April 28, 2004

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,

On behalf of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and the 23,000 active-duty and retired members of the Foreign Service, I express our appreciation for the opportunity to share our views and concerns with you regarding the 2005 Fiscal Year funding request for the Department of State and its programs.

Our country is facing the most serious threat to its well-being since the Cold War. Foreign Service personnel are working long hours, in difficult circumstances with uncommon courage, to advance our bilateral and multilateral relationships, fight the battle against international terrorism, stop the flow of illegal drugs, uncover international crime and illegal financing networks, and work for the kind of development that will remove safe havens for international terrorists. On July 1 st, the State Department will take on a task that may reverberate for decades in the Middle East. The United States will be turning over sovereignty to the Iraqi people and the Department of State will be establishing one of the largest diplomatic missions in its history. The United States will become a partner with the Iraqi people in bringing peace and justice to their wartorn nation.

As the United States takes on these ever-expanding diplomatic responsibilities, this Subcommittee's actions are vital to their success. Your decisions determine whether we will have the resources necessary to support the foreign affairs infrastructure and many of the tools of diplomacy needed to implement our foreign policy.

The Subcommittee's and the Congress's past support of the Administration's request in meeting staffing needs, improving information technology systems, making posts and missions more secure, and providing for an active exchange program is very much appreciated. Certainly Secretary of State Colin Powell and his staff also must be thanked for their hard work on our behalf. For over three years, the Secretary has successfully served our Nation and the President as both his principal foreign policy advisor and as the effective and inspiring CEO of the Department of State.

PERSONNEL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

With the FY 04 funding, the Department completed its three-year Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) and by September 2004 will have hired 1,158 new employees above attrition into the Foreign and Civil Services. Because of DRI, the majority of the Department's long vacant overseas positions will be filled. Further, the Department will be able to staff new operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in new offices like MEPI and HIV/AIDS without "robbing Peter to pay Paul" as had been the practice.

However, the 1,158 additional Foreign and Civil Service personnel target was chosen prior to the changes in the world brought about by the September 11th, 2001, attacks on the United States. When the numbers were selected, it was a different time and a different world. For Fiscal Year 05 the Administration has requested an additional $76 million to fund 317 new positions which would include 183 individuals for new staffing requirements, 63 positions for the Consular Associates Replacement Program, and 71 new security positions.

AFSA supports this additional personnel request. Through reprioritization, DRI allowed the Department to meet unforeseen demands. However, this reprioritization also meant that current needs are not being met. The additional personnel "float" that was needed so that training could take place or positions will be covered while our personnel move from one post to another, take home leave, or the myriad other reasons for people to be in motion has not materialized. This personnel float must be replaced. Also additional security staffing is required to meet an increasingly dangerous world. Last year, Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Service experienced the most mandatory evacuations of posts than ever before, and we do not see this trend abating soon.

Without the additional requested funding for staffing, the gains made by DRI could be lost. With the lack of appropriate funding in the decade of the 1990s, our foreign affairs infrastructure fell into a state of near crisis. This cannot be allowed to happen again, and we urge the Congress to meet the Administration's personnel request.

There is one other matter in terms of the funding request that AFSA wishes to call to the Subcommittee's attention. In the State Department authorization bill, there is a provision in the House and Senate bills that would increase the hardship and danger pay differentials from a maximum of 25% to 35%. AFSA requests that if this increase is authorized, sufficient funding be included in this appropriations bill to accommodate this increase in differentials. The world has become a much more dangerous and difficult place to live. An increasing number of posts have hit the maximum but there still is a difference of "worse and worst" among these posts. An increase in the differential would help acknowledge the greater hardship that is required to live in the worst posts.

PERSONNEL ISSUES FOR SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Mr. Chairman, there is another issue to be considered is the treatment of our personnel. The Foreign Service is very fortunate in that we continue to attract from the best and brightest of our nation. Today, because of DRI and increased funding, hiring finally has began to increase. Currently nearly one-third of the State Department's Foreign Service has been hired since 1998, which creates a new dynamic for our institution. We ask for the Congress's attention in this matter because it can create personnel problems that work against retention and the morale of the Foreign Service.

The newer members of the Foreign Service have much in common with their older colleagues. They, too, are the best that our nation has to offer. They, too, are hard working, dedicated, patriotic individuals who are willing to serve in dangerous and remote places. But one major difference is the importance of the spouse and family concerns in their consideration of their employment satisfaction level. In line with societal trends, our new Foreign Service members are marrying well-educated, career oriented spouses. These spouses do not see themselves continually sacrificing their career and serving as part of a "two-fer" couple. For many, spousal employment options and the attitudes of the spouse constitute the single most important factor in determining both mobility of the Foreign Service members and whether a person will make the Foreign Service a career. The efforts made by the Department in this area are noteworthy, but the problems have yet to be solved. AFSA urges the Committee to work with the Department in seeking ways to improve the career opportunities and the personal satisfaction of spouses for the long-term health of the Foreign Service.

