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

TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY
THE AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATiON
TO THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE’S
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE AND THE JUDICARY
PRESENTED BY JOHN K. NALAND, PRESIDENT

May 1, 2002

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 that AFSA represents, I wish to thank you for the continuing opportunity to share our views with you regarding the funding of the Department of State and its programs. As we have said in previous years, and it continues to be true, the decisions that you and your colleagues in Congress make directly affect our professional and personal lives as we serve our nation abroad, therefore we have a direct interest in your work.

Let me state from the beginning that we are fully supportive of the Administration’s 2003 request, but we also believe it should be considered as the floor and not the ceiling for FY03 appropriations. We believe that more should have been proposed in the funding of the Department of State and its programs. We appreciate the difficult spending constraints facing the Subcommittee as it does its important work. We acknowledge that yours is not an easy task.

But we would emphasize that national security is one of the principle, non-delegatable functions of the federal government and that diplomats, their programs, and the State Department are as critical to our national security structure as are the soldier, the smart bomb, and the Pentagon. As we well know, international problems can quickly become domestic problems. Diplomacy is on the front lines addressing these problems before they reach our shores. As is true for the Defense Department, to achieve our national security tasks, the Department of State and its programs require adequate resources.

AFSA fully agrees with Secretary of State Powell when he said on March 7, 2002:

“I think it is important, and part of my responsibility, and the responsibility of…all the Members of Congress, to make the case to the American people that if we are going to live in the kind of world we all want to live in, if we are going to want to see our values adopted by more and more nations – not because they are American values, but because they are universal values – it is important that w give our diplomatic efforts the support that they deserve through significant increases in the 150 Account.”
Last year, with the support of the Congress, the Secretary of State began the difficult work of rebuilding the infrastructure of our country’s foreign affairs apparatus. At that time, he said that its deterioration has become a “major impediment to the conduct of American foreign policy.” As you know, the State Department’s request for FY03 is a continuation of these efforts in terms of people, technology, and security.

PEOPLE. The availability of resources determines whether we have the talent, tools, and work environment necessary to effectively represent and protect this nation. It affects the recruitment of talented young people to this profession. It affects how thinly we are stretched in manning the 250 posts and missions in which we serve around the world, and it affects how well we are trained to do our jobs. Funding also affects the quality of life for our families as they accompany us around the world.

In the 1990s, insufficient funding created a shortfall of over 1,100+ overseas personnel. This staffing shortage strained the Foreign Service in its ability to fully represent and advance the national security interests of our nation. It reduced the amount of training that our people could take because it forced both the Department and individuals to choose between leaving positions vacant while personnel took the necessary training or sending the person to post without training. And the personnel shortfall adversely affected Foreign Service morale as people were constantly being asked to do more with less, even while they and their families often served in hardship and dangerous locations.

In order to fill this shortfall, the Department is requesting sufficient funds to recruit, hire, train and deploy 399 new foreign affairs and 186 new security professionals above attrition. AFSA fully supports the Secretary in this rebuilding effort and urges this Subcommittee and the Senate to provide the necessary resources requested. We also urge that next year, the request continue to be supported so that we can continue and complete this three-year rebuilding effort.

There is one area that we would ask be addressed in the Committee’s report accompanying CJS appropriations bill. Last year, when the Department explained its request in the Budget in Brief for FY 2002, amounts in the personnel account were identified to address concerns about morale, recruitment and retention of Foreign Service personnel. For instance, the Administration proposed to allocate funds to continue a pilot program in Mexico for increased spousal employment and possibly expand it worldwide. Although unmentioned in the Administration’s FY03 request, these proposals are still important initiatives, and we urge the Committee to encourage the Department to continue and expand these programs.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as the “Voice of the Foreign Service,” there is one more issue that we believe needs to be discussed. We understand that the Department and the Office of Personnel Management are seeking to correct inequities arising from the fact that Foreign Service personnel lose their locality pay adjustments when they serve abroad. AFSA strongly endorses these efforts to convince the Office of Management and Budget to support implementation of an overseas comparability adjustment based upon D.C. area locality pay. There is a huge financial disincentive to serve abroad because of the loss of locality pay. Since allowances and differentials do not count in determining retirement annuities, the annuities of our members who retire following an overseas assignment are computed at a lower level than D.C.-posted counterparts. This affects our annuities in terms of both the formula for computation and the amount that can be contributed into the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Further, since allowances and differentials are computed as percentages of base pay, their value can be lost or seriously decreased when compared to what our D.C.–posted counterpart is receiving in base pay plus locality pay. Thus, compensation for serving in a hardship or danger post is decreased when compared to what we could earn by serving in Washington. There was a time when the difference was minor. Today, when we serve abroad, we take an 11.43% cut in salary and possible TSP contribution levels. There is no authorization for this program as of yet. We ask that when it is requested, the Subcommittee give favorable consideration to the idea of an overseas comparability pay adjustment for Foreign Service personnel posted abroad

TECHNOLOGY. Mr. Chairman, AFSA receives monthly briefings from the Department on its progress in improving its information and telecommunications system. More importantly, we get reports from our members in the field when things go wrong. As an independent voice, AFSA is pleased to report to you that we are satisfied with the Department’s progress to date in bringing the Department and its people into the 21st century telecommunications world. Funding requested in FY03 will allow this needed progress to continue.

