand the

size of the State Department’s Active Response Corps to 33. We are also working

to build civilian capacity by creating a Civilian Reserve Corps, as called for by the

President and the Secretary. A Civilian Reserve Corps would allow us to draw on

the generosity and skills of the wider American public for stabilization and reconstruction missions. We welcome Congressional support for these initiatives.

Dr. SNYDER. What modifications, if any, to the current package of incentives, benefits, and medical care policies would increase the likelihood of attracting the best

volunteers for these positions?

Ambassador THOMAS. Currently, more State Department officers serve in dangerous, unaccompanied positions than ever before in our history. The State Department is constantly reviewing and adapting its benefits, incentives, and services to

ensure that they meet the needs of these brave men and women, and their families.

Foreign and Civil Service Officers who serve in Iraq for instance are eligible for financial and non-monetary incentives as outlined in the Department’s Iraq Service

Recognition Package. This package includes unique benefits related to compensation, support for families, and additional rest and recuperation periods, as well as

onward assignment preference and promotion consideration for Foreign Service Officers. We are continually evaluating how we might best support our employees who

serve in our most difficult post—both during and after their tours—and may, in the

future, seek Congressional assistance.

As the Department adapts to the shifting national security environment, we are

looking forward to identify and address anticipated needs, such as through the development of an Active and Standby Response Corps, a Civilian Reserve Corps, and

specialized training. With these new initiatives come additional requirements on the

Department, and the Department’s ability to meet those requirements would be

strengthened by legislation. The Administration welcomes efforts by Congress that

support the State Department’s ability to build civilian capacity for work in stabilization and reconstruction environments.

Senators Lugar and Biden and Representatives Farr and Saxton have proposed

legislation (S. 613 and H.R. 1084, respectively) that would provide the AdministraVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
107

tion with key authorities to enable the Department to build the civilian capacity our

country needs. Among the more important provisions, S. 613 includes a dual compensation waiver for federal retirees, which would be a useful incentive for recruitment into a Civilian Reserve Corps or the Standby Response Corps. The Administration supports this legislation and hopes Congress will enact it soon.

Dr. SNYDER. The Subcommittee has heard testimony that non-DOD federal civilian employees are currently receiving adequate medical care in Iraq and Afghanistan at military and embassy treatment facilities. The current DOD policy which

states, ‘‘The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), under compelling reasons, is authorized to approve additional eligibility for [Military Treatment

Facilities] for other U.S. Government civilian employees who become ill, contract

diseases, or become injured or wounded while forward deployed in support of U.S.

military forces engaged in hostilities, or other DOD civilian employees overseas.’’

Are you satisfied with this policy?

Ambassador THOMAS. We have had many civilian employees with medical emergencies treated at Military Treatment Facilities in combat zones, and they have all

received prompt and outstanding medical care.

Dr. SNYDER. There appears to be a large discrepancy between the number of Office Workers’ Compensation Program claims filed under FECA by federal civilian

employees who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for emotional stress disorders and

the number of employees who report symptoms of these disorders. What is your organization doing to screen and survey your employees who have deployed to combat

zones for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems? What

action is your organization taking to encourage reporting of issues and to ensure

adequate care and education? How are you specifically dealing with the stigma associated with admission of mental health and stress disorders and employees’ fears

that such admission will have negative effects such as career discrimination, loss

of clearance, etc.?

Ambassador THOMAS. All employees assigned to Iraq and Afghanistan are mandated to attend a High Stress Assignment Outbrief Program upon completion of

their tour. This is held at the Foreign Service Institute and is done in a group format. The course is conducted jointly by the head of FSI’s Transition Center and a

psychiatrist from the Office of Medical Services (MED). This course was made mandatory precisely to avoid the problem of people avoiding it for fear that it would stigmatize them with a ‘‘mental health’’ label. Furthermore, if they prefer to have an

individualized outbrief, whether for the convenience of scheduling or because they

wish to bring up more personal matters in a private setting, they can do that instead. These courses are also available on a voluntary basis to any employee returning from any unaccompanied tour.

At the Outbrief, employees, they are explicitly advised to self-screen by educating

them with these four steps:

1. They are given information about the more common mental health problems

seen in people who serve at high stress posts, such as normal and self-limited (sub-clinical) stress reactions, Acute Stress Disorder, Post-traumatic

Stress Disorder (PTSD), alcohol or other substance abuse, depression and

other mood disorders, and marital problems. This information is based on

self-reports from peers who attended previous outbriefs over the past three

years; the anonymous survey that MED and the Family Liaison Office (FLO)

conducted to which 877 employees responded; and the medical literature on

the subject.

