[Senate Hearing 114-293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-293
STATE DEPARTMENT REAUTHORIZATION: ENSURING EFFECTIVE U.S. DIPLOMACY
WITHIN A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 22, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-569PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, TENNESSEE, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BARBARA BOXER, California
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
RAND PAUL, Kentucky TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Todd Womack, Staff Director
Jodi B. Herman, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Ford, Majority Chief Counsel
Margaret Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel
John E. Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bob Corker, U.S. Senator From Tennessee..................... 1
Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator From Maryland.............. 2
Hon. Heather Higginbottom, Deputy Secretary of State for
Management and Resources, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC............................................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to questions
submitted for the record by Senator Bob Corker................. 35
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to questions
submitted for the record by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin......... 41
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to questions
submitted for the record by Senator Jeff Flake................. 53
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to questions
submitted for the record by Senator David Purdue............... 55
(iii)
STATE DEPARTMENT REAUTHORIZATION: ENSURING EFFECTIVE U.S. DIPLOMACY
WITHIN A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senator Corker, Flake, Gardner, Perdue, Cardin,
Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
The Chairman. We will bring the meeting to order.
David, thanks for stepping in for me for a second. I was
rushing over from an off-campus meeting, and I want to welcome
those here. I know we will have others joining us.
Heather, we thank you for being here.
So thank you, Deputy Secretary Higginbottom, for your
continued service to our country and for your testimony today.
State Department operations have not been authorized since
2003, which means the Department's authorities are old and its
budget has not been thoroughly reviewed in 13 years. One of our
top priorities in this committee is to restore regular
committee consideration of a State Department authorization
bill, reviving a process that will help the Department become
more efficient and effective within a sustainable budget.
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss some of the
opportunities involved in reauthorizing State Department
operations for the first time in over a decade. I think this
can be a collaborative process. Certainly, it has begun that
way. And I thank you for the productive discussions the
Department has been having with our staff.
As we build toward a bill that I hope will achieve
bipartisan consensus, we have been studying the State
Department's budget, considering its request for new
authorities, and examining ways to make existing programs more
effective and efficient. We found many great stories about the
work the Department is doing around the world to advance the
United States' interests.
We have also found many instances where we will be able to
work constructively together to enhance ongoing Department
efforts.
The State Department's fiscal year 2016 budget request for
operations is 11 percent higher than last year, which brings
into question some of the issues we are dealing with relative
to fiscal discipline and the reality of budget caps.
A significant part of that inflated request is due to the
increasing financial burden of U.N. peacekeeping. The United
States contributes more than any other permanent members of the
U.N. Security Council, all of them combined. And our share is
still going up. Coupled with an increase in peacekeeping
missions around the world, this will only place added pressure
on other priorities.
But most of our focus has been on where we might achieve
efficiencies in the nuts and bolts operations of the State
Department. One of the potential inefficiencies we found is a
proliferation of special envoys and representatives. This
administration seems to keep increasing its reliance on these
``specials,'' which duplicates the effort within the Bureau,
dilutes the contribution of State's career staff, and
circumvents Senate confirmation and oversight of senior
leaders.
Foreign Service special pay and allowances should also be
reviewed.
Rightsizing represents another opportunity for more
efficient diplomacy.
I hope you will address these issues in your testimony, as
well as the following: what you hope to achieve through the
second Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review; what you
are doing to foster more rigorous program evaluation across the
Department; and whether you think economic diplomacy gets the
emphasis that it deserves.
Again, thank you for being here. I look forward to our
distinguished ranking member's comments and, certainly, your
testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for
convening this hearing. I agree with you. One of the most
fundamental responsibilities of this committee is to give
guidance on our foreign policy to our diplomats and to our
development professionals. And when we do not pass an
authorization bill, we are not carrying that out the way we
should. So I thank you very much for convening this hearing as
we look at the possibility of reauthorizing the Department of
State.
American diplomats and development professionals are the
best examples of talented people that are on the frontline for
America. They face serious security and political challenges.
So we can help. The way Congress can help and demonstrate
our commitment to their critical missions is to provide our
diplomats and development agencies with the guidance,
resources, and authorities they need to protect and extend U.S.
interests and values around the world.
