TO THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE'S
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, AND THE JUDICIARY
PRESENTED BY MARSHALL P. ADAIR, PRESIDENT
April 23, 2001
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) appreciates the opportunity to testify on the funding requirements for the Department of State for Fiscal Year 2002. As you may know, the American Foreign Service Association was established in 1924, the same year that the Rogers Act created the modern Foreign Service. We serve as both the professional organization of the 23,000 active duty and retired members of Foreign Service as well as their recognized bargaining agent. The decisions you will be making in the months ahead have a direct impact upon the professional and personal lives of members of the Foreign Service, and on the profession of diplomacy, and so we believe we have a unique role in this discussion.
This Subcommittee is different from many other appropriations subcommittees in a very special way. It is here that a balance must be struck between agencies that basically meet our nation's domestic interests and an agency that addresses our national security and other national interests internationally. We recognize reaching the appropriate balance always presents a major challenge.
When Secretary of State Powell testified before the House Budget Committee on March 15th of this year, he underlined the criticality of the resource problems affecting the Department of State and Diplomatic Readiness. He said:
"I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the resources challenge for the State Department has become such a serious one, such a major impediment to the conduct of America's foreign policy, that I view my responsibility to appear before you here today as one of the most important responsibilities I have as Secretary of State…. Now the Cold War is over…. we have need of a more sophisticated, a more efficient, a more effective foreign policy. Now is the time to provide to the principal practitioners of that foreign policy the resources they need to conduct it."
Mr. Chairman, the American Foreign Service Association asks you to heed the Secretary of State's warning. The fabric of "diplomatic readiness" is worn thin from years of neglect. That undermines our efforts to preserve and protect this nation's interests. It weakens American leadership as the world's only superpower, and it threatens the values that we would like to see promulgated internationally. Diplomacy is the front line of American security. That front line must be healthy. It must grow in strength to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The American Foreign Service Association, on behalf of this nation's Foreign Service, urges this Subcommittee and this Congress to fund, at a minimum, the Administration's request for the Department of State and its related programs under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, some $7,307.7 million.
A
FLATLINED OPERATING ACCOUNT
For the first time in many years, an Administration has requested a significant increase in the funding for the operations of the Department of State - a critical function in defending vital national interests that, in truth and without placing blame, has long been ignored. As demands for effective diplomacy increased over the last several decades, the operating account (Administration for Foreign Affairs) of the Department of State has remained relatively flat. While we have seen a small increase in the past few years, thanks to the work of this Subcommittee, this is not enough to repair the fabric of diplomatic readiness that protects this nation. The increases requested by President Bush are a greatly needed start - but, in our opinion, they are only a start.
A CHANGING WORLD IN DYNAMICS AND SUBSTANCE - A WORLD WE WERE NOT READY FOR
Since the end of the Cold War more than a decade ago, the world has
changed in both dynamics and substance, increasing the imperative for
effective diplomacy and the need for supporting resources:
As
the former Soviet Union disintegrated, there was a sudden growth in
the number of independent nations. Existing spheres of influence broke
down; new burdens were placed on organizations such as NATO; and new
questions were raised about the UN system and the international financial
organizations.
The United States must devote more human and financial resources to the management and reform of these institutions.
The number of actors on the international stage has increased enormously.
Business, non-governmental organizations, the media and individuals
impact many aspects of policy formulation and implementation, and contribute
to defining the relationships between nations.
The United States must communicate with and work with a much broader universe, and it is more difficult to target effectively scarce resources.
The
rapid evolution of communications technology and information management
have increased the pace of international interaction, and the speed
by which problems in one area can be transmitted to other areas.
Effective diplomacy must incorporate state-of-the-art public affairs and communications techniques and timely strategies to maximize a desired effect in this new world.
With technological changes and the growing acceptance of market-based
economic principles, economies have become vastly more interdependent.
Today international trade and investments account for one-third of our
economy and have been major engines driving economic growth.
The United States must be more pro-active in negotiating and monitoring effective rules for international trade and finance.
This
more open and connected world has also fostered increased global problems.