2. They are then advised about signs and symptoms that indicate sufficient concern to warrant a professional consultation.

3. Clarification is offered about medical histories and the fact that seeking help

for mental health issues in itself is never cause for an automatic change in

medical or security clearances. An opaque boundary between MED and HR

is well established, and an individual’s medical history is never revealed to

HR, although the employee’s medical clearance could affect assignments as

the purpose is to make sure that any needed medical care is available at the

post of assignment.

4. They are advised how to contact mental health professionals either within

the Department of State (both domestically and overseas) or privately, including a point of contact in HR for processing claims with OWCP. They are

also informed that MED’s Employee Consultation Services offers a bi-weekly

support group in Washington for returnees from unaccompanied tours.

Even before deployment these topics are introduced by staff from the Office of

Mental Health Services for all attendees at the mandatory Foreign Affairs

Counterterrorism Training (FACT) and PRT pre-deployment courses offered by DipVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
108

lomatic Security. Our mental health provider in Iraq is designated to provide services solely to the Iraq mission and has back-up support available from our psychiatrist in Amman.

MED is currently developing a Deployment Stress Management Program and will

hire two to three more mental health specialists who will provide evaluation, support, and initial treatment for employees suffering from PTSD or other mental

health problems upon return from unaccompanied tours.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that you were briefed by Ambassador Herbst about the

three response corps system—Active Reserve Corps, Standby Reserve Corps and Civilian Reserve Corps—just one week before the hearing. When was anyone else at

USAID briefed earlier?

Mr. WARD. In my comments, I was referring to a recent update briefing I received.

USAID staff have worked closely with the Department of State’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) from the beginning of this effort to develop the three response corps systems over the last three years, and has

detailed staff to S/CRS to work on these efforts. USAID has also been involved in

all major policy discussions at the leadership level.

While the USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance

has been the main participant, this spring, Ambassador John Herbst met with

USAID’s Acting Administrator and with Agency Assistant Administrators to discuss

progress on developing the Active and Standby Response Corps, as well as the Civilian Reserve Corps. This fall, he met with me as part of a series of briefings to update USAID regional Assistant Administrators, Deputy Assistant Administrators

and staff from Agency bureaus.

Dr. SNYDER. You testified that ‘‘PRT members have written the doctrine [after

and during their deployments] and they know what works.’’ Please provide the doctrine that they have written. If this was figurative, please clarify. Provide any doctrine that USAID may have in writing for PRT operations.

Mr. WARD. When PRTs were first established in 2002, team members shared their

insights into what worked best via e-mail and through in-person briefings with outgoing and incoming Field Program Officers (FPOs). The lessons learned from these

exchanges of information became the basis for a more formal training program that

is now the vehicle for preparing new PRT employees prior to their assignments in

the field.

USAID is currently developing a comprehensive training program that will capture systematically the knowledge and experience of FPOs as well as those of officers assigned in Kabul and it will integrate that information into a larger pre-deployment training program for officers assigned to Afghanistan. Likewise, experienced-based training will also be incorporated into comprehensive training for PRT

members deployed to Iraq.

USAID is also participating in a 3-week pre-deployment training exercise at Ft.

Bragg for PRT officers from USAID, State, USDA, and DOD. The exercise gives incoming officers the opportunity to discuss on-the-ground realities with Afghanistanexperienced officers as well as to participate in scenarios based on real experiences

of PRT veterans. It also provides military officers with a better understanding of

USG civilian agency roles in PRTs. Likewise, civilian agency participants are exposed to the military environment in which they will spend the next 12–18 months.

In surveys completed after each training session, participants consistently cite the

joint civilian-military exercises as a critical part of the success of PRT operations.

Handbooks and Guidelines

The International Security Assistance Force PRT Handbook is the primary written document governing PRTs. It has been endorsed by the ambassador-level PRT

Executive Steering Committee (ESC) in Kabul, and is the product of more than four

years of input from national (Afghanistan) and international (including USG, the

UN, NATO) units. The Handbook outlines guiding principles and proven best practices that each PRT can draw upon in implementing a strategy for meeting the challenges of its area of operations.

Dr. SNYDER. Would the PRT veterans you brought to the hearing fill out our PRT

surveys? Would you widely distribute this survey to serving PRT personnel and to

the veterans who have returned?