So that means we should pass an authorization bill. Give
them the guidance they need. I believe the Department of State
has been hamstrung for too long by the lack of authorizing
legislation.
In the absence of authorizing legislation, the Department
of State has been forced to make some of these important
reforms through administrative action. Administrative action
can bring about change, but it does not give that long-term
predictability that is so important. It can change in 4 years
with the next administration. It at times presents challenges
for morale. It presents challenges in the relationship with
Congress. It would be much better if Congress would pass an
authorization bill.
So I look forward to evaluating the success of the reforms
that have been instituted administratively, including the
results of the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review, and now, as you are starting your second, what your
goals are in the second review.
Mr. Chairman, as you point out, there are many other issues
that are involved here that we really need to take a look at,
as we look at authorizing legislation, including embassy and
Diplomatic Security; workforce diversity, an issue that we have
been concerned about; overseas comparability pay for those who
serve in our embassies; U.N. reform is an area I know is of
interest; how the human rights portfolio is being handled under
the J family of bureaus; the use of special envoys has been an
issue, there have been a growing number, and that can cause
some real friction within the Department of State; and how we
use Foreign Service officers versus civilian service and
political appointments.
I think these are all issues of legitimate concern to this
committee, and I look forward to starting that debate with the
Deputy Secretary of state.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
I want to also thank Senator Menendez who helped begin this
process before and, certainly, the role that David Perdue and
Tim Kaine are playing to make sure that this moves along in an
orderly way in the subcommittee process.
But, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources, the Honorable Heather Higginbottom, will now
present. We thank you for being here. We look forward to your
testimony and the questions that you will answer afterward.
STATEMENT OF HON. HEATHER HIGGINBOTTOM, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking
Member Cardin, distinguished members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
Department of State authorization bill.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, it has been over a decade since
the Department of State last had an authorization bill and the
world has grown more complex in the years since.
From countering Russian pressure in Europe, to placing
economic diplomacy at the front of our global agenda, to
combating ISIL alongside our coalition partners, we face myriad
challenges and opportunities that impact our national security
and our economic prosperity.
To effectively meet these challenges, our diplomacy must be
more agile, more effective, and more modern. In the coming
weeks, the Department will release the second Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review, which will define a
streamlined set of cost-cutting policy goals and the internal
reforms needed to maintain America's global leadership.
This is a key step to allowing us to work better, smarter,
and more safely and efficiently. But we cannot take these steps
alone. We look to Congress as a partner in this effort.
A State Department authorization bill would provide key
authorities so that we can engage on a range of challenges to
our national security and economic prosperity that are before
us.
We have proposed a set of authorities to the committee that
fall into the following three areas: improving the safety and
security of U.S. citizens and facilities overseas, making the
most efficient use of our resources, and securing and retaining
a talented workforce. I will just highlight a few priorities.
To enhance security, we are seeking authorities to help our
Diplomatic Security officers protect soft targets overseas and
support their ability to investigate and prosecute visa and
passport fraud cases.
We have also asked for authority to hire local guards by
awarding contracts to the best value firms and not just the
lowest bids, a critical authority for ensuring the best
possible security profile at our missions overseas.
We have requested authorities to add flexibility to our
fee-funded consular functions. Through slight increases in
certain border crossing fees and adjusted passport and visa
surcharges, the Department can increase the quality of its
global consular and passport services and devote additional
resources to combating all types of visa fraud.
We have requested authority to pay our peacekeeping dues at
the assessed rate through the contributions for international
peacekeeping activities account, which will allow us to better
shape and reform peacekeeping operations to deliver maximum
impact.
Finally, we are seeking key personnel authorities to enable
the Department to retain a talented workforce. Our top priority
is to secure full overseas comparability pay to ensure that our
officers do not face a pay cut when they serve overseas.
Mr. Chairman, the committee posed specific questions in its
invitation to me, a few of which I will address now and more,
of course, in your questions.
Your letter raised the need for more rigorous program
evaluation across the Department. I fully agree. Earlier this
year, I issued a revised evaluation policy that will improve
how we assess the breadth of programs and initiatives
undertaken by the Department, and I believe we can and should
do more to build on these efforts.