The spread of weapons of mass destruction, international crime and narcotics
trafficking, international terrorism, world environmental degradation,
diseases like AIDS and West Nile Virus, human rights violations, and
regional and ethnic conflicts can no longer be solved unilaterally-even
by the "world's last remaining superpower."
Coalition building, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of diplomacy, will require substantially more attention.
Finally, the globalization of the U.S. government has placed more agencies
overseas than ever before. American embassies today serve as a base
for the operations of as many as 40 other U.S. departments and agencies
from the Department of the Treasury to the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The United States must devote more attention and resources to the management and infrastructure needs of its diplomatic posts overseas.
THE TREADBARE CLOTH OF DIPLOMATIC READINESS
During
the past three years several eminent groups looked at the status of
our foreign affairs institutions. The 1998 Report by the Henry l. Stimson
Center stated:
"…while the world has changed radically in the second half
of the 20th century, the means and methods used by U.S. diplomats to
advocate our interests abroad are barely out of the quill-and-scroll
stage…. Certainly business leaders are equipping themselves for
the future; so are military leaders; but diplomats-our first line of
defense-are handcuffed by outdated structures and outmoded tools."
The November 1999 report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel came to similar conclusions when it said:
"The United States overseas presence, which has provided the essential underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for many decades, is near a state of crisis. Insecure and decrepit facilities, obsolete information technology, outmoded administrative and human resources practices, poor allocation of resources, and competition from the private sector for talented staff threaten to cripple our nation's overseas capability, with far reaching consequences for national security and prosperity."
More recently, an Independent Task Force Cosponsored by the Council
on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, issued a report this year on State Department Reform. In its
report, the Task Force chaired by Frank Carlucci, stated:
"The machinery of U.S. foreign policy making and implementation is in a state of serious disrepair. The interagency system responsible for policy development and coordination is inefficiently structured. The Department of State suffers from institutional dysfunctions, antiquated equipment, and dilapidated and insecure facilities. These deficits are not only a disservice to the high-caliber men and women of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service who serve their country under the Department of State. They render U.S. foreign policy increasingly ill-equipped to shape and respond to the realities and challenges of the 21st century. Failure to address these shortcomings will prompt significant negative consequences for the national interest and thereby will undercut our national security."
Mr.
Chairman, the availability of resources determines whether we have the
talent, tools and environment necessary for effectively representing
and protecting this nation. It affects the recruitment of talented young
people to this profession. It affects how thinly we are stretched in
manning our posts abroad, and how well trained we are to do the job.
It affects the quality of life for our families as they accompany us
around the world - - and in their way, they too serve.
In
recent years, we have also seen that the availability of resources is
also a matter of life or death for American diplomats and their families.
The tragic 1998 bombings of our embassies in east Africa reminded us
that our diplomats continue to be prime targets for international terrorism.
The Accountability Review Boards chaired by Admiral William Crowe found:
"…there was a collective failure by several Administrations and Congresses over the past decade to invest adequate efforts and resources to reduce the vulnerability of US diplomatic missions around the world to terrorist attacks…. The Boards found that too many of our overseas missions are similarly situated. Unless these vulnerabilities are addressed on a sustained and realistic basis, the lives and safety of USG employees and the public in many of our facilities abroad will continue to be at risk from further terrorist bombings."
THE
ADMINISTRATION REQUEST AND AFSA'S VIEWS
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Administration proposes to increase funding
in
three major areas: (1) embassy security, (2) the modernization of information
technology, and (3) increases for human resources. AFSA fully agrees
with these priorities - something we have not done for quite a while.
EMBASSY
SECURITY. Mr. Chairman, we know of the Subcommittee's concern that adequate
funding for Embassy Security be provided. We appreciate the important
role played by this Subcommittee in "encouraging" the previous
Administration to increase the shameful FY2000 initial request for embassy
security, especially after the embassy bombings in East Africa. We also
appreciate the fact that this Subcommittee has fully met each subsequent
Administration request for embassy security.
This
Administration has requested $1.3 billion for FY 2002 Worldwide Security
Upgrades. The Accountability Review Board recommended $1.4 billion a
year, each year for a decade. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel recommended
$1.3 billion each year for a decade. It has been AFSA's objective to
see an Administration's request match either of these two recommendations,
and we are very pleased that an Administration request has finally reached
this magnitude. However, we ask that the Subcommittee remember, as it
considers this request, that because the FY2000 and FY2001 appropriations
were substantially below this level, we are already almost one year
behind Admiral Crowe's schedule in bringing our overseas posts up to
minimum security standards.