SECURITY. For the second year in a row, the Department has requested $1.3 billion for worldwide embassy security funding. This is generally at the annual level recommended by the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP) and the Accountability Review Boards established to investigate the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. The recommendation for this funding was $13-14 billion over ten years. When the work started, fully 80% of our posts and missions did not meet minimum Departmental security standards. Today, about 60% meet the minimum standards but need major improvements.

What concerns us, however, is that while the overall request for personnel, software, equipment, and “bricks and mortar” work reaches the $1.3 billion level, the request for the “bricks and mortar” portion is $61 million below amounts appropriated in FY02. It seems to us that since the Department was able to utilize the full $815.9 million appropriated last year, the request should have been at a similar level to continue improvements to the physical situation of our posts and missions. We ask that the Senators consider increasing the request for this part of the “Worldwide Security Upgrades” from $755 million to last year’s level of $815.9 million.

Mr. Chairman, in the area of security, there is one concern to which we wish to draw the Subcommittee’s attention. When both the Accountability Review Board and the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel made their recommendations, the emphasis was placed on protecting government facilities abroad from future terrorist attacks. There was always concern, though a generally unspoken concern that, as we “hardened” our missions, terrorists would go after Americans, and particularly representatives of the U.S. government, in “softer” targets. The recent terrorist bombing of the church in Islamabad that killed a member of the embassy staff and her teenage daughter puts a harsh light on that concern. We believe the concept of embassy security needs to be expanded to encompass the embassy community. In part, AFSA believes that this will entail the continued hiring of security professionals and funding to move from a protective, defensive posture to a more aggressive preventive approach to security. We encourage the Subcommittee to join AFSA in engaging the Department in identifying practical solutions to the expanded threat to Americans and to American personnel abroad.

A REINVIGORATED FOREIGN SERVICE. Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is one more area that we would like to share with the Subcommittee that is not part of the Administration’s request, but surely impacts upon the success of U.S. diplomacy. As vital as increased funding is for people, technology, and security, AFSA believes that funding by itself will not guarantee that the Foreign Service possesses the attributes needed to best serve the President, the Congress, and the American people in meeting the challenges of the 21st Century. AFSA believes that the Foreign Service will also need to develop new skills and a new organizational culture.

In the past, AFSA worked with the Congress in supporting legislation that mandated the Department to do workforce planning (PL 106-113). We also supported Congressional provisions requiring the Department to report on management training for Foreign Service personnel and to report on the assignment of language trained personnel to language designated positions. Assuring the continued high quality of this nation’s Foreign Service has been a continuing concern to AFSA as it has been to the Congress.

Since July 2001, AFSA has been working with the Director General of the Foreign Service in developing reforms to the Foreign Service personnel system. To date, we have reached agreement on over a dozen reforms, including:

1. Establishing leadership and management training requirements that employees must meet by key stages of their career. These requirements will be enforced by promotion precepts that will deny promotions to those who have not taken the required training.

2. Enforce rules governing “worldwide availability” so that Foreign Service members do not extend in Washington or certain posts abroad for unusual lengths of time.

3. Increase the separation of unsatisfactory performers by having the Director General meet with members of the Commissioning and Tenure Boards at the State Department to reinforce with them their duty to identify unsatisfactory performers. AFSA alerted the Department to the fact that, while between 3.5% and 7.9% of career candidates were denied tenure during the mid-1990s, less than 1% were denied tenure in 1998 and 1999.

4. To change the organizational cultures of the Foreign Service, we have come to agreement on several issues such as putting added weight on demonstrated leadership, managerial ability, and good interpersonal skills when selecting personnel to be assigned to Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) and other senior positions.

5. The Director General accepted AFSA’s proposal to modernize the core precepts for promotion in the Foreign Service to provide additional incentives for employees to perform in accordance with the management principles enunciated by Secretary Powell and his management team. The changes promote the career advancement of those employees who exhibit the skills, outlooks, and abilities needed in our new century. For example, the revised precepts put new emphasis on operational effectiveness, intellectual integrity, customer service, teamwork, and leadership and management skills. In so doing, they signal disapproval of the risk-averse, form-over-substance modes of behavior that are ill suited for actively advancing American interests in the 21st Century.

CONCLUSION. Mr. Chairman, AFSA agrees with Secretary Powell when he said that events on and since the tragic day of September 11 have made it clear “that American leadership in international affairs is critical” and that “out on the front lines of diplomacy, we want a first-class offense for America.” We agree with him that “quality people with high morale, combined with superb training and adequate resources, are the key to a first-class offense.”

Operating accounts do count. The funds requested for Fiscal Year 2003 and the Supplemental Request that has recently been forwarded, help provide the minimum necessary resources that will allow the Department and the Foreign Service to continue its rebuilding of the Foreign Affairs infrastructure to meet the challenges of this new century. It has been less than three years since the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP), chaired by Louis Kaden of Wall Street, and composed of diplomats, representatives of labor and business, and educators reported that:
“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, under the leadership of Secretary of State Powell working with Congress, we are pulling back from that “point of system failure.” We need to stay the course and so we urge that, at a minimum, the full $7.5 billion Administration request for the Department of State as well as the funding requested in the Supplemental be provided. In the end, those funds address the needs of diplomacy as it stand on America’s front lines serving her and protecting our national interests.