Your letter also asked for an update on United Nations
reform and financial burden-sharing. We firmly believe that
emerging countries must pay their fair share of United Nations'
budgets. We expect to see assessment rates for larger
developing countries continue to increase as scales are
revised. We are also working to advance reforms to the scales
methodology to better reflect changes to the global economy and
ensure that wealthier developing countries shoulder a fair
burden.
And your letter raised the issue of whether economic
diplomacy receives enough attention at the Department. This is
a critical issue. The 2015 QDDR will make economic diplomacy a
key focus, and it will make recommendations to ensure the
competitiveness of U.S. businesses abroad and job growth back
home.
Mr. Chairman, a strong authorization bill will put the
State Department on the best possible footing as we
aggressively pursue the security and prosperity of the American
people.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Higginbottom follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and distinguished members
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding a Department of State
authorization bill.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you
earlier this year to discuss the importance of passing an authorization
bill and the Department's priorities. I also had an excellent
discussion with Senator Perdue last week and I look forward to working
with the whole committee on State authorization.
As he has said to this committee, Secretary Kerry strongly supports
moving a Department of State authorization bill. As chairman, Secretary
Kerry wrote a State authorization bill and recognizes that a bill that
provides a strong foundation for State Department operations that
reflects key Department and congressional priorities will help ensure
that U.S. diplomacy is effective and efficient.
The last Department of State authorization bill was enacted in 2002
and the world has grown more complex in the years since. From
countering Russian aggression and coercion in Europe, to placing
economic diplomacy at the forefront of our global agenda, to combating
ISIL alongside our coalition partners--we face an intricate global
tableau of challenges and opportunities that directly impacts both our
national security and our economic prosperity.
To effectively meet these challenges, our diplomacy must be more
agile, more effective, and more modern. We are working hard to position
ourselves to do just that.
In the coming weeks, the Department will release the second
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). The QDDR is an
important tool that allows us to look strategically--beyond the day-to-
day global challenges--at the emerging issues we are confronting. It
also allows us to look critically at both State Department and USAID
operations and ask how we can work better, smarter, safer, and more
efficiently. The 2015 QDDR will be a focused effort that defines a
streamlined set of crosscutting policy goals and the internal reforms
needed to maintain America's global diplomatic leadership.
We are taking steps across the board to better position ourselves
to meet the challenges of the 21st century, but we cannot take these
steps alone. We look to Congress as a partner in this effort.
A State Department authorization bill would provide key authorities
so that we can engage as effectively as we can on the multitude of
global challenges before us. We have proposed to the committee a set of
authorities that will enhance our ability to better manage our
resources, facilitate the Department's programs, and protect our
personnel.
We have requested authorities within three overarching themes:
First, we need authorities that will allow us to improve the safety and
security of U.S. citizens, government employees, and facilities
overseas; second, we need authorities to make the most efficient use of
our resources; and, third, we need authorities to strengthen and retain
a talented work force.
improve the safety and security of u.s. citizens, government employees,
and facilities overseas
The Department is seeking several important authorities to
undertake the best protective measures available for our diplomats,
citizens, and embassies abroad.
First and foremost, we are requesting authorities to enhance
security for soft targets overseas, such as school buses, and the
authority to hire local guards by awarding contracts to the best value
firms and not just to the lowest bids.
We are also seeking administrative subpoena authority for the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). DS does not currently possess
administrative subpoena authority, which erodes its ability to
investigate threats and combat visa and passport fraud. Not only would
this authority greatly assist DS in investigating and preventing threat
cases, it would allow DS to conduct much more efficient investigations
of the nearly 3,000 cases of passport and visa fraud it receives
annually.