These
funds are usually described in terms of how many new embassies can be
built or refurbished, how many new properties can be bought, how much
improvements can be made to the perimeter of our posts and missions,
and windows protected, and blast proof doors installed, etc. All of
this information is certainly needed as the Congress weighs how the
funds will be used and how to conduct its oversight responsibilities.
But
there is more than numbers or buildings at stake here. There are highly
dedicated people we send abroad, serving our nation in countries around
the world -- the Foreign Service. We do not seek an impossible guarantee
of 100% security. We do not seek to hide behind fortress walls so far
from the centers of government and business that we cannot do our work.
But we would hope that neglect will never again be a reason that an
embassy is bombed and Americans killed.
The Secretary of State underscored this point when he said before the House Budget Committee, "We will not be deterred by such attacks from doing our job in the world - but we will take measures to protect our people."
THE MODERNIZATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
The
Administration has requested $210 million in appropriated funds. It
has long been known that the Department of State is woefully behind
in information technology. We do not have 1980s WANG computers anymore,
but the "cutting edge" is nowhere in sight either.
In
following the work of this Subcommittee, AFSA realizes that you are
very much aware of the Department's problems in this area. AFSA believes
the requested funding is needed, and the objectives to finally put unclassified
internet browsing access on each desk in Washington and abroad, and
to get classified connectivity with all posts around world are critical
objectives. We understand that today, about 80 percent of posts do not
have up-to-date access in classified communications.
Again,
while we are pleased that the Administration has worked to increase
the request for this budget category, we must emphasize that the amount
requested is not enough to give American diplomats the tools they need
to be effective in the 21st century. The work of diplomacy does not
require enormous amounts of material like aircraft carriers, fighter
planes or tanks. However, it does deal with information - - and it must
keep up with the revolution in information technology.
Last
year, the American Ambassador to Israel was disciplined for using an
unclassified laptop computer to write an urgent report to Washington
while traveling in his car from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. We should all
ask why the world's only superpower should put its Ambassador in such
a position; and why he could not at least be provided with a classified
laptop computer. In our view he should have had the ability to compose
and send a secure cable from the car! The Department of State should
be given sufficient funding to permit not just procurement, but state-of-the-art
research to ensure that this nation has every possible advantage in
its diplomatic endeavors.
AFSA fully supports the Administration's increased request for the modernization of information technology. However, we would also emphasize again that this should be considered a down payment, and that a further commitment to increased resources in this area is required to bring U.S. diplomatic endeavors fully into the 21st Century.
INCREASES FOR HUMAN RESOURCES
The
Administration is requesting a $315.1 million increase above current
services in the Diplomatic and Consular Programs Account for Diplomatic
Readiness and Reform. This would bring this account up to $3,217.405
million or about 65 percent of the Department's operating budget.
Recognizing the competition for talent, there are additional funds for
a Student Loan Repayment program, Spousal Employment, and Service Needs
Incentives. These are all welcome.
AFSA
is most interested in the funds for new employees - to permit hiring
some 360 Foreign Service and Civil Service employees above attrition
levels, and to modernize recruitment and improve training.
When the last authorization bill for the State Department was passed, AFSA worked with the authorizers in developing language that required the Department to do forward looking, long-range work force planning. Lack of adequate work force planning and attention to consequences has left the Service with an approximately 200 person shortfall in our Mid-level ranks, and an overall shortfall of more than 1,000 Foreign Service personnel around the world. AFSA has done its own Workforce assessment that explains these numbers, and I am submitting it for the record.
We have long argued that the Foreign Service does not receive adequate training. A major reason for this is the shortfall in staffing prevents the assignment of personnel to training. The Foreign Service needs a "float population" of personnel - about 10-15% of the total Service - to make it possible for people to take training without the pressure of leaving a post vacant, and to make possible important details, personnel exchanges and normal transfer activity.