Mr. WARD. USAID is facilitating an interagency working group survey of PRT

participants. We expect to have results of our survey analysis within the next several weeks and we will share them with the Committee.

Since this survey process will be applied to each PRT cohort, for future surveys,

USAID would like to work with the Committee to understand issues that are of

paramount concern so that we can address them in our ongoing surveying.

109

Dr. SNYDER. Describe ‘‘grantees’’ who work on PRTs. What is the process for recruiting, selecting and deploying them?

Mr. WARD. USAID issues public requests for proposals to fill contracts, grants,

and cooperative agreements, often on a country-by-country basis; USAID does not

select implementing partners (contractors or grantees) at the PRT level.

After a fair and open selection process, a contract/grant/cooperative agreement is

awarded. A Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) provides day-to-day management of

the program and works with the implementing partner to ensure that it meets

USAID’s requirements for performance.

USAID utilizes various acquisition and assistance instruments to implement its

activities. Contracts, grants, cooperative agreements and purchase orders are some

of the instruments that are negotiated by USAID. These instruments provide commodities and technical assistance to support the attainment of the agency’s objectives. USAID refers to contractors, grantees and cooperative agreement recipients

collectively as ‘‘implementing partners.’’ Acquisition refers to obtaining goods and

services, through various types of contracts, for the use or benefit of the Agency.

Assistance refers to transferring funds (or other valuables) from USAID to another

party to implement programs designed to contribute to the public good by furthering

the objectives of the Foreign Assistance Act. USAID is required to comply with internal regulations and directives as well as Federal Government policies and regulations.

Guidelines on our acquisition and assistance can be found on our website: http:/

/www.usaid.gov/business/.

Dr. SNYDER. How do USAID personnel in the field interact with NGOs? Under

what conditions would NGOs take over the work USAID does in the field?

Mr. WARD. There are principally two modes of interaction between USAID personnel and its implementing partners (i.e., NGOs: U.S., international, local) in the field:

(1) monitoring progress on a USAID-funded project, (2) coordinating with projects

not funded by USAID.

USAID field staff provide oversight of contracts and grants under the management of a USAID implementing partner. This role includes both collaboration with

the implementing partner to identifying project priorities and modes of implementation and oversight and assessment of progress made towards established goals and

objectives.

In cases where an NGO in Afghanistan or Iraq is not a USAID implementing

partner, USAID field staff liaise with the organization to ensure coordination of effort in key sectors, such as health, education, local governance, and building institutional—local and state—capabilities for delivering services. USAID also works in

this coordinated fashion with other donors, both foreign governments and international organizations. The information sharing provides useful local knowledge to

the USAID Mission, and to the PRT. At the national level, there is regular interaction and coordination among the donor, military and NGO communities.

At this point, there is no instance in which we can imagine an NGO taking over

USAID’s role as a PRT participant, which is inherently governmental.

Dr. SNYDER. Are there plans for and will Congress see a request to increase personnel for USAID? What is USAID doing about the ‘‘graying’’ of its workforce and

looming retirement bulge/experience crisis?

Mr. WARD. USAID’s FY 2009 budget request is currently under development. Any

proposed increase in personnel would be included in the annual budget request, submitted in February. Currently, human resource reforms continue at USAID as we

look for ways to maximize our budget resources to increase the numbers and

strengthen the training for our number one priority—our people.

Analysis of the ‘‘graying’’ workforce at USAID shows that nearly 45% of the workforce will be eligible to retire by 2011. This requires USAID to focus any new hiring

on junior officers and to think creatively about maintaining access to senior-level

talent to serve as mentors to junior and mid-level officers while they gain experience

in the Agency. Expanded mentoring programs, virtual coaching arrangements with

newly-retired officers, and retention bonuses are a number of avenues we are pursuing.

Dr. SNYDER. What are your specific concerns for future staffing of assignments for

non-DOD federal civilian employees in any combat zone? For example, will you be

facing a significant reduction in qualified personnel due to an aging workforce? Do

you anticipate difficulty in attracting suitable skilled and experienced volunteers for

these positions? Are there laws or policies that restrict your ability to deploy personnel or deploy personnel involuntarily? What is your agency doing to mitigate these

potential staffing problems?

110

Mr. WARD. Congress has been helpful in providing USAID with specific hiring

flexibilities in addition to incentives that apply to all federal civilian personnel.

These statutory provisions have assisted USAID in meeting its staffing requirements in critical countries and in combat zones.