We have also requested authority to secure greater privileges and
immunities for U.S. Government personnel serving at our consular posts,
including those from agencies such as the Department of Homeland
Security, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice. The best
way to do so is on the basis of reciprocity. We seek the statutory
authority for the Secretary of State to afford diplomatic privileges
and immunities to foreign consular employees present in the United
States on a reciprocal basis so that we can obtain the necessary
immunities for U.S. personnel abroad that are more favorable than those
set forth in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Finally, we believe it is imperative to ensure that U.S. consular
officers are notified of, and given access to, U.S. citizens when they
are detained abroad. The best way to assure that our citizens abroad
receive the strongest protections possible is by ensuring compliance
with our own obligations relating to consular notification and access
for foreigners detained in the United States.
make the most efficient use of our resources
The Department and USAID have asked for a total of $50.3 billion in
discretionary funding for FY 2016. At roughly 1 percent of the Federal
budget, this is a critical investment in the security and prosperity of
the American people. We take seriously our responsibility to be good
stewards of taxpayer dollars and there are practical steps that
Congress can take to help us in this effort.
First, we need authorities to provide greater flexibility to
support fee-funded consular functions. Specifically, we seek
authorities to slightly increase some border crossing fees, expand our
use of fraud prevention and detection fees, and expand existing
passport and visa surcharges. The FY 2016 budget also requests the
authority to deposit consular fees into a new stand-alone Treasury
account in order to make financial reporting of these fees more
accessible to stakeholders. In taking these steps, the Department can
increase the quality of its global consular service to the American
people, devote additional resources to combating all types of visa
fraud, and maintain high customer service standards for U.S. citizens
who request a passport.
We are also seeking to streamline how we meet existing
congressional requirements for regular reports on key foreign policy
issues. The Department remains committed to providing the most up-to-
date information to Congress through its various reporting
requirements. We would like to work with Congress to refine these
requirements in order to maximize the Department's efficiency in
producing these reports. We have requested a mechanism to sunset
reports older than 3 years and to repeal a number of reports that we
have identified as obsolete, but which continue to absorb scarce
Department resources.
Finally, we are seeking authorities that would ensure our continued
leadership in international organizations and international
peacekeeping, which would enable the United States to continue to lead
from within those organizations. We have requested authority to pay our
peacekeeping dues at the assessed rate through the Contributions to
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, which will allow
us to more effectively shape and to reform peacekeeping operations to
deliver maximum impact and avoid potentially accruing new arrears at
the U.N.
strengthen and retain a talented workforce
Secretary Kerry is committed to ensuring that the State Department
retains the most talented employees in the Foreign and Civil Service.
To do so, we are seeking a number of key personnel authorities,
including enhanced benefits for employees serving at dangerous posts.
Our top priority is to secure Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP)
authority. Due to inequities in the Foreign Service pay schedule,
Foreign Service officers deployed overseas have absorbed cuts to their
basic pay compared to their domestic counterparts. In 2009, the
Department started a three-phased initiative to correct this imbalance
and, working with Congress, we have obtained temporary support for the
first two phases.
This issue directly impacts our ability to retain top-flight
talent. The 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) found that
more than 60 percent of officers said the elimination of OCP would
deter them from bidding on overseas assignments, and that more than 50
percent said they would either seriously or somewhat consider leaving
the Foreign Service if OCP were eliminated.
In a job market where the Department competes with major
international businesses and other Federal agencies for a highly
skilled labor pool, we cannot expect to employ the most talented
employees if we maintain an inequity in our compensation structure. We
believe it is critical to offer our overseas employees the same basic
pay as their domestic colleagues. The best way to fix this disparity
would be to continue the authority enacted in the FY 2009 supplemental
appropriations act to implement Overseas Comparability Pay.
We have obtained extensions of other personnel benefits, such as
waivers of dual compensation limitations for reemployed annuitants and
premium pay cap waivers, through annual appropriations legislation or
in the National Defense Authorization Act. However, these authorities
are temporary, limited in scope, and have often focused only on
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. We are seeking longer term authorities
for these benefits and we would like to broaden them to support our
workforce in other high risk, high threat locations.
Mr. Chairman, the committee posed several specific questions in its
invitation to me, some of which I will address briefly here.
Your letter raised the need for more rigorous program evaluation
across the Department. In January of this year, I issued a revised
evaluation policy that will improve how we assess the breadth of
activities undertaken by the Department. Bureaus are now required to
conduct at least one evaluation per year and those with a large number
of programs and projects will be expected to conduct more. The updated
policy also emphasizes the use of evaluation findings to improve
programs, make budget recommendations, and better inform policy.