AFSA has also been concerned about the number of language trained officers,
and the number of countries that do not have an adequate number of language
designated positions. We question whether the Department has full knowledge
of the number of language trained positions it has and how many are
filled with language trained officers.
In comparing the 2000 and 2001 report to Congress in compliance with
Section 208, "Foreign Language Proficiency," of the State
Department Authorization bill for fiscal years 2000 - 2001, PL 106-113,
one finds an unusual discrepancy in the reports or a remarkable change
in staffing. A few examples will illustrate our point.
Post
Meeting Partially Meeting Not Meeting Total Positions
Abidjan
2000 Report 1 1 0 2
2001 Report 10 2 0 12
Algiers
2000 Report 0 1 0 1
2001 Report 4 2 0 6
Beijing
2000 Report 5 3 2 10
2001 Report 29 1 2 32
Brussels
2000 Report 3 0 1 4
2001 Report 10 4 0 14
Copenhagen
2000 Report 0 0 3 3
2001 Report 5 0 0 5
Ho
Chi Minh
2000 Report 2 0 0 2
2001 Report 12 0 1 13
____________________________________________________________________
We also supported the Congress' requirement that the Department look
into the feasibility of developing management training at every major
level of a Foreign Service career, a skill area that was specifically
pointed out in many of the recent reports regarding the nature of U.S.
representation abroad.
CHANGING OUR PERSPECTIVE
Mr. Chairman, we applaud Secretary Powell's successful efforts to increase the Administration's request for the 150 International Affairs account. We also agree that the increase should be concentrated this year on the Administration of Foreign Affairs portion of the account, because without an effective diplomatic apparatus, the prospects for success of our foreign policy and international programs will be seriously diminished. However, we cannot afford to shortchange the Foreign Operations portion of the 150 account either.
The American Foreign Service Association wishes to underline, as it did last year, that the total funding for the 150 International Affairs account needs to be doubled over the long term. As long as it stays around 1 percent of the federal budget, we will continue to have to choose between funding capability and funding specific programs. Both are necessary, and both need to be adequately funded. These programs comprise critical tools of our work in implementing U.S. policy. AFSA continues to urge the Administration and the Congress to recognize that our nation's first line of defense, and its most important proponent of the values that define our culture, require and deserve 2 percent of the federal budget. In 1950, when the United States made the decision to lead an unprecedented effort to reshape the international system, international affairs was given 16% of the national budget. That decision has been vindicated by history. As we enter the 21st century we should try to exercise similar wisdom.
CONCLUSION
I will end as I began, by stressing that the fabric of "diplomatic
readiness" is worn thin from years of neglect, and it threatens
our efforts to preserve and protect this nation's interests. The American
Foreign Service Association urges this Subcommittee and this Congress
to fund, at a minimum, the Administration's request for the Department
of State and its related programs under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction,
some $7,307.7 million.
In so doing, we understand that, while successful improvement in this
nation's Diplomatic Readiness cannot be done without more resources,
that improvement is not simply a matter of money. Changes in culture,
attitude, and management from the top down are required. The new Administration
has brought in a talented and well-respected individual as Secretary
of State, and talented individuals are being named to support him. Be
assured that AFSA and the Foreign Service will work for positive change,
for it is our lives and our careers that are directly affected, as well
as the broad national interest.
Because of the ever-present competition for funds in your Subcommittee,
there could be a tendency "to take a little from Peter and give
it to Paul." The Department of State and the defense of our nation's
vital interests truly require the funding requested by the Administration,
and we sincerely urge that it be provided. Operating accounts, in the
end, do count. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, which was chaired
by Louis Kaden from Wall Street, and composed of diplomats, representatives
of labor and business, and educators also realized this when it said
in its report,
"Insecure and decrepit facilities, obsolete information technology,
outdated human resources practices, and out-molded management and fiscal
tools threaten to cripple America's overseas presence. We recognize
that except for the security threats, none of these individual problems
is a pressing emergency. Still, as with any complex system, if many
of the parts of America's overseas presence are not working properly,
the system may fail. The Panel fears that our overseas presence is perilously
close to the point of system failure."
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association,
I wish to again thank you for allowing the Foreign Service to express
our concerns regarding the funding of the Department of State for fiscal
year 2002.