USAID does not believe that current laws restrict its ability to deploy personnel

voluntarily or involuntarily to combat zones. There are policies such as requiring

medical clearances or the designation of posts as ‘‘unaccompanied’’ that will necessarily affect USAID’s ability to deploy employees into combat zones.

The aging USAID workforce is a significant consideration in planning for ongoing

placements in critical countries. In the immediate term, USAID plans to hire at attrition, which should enable sustained operations at current levels with qualified

personnel. For the longer term, however, USAID must address the need to expand

the pool of Foreign Service officers eligible for assignment in critical countries.

Dr. SNYDER. What modifications, if any, to the current package of incentives, benefits, and medical care policies would increase the likelihood of attracting the best

volunteers for these positions?

Mr. WARD. To date, USAID has been able to fill all of its direct hire foreign service positions with volunteers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and also in the two other

critical priority countries of Pakistan and Sudan.

USAID is constantly reviewing its package of incentives and benefits and is prepared to make adjustments as information and events dictate. Federal regulations

cover all civilian employees to ensure the comparability of incentives and benefits

provided to those who serve on PRTs from USAID and from the Department of

State and other agencies. USAID works in close consultation with State and other

agencies to assess the need for and to implement modifications to its incentive package.

The relatively small size of USAID and of its Foreign Service corps (1,200 personnel) and the retirement surge we will face in the coming years, means that without

a significant increase in the number of foreign service officers in the workforce,

USAID will face challenges in filling positions in critical priority countries. As demand remains high for personnel on annual rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and

as we continue to deploy personnel to other critical countries and new, future locations, USAID’s ability to attract volunteers to these positions will be affected by the

depth of the employee pool from which we can draw.

Dr. SNYDER. The Subcommittee has heard testimony that non-DOD federal civilian employees are currently receiving adequate medical care in Iraq and Afghanistan at military and embassy treatment facilities. The current DOD policy which

states: ‘‘The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), under compelling reasons, is authorized to approve additional eligibility for [Military Treatment

Facilities] for other U.S. Government civilian employees who become ill, contract

diseases, or become injured or wounded while forward deployed in support of U.S.

military forces engaged in hostilities, or other DOD civilian employees overseas.’’

Are you also satisfied with this policy?

Mr. WARD. The USAID mission in Iraq is satisfied with the current policy for providing medical care to non-DOD federal civilian employees. As with other USAID

missions worldwide, medical care for direct-hire and personal services contractor

(PSC) employees is readily available through the US Embassy Health Unit. For severe illness or serious injuries requiring ‘‘life, limb and eye’’ support, USAID employees—including direct hires, PSCs, locally employed staff (LES) who suffer onthe-job injuries, and institutional contractors—have access to DOD medical facilities, which provide US-quality staff, treatments, medications, and equipment. In addition, USAID representatives on Provincial Reconstruction Teams and Embedded

Provincial Reconstruction Teams also have access to DOD medical facilities in the

field. In past instances where injuries or illness to USAID personnel required medical evacuations, DOD also provided ‘‘medevac’’ assistance to USAID direct-hire staff

on hospital planes once the patients had been stabilized.

Dr. SNYDER. There appears to be a large discrepancy between the number of Office of Workers’ Compensation Program claims filed under FECA by federal civilian

employees who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for emotional stress disorders and

the number of employees who report symptoms of these disorders. What is your organization doing to screen and survey your employees who have deployed to combat

zones for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems? What

action is your organization taking to encourage reporting of issues and to ensure

adequate care and education? How are you specifically dealing with the stigma associated with admission of mental health and stress disorders and employees’ fears

that such admission will have negative effects such as career discrimination, loss

of clearance, etc.?

111

Mr. WARD. USAID has made a High Stress Assignment Outbrief mandatory for

all employees after returning from serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as from

Pakistan and Sudan. This High Stress Outbrief is implemented by the Department

of State’s Transition Center and is offered at the National Foreign Affairs Training

Center.

While USAID acknowledges that not all returnees have taken the course, we are

doing everything possible to ensure attendance. Likewise, in terms of fitness, returnees are encouraged to utilize the medical and mental health services available

through the Agency and the Department of State. However, as the Sub-Committee’s

question implies, Foreign Service Officers are very sensitive about being ‘stigmatized’ in any way that may affect their forward assignments and they are sometimes reluctant to report specific stress-related or other symptoms, particularly if

they involve mental health. We will continue to identify means to require 100% participation, which should mitigate any concerns about ‘‘stigma.’’

Dr. SNYDER. How do USDA personnel in the field interact with NGOs? Under

what conditions would NGOs take over the work USDA does on PRTs?