Your letter also asked for an update on United Nations reform and
financial burden-sharing. We firmly believe that emerging countries
must pay their fair share of United Nations budgets, as they have an
increasing stake in ensuring the U.N.'s success in addressing global
challenges. We expect to see assessment rates for larger developing
countries continue to increase as scales are revised. We are also
working to advance reforms to the scales methodology to better reflect
changes to the global economy and ensure that wealthier developing
countries shoulder a fair burden of the U.N.'s expenses.
And your letter raised the issue of whether economic diplomacy
receives enough attention at the Department. This is a critical issue.
The 2015 QDDR will make economic diplomacy a key focus, and it will
make recommendations to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. businesses
abroad and job growth back home. This issue has been a priority for
Secretary Kerry from day one.
Mr. Chairman, a strong State Department authorization bill will put
the Department of State on the strongest possible footing as we
aggressively pursue the security and prosperity of the American people.
Along with Secretary Kerry, I look forward to working with you on this
important endeavor.
Thank you and I am happy to answer your questions.
The Chairman. We appreciate the testimony. Give us a sense
of how the absence of an enacted authorization has impacted the
operations of State.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the absence of an authorization, we have many
authorities. We have submitted to the committee about 60, many
of which are noncontroversial but would really improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of our operations.
We have pursued through the appropriations process
authorities here and there. But that is temporary. It makes it
very difficult to plan. And there are key things as it relates
to some of our personnel as well as security that we really
need to have in an authorization on a permanent or long-term
way.
So the inability to plan, the inability to use our
resources most efficiently, is the biggest vulnerability we see
without an authorization bill.
The Chairman. So you are working with an administration, a
Democratic administration, as a professional, and what you are
saying is that this is not a partisan issue. Not having an
authorization impedes your ability to carry out our national
interests around the world. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Higginbottom. Absolutely. As I am sure you know,
Secretary Kerry, as chairman of this committee, wrote
authorization bills for the same reasons that this committee is
addressing it now. It will make our Department and our national
security efforts better and stronger.
The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. U.N. peacekeeping
assessments on the United States are approaching 30 percent,
despite being capped at 25 percent in U.S. law. Do the other
permanent four Security Council members have a responsibility
to share this burden with the United States at present?
Ms. Higginbottom. Absolutely. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
there are a key set of countries that take full responsibility
and greater responsibility for peacekeeping. We have worked
very, very closely with the U.N., both on its general reform
program as well as cost efficiencies and savings in the
peacekeeping programs.
These peacekeeping missions are really important and in
important places, but we have been doing everything we can to
reduce those costs. In fact, the price per peacekeeper has been
reduced by $18 since 2009, in large part due to our efforts,
and we are going to continue that effort.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Why are we contributing
above U.S. law?
Ms. Higginbottom. Mr. Chairman, one of the authorities that
we are requesting is to increase the cap, which is now at 27
percent, I believe, to the assessed rate of 28 percent. We need
authority to do that.
And the assessment has gone up because the assessment is
made as a result of our percentage of global GDP and then some
offsets from developing countries that do not pay their amount,
that cannot pay their amount as part of the system.
So what we need to do is continue to undertake our efforts
to have the peacekeeping missions be cost-efficient and
effective, and ensure that other countries are paying their
fair share. That is the set of tools and expectations we take
to the negotiations on the scale assessments in New York.
The Chairman. But right now, China and Russia are not
paying their fair share, right? And they are permanent members
of the U.N. Security Council. They have the ability, for
instance, to decide things like the Iran deal, it seems. They
have a very special status. And yet currently, if you look at
their GDPs, they are really not doing that. Is that correct?
Ms. Higginbottom. This is a major priority for us. In the
last negotiation, both China's and Russia's U.N. budget
assessment was increased by 50 percent. We think that is the
right direction, and we have to do more.
The Chairman. And they are actually paying that?
Ms. Higginbottom. They are paying 50 percent more than they
were before, and we think that is the right direction, and we
need to do more to ensure that those countries, like China and
Russia, are paying their fair share.
