AFSA Home Page About AFSA AFSA Member Area FS and Public Resources Retirees AFSA News Foreign Service Journal Student Info How to Join AFSA Marketplace Site Directory

Site Directory AFSA Marketplace How to Join Student Info Foreign Service Journal AFSA Home Page AFSA News Congressional FS and Public Resources AFSA Member Area About AFSA

STATEMENT OF MR. MARSHALL P. ADAIR, PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION

TO THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE AND THE JUDICIARY

March 31, 2000

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

On behalf of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), I wish to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee as it prepares to draft the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations legislation for FY 2001.
The American Foreign Service Association is the collective bargaining agent and the professional association for 23,000 active and retired Officers and Specialists of this nation's Foreign Service. Our members work for the Departments of State, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Agency for International Development. They are posted in Washington, D.C. and a few other cities around the country, but the vast majority of those on active duty are serving this nation abroad. American diplomats are your eyes and ears overseas. They represent our country to the governments and the people of the rest of the world. Their mission is to enhance the security and the prosperity of Americans at home by helping to shape events abroad.

We submit to the Subcommittee our concern about the insufficient level of
appropriations to the overall international account, as well as suggestions concerning three specific areas that require more attention: protecting the security of Americans overseas, sustaining an effective professional diplomatic service over time, and constructing essential new overseas facilities.

AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY NEEDS MORE THAN 1 PERCENT

Today, funding for international affairs makes up about 1 percent of the budget. That percentage has been declining steadily for the last 4 decades. In the 1960s, the international affairs account made up about 4% of the federal budget. At the start of the 1980s, it was 2%, and in the early 1990s it was 1.5%. The budget resolution recently adopted by the House of Representatives, which increases discretionary spending and funding for such areas as defense and transportation, and decreases funding for the International Affairs account, continues a trend of neglect which bodes ill for our national interest.

While our international affairs budgets have declined, the need for diplomacy has not. To the contrary, the need for diplomacy is increasing. As a nation, we are all aware of the primacy of national security. However, our political system increasingly defines national security largely in military terms. National security depends on more than military preparedness. National security depends heavily on diplomacy. Diplomacy is, in fact, our first line of defense: promoting a more peaceful and stable world guided by democratic principles; supporting our economy by seeking fair and level playing fields in world markets; protecting our citizens from illegal immigration, international crime, drugs, and terrorism; advancing environmental protection, good health, and improved quality of life in this increasingly interdependent world; and finally, protecting Americans who work and travel in foreign environments around the world.

The budgetary decline that we have seen over the years B some 41% in real terms since the mid-1980s B severely undermines our ability to promote this nation's interests abroad through non-military means, and those non-military means are more important today than in the last 50 years. The world has changed. It is no longer based upon a bi-polar confrontation between two superpowers, and the threat of military confrontation alone is substantially less effective in keeping the peace. We must build our diplomacy as we have so successfully built our military. Conventional wisdom in both the Administration and the Congress appears to accept 1% as an appropriate budgetary level for international affairs, but this cannot meet the requirements of today's world.
The 1% of the budget now devoted to non-military international affairs should be substantially larger, probably closer to 2%. While such a budgetary shift would have some impact on defense or other domestic programs in the short term, that impact would be far less than the potential impact of shortcomings in our diplomatic capability in future years. This is a matter of national security, and the consideration of these needs must begin now.

EMBASSY SECURITY B A CONTINUING NEED

As you know, the American Foreign Service Association joined this Subcommittee and many members of Congress last year in criticizing the Administration for its initial request for embassy security funding. Considering the bombings and assassinations of our diplomats in previous years, including the 1998 bombings in east Africa, we felt that the low level of that request was unconscionable.

We thank the Subcommittee for its strong support in this area and believe that without your support, a revised request would not have been submitted in July. However, we continued to argue that even the revised request was still far too low.

The FY2001 request of a little over $1 billion is a vast improvement over last year, and we appreciate the increase. Nevertheless, this request is still insufficient. AFSA fully supports the recommendation the Accountability Review Boards (ARB) chaired by Admiral William J. Crowe. They recommended that $1.4 billion be spent each year for the next 10 years to improve the security of our posts and missions abroad. Combined with last year's shortfall, the Administration's FY2001 request will put it almost one year behind Admiral
Crowe's schedule.

The American Foreign Service Association strongly urges this Subcommittee to increase the Administration's request for embassy security by $300 million, to bring it up to the level recommended by Admiral Crowe. There are three areas to which such an increase could effectively be directed in FY2001.

" Perimeter Security: About 80%, or 208, of the 260 posts abroad do not meet current security standards. The Administration's request includes $200 million for perimeter security. The State Department's Budget in Brief states that 124 posts need significant upgrades in technical security hardware and infrastructure. The Administration will use $39 million to upgrade 22 posts in 2001, and work on the other 102 posts over the next four years. An additional $100 million could decrease the number of posts waiting to be up-graded by more than a 1/3. FBO could effectively use as much as $200 million more. While these improvements would not necessarily bring all of these posts fully up to the Inman/Crowe standards, they would make many more of our personnel posted around the world safer.