Mr. MILLER. In all cases, our PRT personnel seek to transfer skills to local entities

both public and private, and USDA works with local and international NGOs where

possible. The PRTs were designed as a platform for development in localities where

instability precludes normal development to take place. Still, there are many areas

where the security situation is such that few or no international NGOs are operating and local NGOs may have a security concern working directly with the U.S.

Government.

Dr. SNYDER. Why will it take until the end of the year to get 13 additional USDA

personnel into Iraq given the President announced the ‘‘New Way Forward’’ in January 2007?

Mr. MILLER. From the time of the initial request to deployment, it takes on average eight months to recruit, select, process medical and security clearances, train,

place and deploy USDA employees for PRT assignments. In addition to the 18 agricultural advisors that USDA anticipates deploying to Iraq by the end of November,

2007, as part of the President’s ‘‘New Way Forward’’, we are now recruiting for an

additional 13 advisors to replace current Department of Defense advisors by June,

2008.

Dr. SNYDER. Did the NSC or anyone else add anything or subtract anything from

your testimony besides the paragraph on the CRC on p. 2?

Mr. MILLER. The language suggested by NSC on CRC is the only insert received

from colleagues who reviewed the testimony; the language reflected current policy

of USDA and the Administration. Supporting federal civilian employees deployed to

Iraq and Afghanistan requires coordination among USDA agencies and agencies

throughout the Executive Branch.

Dr. SNYDER. Why don’t USDA personnel deploying to Iraq attend the DOD training at Fort Bragg?

Mr. MILLER. The Department of Defense (DOD) is the lead Department in implementing the PRT program in Afghanistan. DOD has created and implements the

training at Fort Bragg for military and civilian personnel deploying to Afghanistan;

USDA employees being deployed to Afghanistan attend these training sessions. Department of State (DOS) is the lead Department implementing the PRT program in

Iraq. USDA employees deploying to Iraq are required to attend the DOS’s Foreign

Affairs Counter Terrorism (FACT) training at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI).

Dr. SNYDER. Do the stateside organizations providing deployers get backfills for

the year they are missing a person?

Mr. MILLER. USDA agencies can at their own discretion temporarily fill these positions until their employees resume their normal duties.

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard that the leaves of deployers sometimes conflict with

continuity and mission. Have you heard about this challenge? What action could you

take to mitigate it?

Mr. MILLER. In response to this issue, we have in certain instances and in coordination with the Department of State delayed deployments so that employees can

complete mission critical assignments.

Dr. SNYDER. Your testimony says that each volunteer can return to their same

salary and benefits. Will they return to the same job? What job will they be assigned upon their return?

Mr. MILLER. USDA employees return to the same position and duty station they

held prior to deployment. This is guaranteed by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Dr. SNYDER. Will your currently deployed PRT personnel and PRT veterans fill

out a PRT survey?

Mr. MILLER. We will provide the survey to them.

112

1Federal Employees Compensation Act.

Dr. SNYDER. Does the USDA or DOS have responsibility for filling the agricultural

PRT advisor position made vacant by the tragic death of Tom Stefani? When do you

expect a replacement will be deployed?

Mr. MILLER. USDA is responsible and we anticipate having a replacement for

Tom Stefani no later than February, 2008, when the next wave of advisors deploy

to Afghanistan.

Dr. SNYDER. What are your specific concerns for future staffing of assignments for

non-DOD federal civilian employees in any combat zone? For example, will you be

facing a significant reduction in qualified personnel due to an aging workforce? Do

you anticipate difficulty in attracting suitable skilled and experienced volunteers for

these positions? Are there laws or policies that restrict your ability to deploy personnel or deploy personnel involuntarily? What is your agency doing to mitigate these

potential staffing problems?

Mr. MILLER. Thus far, FAS has successfully recruited volunteers from within its

ranks to serve in Foreign Service Officer (FSO) assignments in Iraq and Pakistan

(which covers Afghanistan) and has also successfully recruited from across USDA

to fill Provincial Reconstruction Team Advisor and Ministry Advisor positions in

Iraq and Afghanistan. USDA employees volunteering for positions in Afghanistan

and Iraq tend to represent those in the mid or late phase of their federal service.

FAS assigns FSOs to positions overseas in consideration of the needs of the service, experience, language ability, etc., and the FAS Administrator makes all final assignment decisions and can invoke worldwide availability to fill a particular Foreign

Service position.