The Chairman. So I am a huge supporter of our Foreign
Service officers. I am amazed at much of what they do. And the
fact is, in many cases, they are in very, very dangerous
places, carrying out our Nation's interests, in some cases in
expeditionary kind of situations.
They receive an assortment of special pays, including
overseas comparability pay, cost-of-living adjustments,
hardship pay, danger pay, priority staffing, post incentives,
separation pay, and education and housing allowances. Since
FSOs already receive significant extra compensation while
abroad, why are you advocating that we pay them as if they were
in Washington?
Ms. Higginbottom. Mr. Chairman, just to delineate between
the two types of pay, overseas comparability pay is intended to
ensure that Foreign Service officers when they serve overseas
do not receive a cut in their basic pay. The allowances and
differentials that you reference are really about service in a
particular country.
So a cost-of-living adjustment, for example, is based on a
basket of goods and an assessment in a country about what it
will cost for our Foreign Service officers to buy basic goods.
Hardship pay is just that, places where there is significant
risk of disease, pollution, et cetera. Danger pay is for those
Foreign Service officers who, as you say, serve in some very,
very dangerous places.
Such just to separate the two, the overseas comparability
pay is about ensuring that when an officer leaves Washington,
they are not looking at a 16-percent pay cut or greater, if we
were to take all of OCP provisions away. If they were, for
example, to go to a quite dangerous place and receive danger
pay and perhaps a COLA and so forth, and they didn't receive
OCP, they would essentially be making the same amount. It
really wouldn't provide that incentive.
So we think both are important. Those allowances and
differentials are reviewed regularly to ensure that they are
pegged at the right level. And that is something we would be
happy to follow up with you on.
The Chairman. I think we need to. Most of the diplomatic
posts worldwide have a cost-of-living adjustment when the vast
majority of them have cheaper local prices than Washington. I
am just curious.
I know we will talk privately. And I cannot tell whether
this is something you have to advocate for publicly and really
do not care that much about privately or not. But it just seems
to me that it is odd that you would have both D.C. locality pay
and a cost-of-living adjustment. I do look forward to talking
to you about that.
Again, I am significantly supportive of what our Foreign
Service officers do.
With that, I will turn to the ranking member.
Thank you. I know we will have a number of questions to
follow up. And I again want to thank Senator Perdue and Senator
Kaine for their efforts at the subcommittee level.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to follow up on the overseas comparability pay issue,
I strongly support that. Two tranches have been included in
your budget. The third has not.
Following up on Senator Corker's point, I understand you
have not included that because it is not authorized, but it
seems to me that you could have submitted it with
authorization. So how high of a priority is this? I hope it is
a high priority.
Ms. Higginbottom. It is absolutely a top priority, as I
said in my testimony. We did not put it in our fiscal year 2016
request. We are pursuing the authorization. However, if we are
provided the authorization or the ability to provide the third
tranche, we would pursue reprogramming, in consultation of
course with Congress, to do that. We believe we have sufficient
resources to address it, if we were to receive it in this
fiscal year.
Senator Cardin. I thank you for that clarification. I hope
we can work together to get that authorized. I think it is an
important point.
Let me just turn to the J family bureaus for one moment.
The first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review created
two undersecretaries, one for human rights, one for economics.
I want to talk a little bit about the human rights for one
moment.
It certainly put a focus on it, but there is a concern it
also could have stovepiped the concerns rather than having all
of the Departments working together to advance the goals of
human rights. What steps have you taken to make sure that human
rights are prioritized through all the functions of the
Department of State?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
We really take our guidance and direction from the
Secretary on this. As he has said multiple times, human rights
are part of our bilateral engagement across the world. It is
really U.S. leadership that has in many, many places put these
issues on the map.
We face this tension around specific issues and our
regional bureaus in many fronts. It is really important that we
have good integration across the organization and at posts of
these priorities. So that is the directive that is given, to do
that.
We have a very strong assistant secretary who deals with
human rights issues. He is consistently identifying priority
countries and working with those assistant secretaries and with
those teams to highlight where we can make progress. He does
his own travel, as does the Under Secretary, to those places,
to advance those issues in coordination and collaboration with
the regional bureaus and posts.