Another issue that should be addressed revolves around training and the per diem provided. As DRI concept continues to succeed and more individuals take additional training to learn new skills regarding their next assignment or to learn new hard language skills, AFSA believes that the per diem levels provided for those assigned to training need to be revised. Current allowances do not accommodate increased cost of living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. AFSA asks that the Subcommittee provide funding to the Department of State so that appropriate support levels for those in long-term training can be provided.

EMBASSY SECURITY

Mr. Chairman, AFSA continues to thank both the Congress and the Department of State for the impressive work they have been doing together in improving the security of our posts and missions abroad since the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998.

When Secretary Powell testified before this Subcommittee on March 25, he discussed the vast improvements being made in terms of embassy security brought on by changes in management. He testified that at the beginning of this Administration, one new secure embassy was being built each year. Today, the Department is building10 new secure embassy compounds a year. Moreover, the embassy's program costs have been reduced by 20 percent.

However, the threats to Americans and the historic number of mandatory evacuations of our posts and missions abroad last year both attest to the need to continue our efforts in this area. It must be remembered that despite significant upgrades to the security of our facilities around the world, the General Accounting Office reported in its March 20, 2003 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that:

"… even with these improvements, most office facilities do not meet security standards. As of December 2002, the primary office building at 232 posts lacked desired security because it did not meet one or more of State's five key current security standards…. Only 12 posts have a primary building that meets all 5 standards. As a result, thousands of U.S. government and foreign national employees may be vulnerable to terrorist attacks."

Mr. Chairman, t he Foreign Service does not seek hilltop fortresses. Such would be counterproductive to our purpose for being in a country. We accept that dangers are part of our profession. But we also expect that our government, should provide for our safety as much as possible. AFSA urges that funding continue at its current, if not an accelerated pace, to complete the work of securing our posts and missions abroad.

In this regard, we are aware of the proposed Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) program to help provide additional funding to increase the speed in which secure embassy compounds can be built. Given the situation in the world today, no one can argue against building secure facilities faster. However, we wish to express our hope that the participating departments and agencies will be provided additional funding to meet the additional CSCS building costs. It is our concern that the mission that overseas staff were doing would be lost due to a strictly budget driven decision.

SOFT TARGETS

Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, AFSA expressed its concerns to this Subcommittee regarding the lack of attention the Department of State seemed to give to the protection of soft targets. We have always been appreciative of your and the Subcommittee's efforts to direct the Department's attention to that area. As you know, this was a particular concern to the Foreign Service because we believed that the term "soft targets" was nothing more than a euphemism for attacks against our spouses and children as we try and lead a somewhat normal life of going to school, to church, and on other family outings.

It was thus particularly gratifying when the Secretary said to this Subcommittee:

"Our budget request also, I might say, touches on physical security improvements to those soft targets in our missions: schools, recreational facilities. And you know that we have an extensive plan to go after this soft targeting possibility, providing physical security improvements to overseas schools attended by dependents of government employees and other citizens. Our ‘05 request includes $27 million for this effort, including $10 million for the schools, $5 million to improve security at employee association facilities, and $12 million for residential security upgrades. Protection of Americans living and working overseas is one of our highest priorities."

PAY DISPARITIES BETWEEN SERVICE OVERSEAS AND SERVICE AT HOME

Finally Mr. Chairman, we wish to bring to your attention a concern that grows each year and seriously damages the morale of those in the Foreign Service. Because of prohibitions in the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, federal employees under Title V cannot receive locality pay when they go abroad. This means that currently when a member of the Foreign Service is posted abroad, that person will take a 13 % cut in base pay. Further, because of the "rest of U.S. concept" in locality pay, there is no federal employee of the same grade serving in the United States who will receive less than 8 % more than a member of the Foreign Service member posted abroad.

This difference has devalued the concept of differentials for serving in hardship and danger posts, it devalues the concept of equal pay for equal work, and it harms the individual because it affects the amount a person serving abroad can contribute to his or her retirement.

There are now several pay disparities afflicting a member of the Foreign Service serving abroad caused by locality pay. Two people of the same rank, one serving in Washington and the other serving abroad, will have a difference of more than 13 percent because of locality pay. Since the adjustments in pay procedures for the Senior Executive Service and the Senior Foreign Service, due to personnel changes in last year's Defense Authorization bill, a member of the Senior Foreign Service will receive 13 % more than a colleague at the same post but who is not at the Senior level. Finally, it is our understanding those in this nation's intelligence services receive an overseas adjustment similar to locality pay.

Mr. Chairman, AFSA believes the current situation needs to be corrected, and we will seek that end. The laws will have to be changed, but when that happens, we urge this Subcommittee to provide the necessary funds to eliminate this pay disparity.

CONCLUSION

Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the American Foreign Service Association.

Ultimately, our security cannot be won on the battlefield alone. Rather, it will turn on our ability to make foreign governments, international organizations, and the people of the world understand the threats that confront all of us and then face those threats with us. In the long run, our best defense will be convincing others to work toward an international society that is tolerant and just, as well as vigilant against common threats. This is the work of diplomacy, and we trust that you and your subcommittee will want to assign our diplomatic efforts the same strategic priority and funding that is assigned to this nation's military efforts.