All other assignments are voluntary and are dependent upon a well qualified pool

of candidates. To date, USDA has been pleased with and proud of the relatively

large number of applications that have come from within the Department.

In order to fill hardship assignments, FAS follows State Department-established

differentials for danger and hardship as well as other compensation as is the case

with the Iraq Service Recognition Package—Revised.

Dr. SNYDER. What modifications, if any, to the current package of incentives, benefits, and medical care policies would increase the likelihood of attracting the best

volunteers for these positions?

Mr. MILLER. While there is no evidence that the current package hinders recruitment efforts, USDA does intend to provide re-entry counseling for employees, supervisors and family members through Employee Assistance Program provided services. USDA is also planning to formally recognize employees who have volunteered

for these assignments at a special Secretary-level ceremony being planned for this

spring. USDA follows State Department-established recognition packages. Should

State Department modify their recognition packages, USDA would likely follow suit.

Dr. SNYDER. The Subcommittee has heard testimony that non-DOD federal civilian employees are currently receiving adequate medical care in Iraq and Afghanistan at military and embassy treatment facilities. The current DOD policy which

states: ‘‘The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), under compelling reasons, is authorized to approve additional eligibility for [Military Treatment

Facilities] for other U.S. Government civilian employees who become ill, contract

diseases, or become injured or wounded while forward deployed in support of U.S.

military forces engaged in hostilities, or other DOD civilian employees overseas.’’

Are you also satisfied with this policy?

Mr. MILLER. We have been satisfied with the level of medical support provided

by DOD and DOS. However, we would prefer to see the clause ‘‘under compelling

reasons’’ removed. USDA would also like to see the policy strengthened by amending

the language so that both physical and mental health care is explicitly authorized.

Dr. SNYDER. There appears to be a large discrepancy between the number of Office of Workers’ Compensation Program claims filed under FECA 1 by federal civilian employees who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for emotional stress disorders

and the number of employees who report symptoms of these disorders. What is your

organization doing to screen and survey your employees who have deployed to combat zones for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems?

What action is your organization taking to encourage reporting of issues and to ensure adequate care and education? How are you specifically dealing with the stigma

associated with admission of mental health and stress disorders and employees’

fears that such admission will have negative effects such as career discrimination,

loss of clearance, etc.?

Mr. MILLER. USDA employees participate in the Department of State medical

clearance process prior to final selection and deployment. USDA also plans to inVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
113

volve the USDA Employee Assistance Program in pre-deployment orientation sessions.

For those returning from conflict zones, USDA is drafting updated standard operating procedures (SOPs) to make available re-entry resources and support for the

employees, their families and their supervisors. We are working with Department

of State and the USDA Employee Assistance Program to draft these SOPS. We are

advising recent returnees to attend the post-deployment stress reduction training

that is mandatory for all DOS FSOs.

USDA does not discriminate against employees who self-disclose mental health or

emotional issues. USDA provides access to Employee Assistance Program to help

employees deal with mental health and stress disorders.

Dr. SNYDER. Per your offer, please provide an opinion as to the sufficiency of the

Federal Tort Claims Act, or other similar statutes, to support claims relevant to federal civilians deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. For example, is it possible to sue a

government doctor for malpractice if the event occurred overseas? What statutory

changes would be required to allow for such claims?

Mr. SWARTZ. The existing statutory remedies afford ample protection to Federal

civilian employees who are injured in the course of their employment while deployed

overseas. Just as Federal civilian employees who are injured in the course of their

employment either in the United States or abroad are entitled to benefits under the

Federal Employees Compensation Act (‘‘FECA’’), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq., so too are

Federal civilian employees who may be injured by a Government doctor, either domestically or while deployed. FECA constitutes their exclusive remedy for any such

injuries. See, e.g., Spinelli v. Goss, 446 F.3d 159 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Votteler v. United

States, 904 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1990); McCall v. United States, 901 F.2d 548 (6th Cir.

1990); Wilder v. United States, 873 F.2d 285 (11th Cir. 1989); Vilanova v. United

States, 851 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988). In addition, the Federal Employee Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (‘‘FELRTCA’’), Pub. Law 100–694, 102

Stat. 4563, amended the Federal Tort Claims Act (‘‘FTCA’’) to confer immunity on

employees of the Government from tort liability for negligent or wrongful acts or

omissions within the scope of their employment and instead substitutes the Federal

government for the named individual Government employee. This statutory immunity for individual Government employees applies in cases involving claims arising

in foreign countries as well as those arising within the United States. See United

States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991). The FTCA in turn retains the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k);

United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 (1949); Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692

(2004). Thus, Federal civilian employees who are deployed in foreign counties are

treated in precisely the same manner as such employees stationed in the United

States in terms of both the benefits to which they are entitled for work-related injuries and their ability to sue individual Government doctors or other personnel.