" Enhanced Glass Protection: The Department currently plans to use the remainder of the FY99 Emergency Supplemental funding to place mylar on the windows of posts abroad that do not already have reinforced windows. An additional $100 million would permit the installation of laminated glass in about half of those posts. Laminated glass provides
substantially more protection than mylar film, and unlike mylar does not require replacement every seven years. Several reports have pointed out that windows are the greatest structural weakness of most facilities, and that shattered glass is responsible for the majority of injuries in terrorist bomb attacks.

"Security technicians: More diplomatic security professionals are being hired with each appropriations bill, and this is good. However, most of those new hires are law enforcement experts. As we improve our facilities with forced entry/ballistic resistant doors and windows, improved gates, surveillance equipment and other sophisticated technology, we will need more Security Engineers and Technicians to maintain this new technology. The FY2001 plan includes hiring 50 new engineers and technicians. Doubling this number would make a substantial contribution to long-term security improvement.

Mr. Chairman, as we have testified before, the Foreign Service does not expect the impossible -- a 100% guarantee of our safety. Foreign Service personnel are committed to the policy of world-wide availability, and will go where they are needed, often in hardship and despite dangers, diseases, discomforts and sometimes even family separations. That is part of the job. But those who make this commitment also have a right to expect that the government that asks them to go abroad will also seek to assure their safety to the degree reasonably possible. As you would not send our military into the field without ammunition and training, neither should you deprive the Foreign Service of the resources it needs.

SUSTAINING AN EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

For the past several yeas, AFSA has sought your support in encouraging the Department of State to develop and execute a forward looking, needs-based Work Force Plan.
This is far from a novel idea. A decade ago, the Thomas Commission called for "long range planning [which] would allow personnel managers to assess the effects of demographic and societal change and... changes in the mission of the Foreign Service and the overseas environments in which it operates...." The latest report by the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel calls for "the Secretary of State to initiate the development of a comprehensive human resources strategy."

We are pleased the authorizing Committees put into Public Law 106-113 a requirement that the Department of State produce a forward looking, needs based workforce plan by March 1, 2001, and that "every four years thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report" describing the steps taken to meet the plans objectives, and a workforce plan for Athe subsequent five years.

AFSA has been working with the Department as it prepares to meet this requirement. Based on our initial study, we believe there is a current shortfall of more than 700 personnel to existing positions. Under Secretary for Management Bonnie Cohen, in testimony before this Subcommittee, described our current situation as having Arun-down embassies and a hollow diplomatic corps. Too few people are trying to do too many jobs, and our nation will eventually suffer for it.

We are concerned that the funding request for the non-security portion of Diplomatic and Consular Programs includes only a 4.73% percent increase and a staffing increase of only 10 people. This is barely hiring for attrition, and will not fill already vacant positions. It should be increased to address the existing shortfall now, by directing more resources to recruitment and hiring.

Three recent studies by OPAP, the Stimson Center, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies all emphasized the need for increased professional training. Last year's State Department authorization legislation, now Public Law 95-277, also required the Secretary of State to consider establishing a program where Foreign Service personnel will receive management training at each major step in their career. AFSA fully supports these recommendations.

However, current and projected personnel levels are an obstacle to such improvements. Reduced staffing has created chronic gaps throughout the Service, and training must take second place to active duty needs. The OPAP report therefore recommended the Service be staffed at a level 10-15% above existing positions, to permit necessary training, leave, and transfers without undue vacancies. AFSA will encourage the Administration to incorporate such an increase into future budget requests, and recommends the Subcommittee begin now to consider how that might be accommodated.
We believe the foreign affairs agencies need to plan systematically today if we are to maintain the world's best diplomatic corps tomorrow, and we seek this Subcommittee's continued support.

PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

For the past several years, the regular portion of the Security and Maintenance Account has been funded at roughly $400-500 million. This has been used to pay leases, and to maintain and rehabilitate facilities. While these funds are generally sufficient for the intended use, there are major building needs beyond the scope of what is provided to this account. Some of the most urgent needs are:

* A new office building and staff housing in Beijing, and improvements to the consulates in Chengdu and Guangzhou
* The Moscow consular facility and warehouse/garage in Russia
* Work on the consulate in Tijuana and the Mexico City master plan;
* Facilities in Southeast Europe.

Secure and efficient embassies are desperately needed for effective USG operations overseas. That requires the sustained allocation of substantially more resources over the next five to ten years. However, such an allocation would appear impossible as long as the currently accepted 1% ceiling on the international affairs account is maintained.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, I wish again to express our appreciation for the opportunity to provide our views as you shape your appropriations legislation. Your decisions directly impact the professional and personal lives of the men and women in the Foreign Service. They also impact our national security.

We are proud of the work we do, and believe in its importance to our nation and people. We need your help to ensure that our diplomatic service is supported with a sound personnel system, secure overseas posts, and adequate resources to effectively pursue this nation's interests.

We need your help to promote discussion of the proper level of funding for the diplomatic contribution to national security. We believe the current 1% level of funding to the international affairs account represents a severe miscalculation of our national interests, and that it must be corrected to meet the real needs of today's world.