Dr. SNYDER. SIGIR and USIP testified they think Rule of Law needs more attention on PRTs in Iraq. Has DOJ been asked by State to provide more people? Would

DOJ provide more personnel for PRTs if asked?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. Did anyone add or subtract anything from your testimony besides the

paragraph on the CRC on page 2?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. On page 18 of your testimony it says allowances are established in

law. Would DOJ recommend any changes to the law?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. Please explain the difference between Danger Pay, Hardship Duty

Pay and Hazardous Duty Pay.

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. Will your currently deployed and veteran PRT personnel fill out a

survey?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. Why can technical advisors have home leave after 1 year of deployment, while USG employees only get home leave after 24 months of continuous deployment? That must be difficult for those deployed to zones of active combat (Iraq

and Afghanistan). Are the rules keeping up with the conditions of service?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

114

1Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.

Dr. SNYDER. What are your specific concerns for future staffing of assignments for

non-DOD federal civilian employees in any combat zone? For example, will you be

facing a significant reduction in qualified personnel due to an aging workforce? Do

you anticipate difficulty in attracting suitable skilled and experienced volunteers for

these positions? Are there laws or policies that restrict your ability to deploy personnel or deploy personnel involuntarily? What is your agency doing to mitigate these

potential staffing problems?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. What modifications, if any, to the current package of incentives, benefits, and medical care policies would increase the likelihood of attracting the best

volunteers for these positions?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. The Subcommittee has heard testimony that non-DOD federal civilian employees are currently receiving adequate medical care in Iraq and Afghanistan at military and embassy treatment facilities. The current DOD policy which

states: ‘‘The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), under compelling reasons, is authorized to approve additional eligibility for [Military Treatment

Facilities] for other U.S. Government civilian employees who become ill, contract

diseases, or become injured or wounded while forward deployed in support of U.S.

military forces engaged in hostilities, or other DOD civilian employees overseas.’’

Are you also satisfied with this policy?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. There appears to be a large discrepancy between the number of Office of Workers’ Compensation Program claims filed under FECA 1 by federal civilian employees who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for emotional stress disorders

and the number of employees who report symptoms of these disorders. What is your

organization doing to screen and survey your employees who have deployed to combat zones for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems?

What action is your organization taking to encourage reporting of issues and to ensure adequate care and education? How are your specifically dealing with the stigma associated with admission of mental health and stress disorders and employees’

fears that such admission will have negative effects such as career discrimination,

loss of clearance, etc.?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Dr. SNYDER. What are your specific concerns for future staffing assignments for

non-DOD federal civilian employees in any combat zone? For example, will you be

facing a significant reduction in qualified personnel due to an aging workforce? Do

you anticipate difficulty in attracting suitable skilled and experienced volunteers for

these positions? Are there laws or policies that restrict your ability to deploy personnel involuntarily? What is your agency doing to mitigate these potential staffing

problems?

Mr. MCDONALD. My main concern and objective regarding any future staffing assignments for Treasury employees in a combat zone would be to ensure that Treasury continues to recruit and deploy highly qualified personnel, and to ensure for

their safety, care and reintegration. It is a challenge to attract skilled and experienced volunteers to serve in combat zones, but Treasury’s experience in Iraq and

Afghanistan shows that it is possible. As noted in my October 16, 2007 testimony,

Treasury efforts to recruit skilled and experienced volunteers have met with a robust, positive response. In light of the inherent stresses of these assignments, it is

important to Treasury that personnel assigned to these posts accept such assignments voluntarily. Treasury officials serving in Iraq and Afghanistan consist of both

permanent USG hires and personal services contractors (PSCs). Recruiting PSCs allows Treasury to draw upon a large candidate pool outside of the Treasury Department. I do not anticipate a significant reduction in qualified personnel due to an

aging workforce.

Dr. SNYDER. What modifications, if any, to the current package of incentives, benefits, and medical care policies would increase the likelihood of attracting the best

volunteers for these positions?

Mr. MCDONALD. Treasury’s experience to date does not indicate a need to modify

the current package of incentives, benefits, and medical care policies in order to attract well qualified and experienced volunteers for these positions. Treasury continVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:43 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 040715 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\110-95\289160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
115

ues to follow the State Department’s lead on compensation to ensure comparability

in workforce benefits.

Dr. SNYDER. The Subcommittee has heard testimony that non-DOD federal civilian employees are currently receiving adequate medical care in Iraq and Afghanistan at military and embassy treatment facilities. The current DOD policy states:

‘‘The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), under compelling reasons, is authorized to approve additional eligibility for [Military Treatment Facilities] for other U.S. Government civilian employees who become ill, contract diseases,

or become injured or wounded while forward deployed in support of U.S. military

forces engaged in hostilities, or other DOD civilian employees overseas.’’ Are you

also satisfied with this policy?

Mr. MCDONALD. The Treasury Department is satisfied with this policy. Treasury

appreciates the willingness of the Department of Defense to extend these services

to Treasury and other non-DoD civilian personnel, in the field. Throughout Treasury’s engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department has been fortunate not

to have had any of its staff become seriously ill, injured, or wounded while in country. We believe that if such a case were to occur, DOD’s medical staff would provide

prompt and high quality treatment. OTA’s standard provisions regarding private

health care insurance (which our program advisors serving in Iraq and Afghanistan

are entitled to) complement DOD’s Health Services and are especially important

when advisors are away from post attending conferences, on R&R travel, etc.

Dr. SNYDER. There appears to be a large discrepancy between the number of Office Workers’ Compensation Program claims field under FECA by federal civilian

employees who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for emotional stress disorders and

the number of employees who report symptoms of these disorders. What is your organization doing to screen and survey your employees who have deployed to combat

zones for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems? What

action is your organization taking to encourage reporting of issues and to ensure

adequate care and education? How are you specifically dealing with the stigma associated with admission of mental health and stress disorders and employees’ fears

that such admission will have negative effects such as career discrimination, loss

of clearance, etc.?

Mr. MCDONALD. Since 2002, not one Treasury employee returning from Iraq and

Afghanistan (or other overseas assignments entailing danger and hardship) has

claimed suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or other mental illness.

The Treasury Department’s technical assistance program began its latest engagement in Iraq in mid-2006. The Department is only now beginning to approach a

time period in which its technical advisors will be rotating out of their assignments

due to the fact that most advisors have voluntarily extended their tours beyond

their initial one-year commitments. To date, only one advisor has completed his oneyear posting and returned to the United States. With an eye toward the pending

rotational turnovers, Treasury will be reaching out to the Department of State and

the Department of Defense to draw upon their institutional experience and, if possible, resources for mental health screening. State has extended an offer to Treasury

to have its technical advisors participate in State’s post-tour debriefing program,

and Treasury will accept this offer.

To date, Treasury has conducted informal processes for assessing the mental state

of its advisors who have worked in combat zones. This has involved constant communications with the advisors by management in Washington, post-action debriefs

of those returning to the States, and advocating to the advisors that they draw on

their available medical—including mental health specific—resources. Treasury management is sensitive to the stress and danger that can weigh on personnel serving

in war environments. Treasury management includes officials who have served in

Iraq and/or Afghanistan and understand the conditions in which our advisors serve.

At the same time, we are studying ways to improve our current approach to ensure

that any returning personnel who are in need of specialized care due to their overseas assignments receive that care.

QUESTONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TAUSCHER

Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Swartz: I included legislation in the House version of the 2008

National Defense Authorization Act to address the adequacy of death benefits for

federal employees who deploy to combat zones. The government would cover the cost

of relocation to the home of record for dependents of federal civilian employee who

signed emergency mobility agreement. The Department of Justice, like DoD, has

personnel that moves frequently from one posting to another. This provision would

help the families of their employees in the event they die in a combat zone.

116

Does the Justice Department support this death gratuity benefit for its employees?

Mr. SWARTZ. [The information referred to was not available at the time of printing.]

Ms. TAUSCHER. I included legislation in the House version of the 2008 National

Defense Authorization Act to address the adequacy of death benefits for federal employees who deploy to combat zones. The government would cover the cost of relocation to the home of record for dependents of federal civilian employees who signed

an emergency mobility agreement. The State Department, like DoD, has personnel

that move frequently from one posting to another. This provision would help the

families of their employees in the event they die in a combat zone.

Does the State Department support this death gratuity benefit for its employees?

Ambassador THOMAS. Department of State personnel do not sign ‘‘emergency mobility agreements’’ in connection with their employment. Moreover, the Department

has existing authorities which cover transportation of an employee’s dependents to

the home of record in the event of his/her death.

Æ