So it is really the direction from the top that is
important and then the continued followup that is critical.
This is an area we always, I think, can do better on in
ensuring that we have coordination and collaboration. It has to
be about leadership, and it has to be about commitment to the
issues.
Senator Cardin. I would hope that, as we move forward in
considering authorization, that you will have some specific
recommendations in regard to both baskets, the economic basket
and the human rights basket that came out of the review, as to
how we can give statutory strength to that commitment within
the entire Department.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator. I think when you see
the second Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
shortly, we are paying close attention to those issues and how
internally we can better integrate and highlight both on human
rights and on economic diplomacy.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Let me turn to international organizations for one moment.
The Chair mentioned the United Nations and reforms within the
United Nations. There is always concern about the United
Nations. I am a strong supporter of our participation in the
United Nations, let me make that clear. But there are concerns
about how it functions.
We saw during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that UNRWA
facilities were used by Hamas to hide rockets. These types of
concerns are obviously counter to the mission of the United
Nations.
What type of accountability, considering our significant
participation, do we have to make sure that the United Nations
is more efficient and focused on its principal missions?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
We acknowledge the U.N. system is not perfect. That is why
we have been so focused on the reform agenda in this
administration. We think it is essential to dealing with the
many global challenges we are facing, but that we must bring
our leverage, the fact that we make a significant contribution
to the system, to increase transparency and accountability.
There are several specific reform agenda items that we have
pressed. One is transparency of the evaluation and audit
functions. We are working with them right now to strengthen
whistleblower protections. Due to some of the work we have done
with them, they have saved over $100 million in recovered funds
that were improperly disbursed. It is our belief that our focus
and attention on these issues is critical to ensuring that this
agenda is undertaken at the U.N.
So we continue this focus, and we will continue bringing it
forward. We have also been successful in supporting an
independent audit advisory committee, which systematically
looks at these issues. So this is a focus we will continue
going forward.
Senator Cardin. A lot of times, other regional
organizations that we belong to get lumped into one discussion,
and they are all quite different. I am very familiar with the
OSCE, having been the chair of the Helsinki Commission here in
the last Congress. And I think we all recognize the importance
of the OSCE in regards to the ongoing problems between Ukraine
and Russia. The OSCE is a model organization, as far as the
ability to have a consequential impact for stability in Europe
and Central Asia.
The OAS is not quite as visible in its help in dealing with
some of the regional problems in our own hemisphere, even
though it is headquartered right here in Washington.
So what review is being done of the regional organizations,
so that we take the best practices where they are working and
try to improve the other organizations we belong to, and make
substantial contributions, so that they can be more effective
in carrying out U.S. goals?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
Our Bureau of International Organizations is very focused
on this question. I actually was able to attend the last
meeting of the OAS. A big part of the conversation there was
about how we strengthen that organization. A lot of it was
informed by best practices in other regional or multilateral
organizations.
So how it works bureaucratically at the State Department is
that our Bureau that focuses exclusively on international
organizations works closely with the regional bureau that has
the principal diplomatic engagement role. In a lot of places it
is about political will, it is about aligning support, it is
about bilateral engagement behind these reform efforts.
So I think some of that is going on in a productive way,
particularly in the OAS.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Perdue.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
ranking member, Senator Cardin.
I want to thank both of you for your leadership last week.
Senator Cardin, in very difficult circumstances stepping in.
But I want to thank people on both sides of the aisle.
Last week, I think we had a milestone of bipartisanship. As
a new member, I am very encouraged. I think today is another
example of an opportunity we have to do the right thing and put
partisanship aside and help the State Department through this
reauthorization.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your forbearance and for
your initiative in reaching out to the committee and helping us
understand some of the issues.
For the record, I want it to be noted that Secretary
Higginbottom has been very forthright in private meetings and
has helped us prepare for today's hearing.
I also would like to thank Senator Kaine for his
leadership. He and I cochaired this subcommittee yesterday, and
we had a lot of good information with the inspector general. I
would like to follow up on two observations I think that came
out of that, Madam Secretary.
I think there were two issues that were brought up before
the committee yesterday. One was IT independence of the
Inspector General Office and other was right of first refusal
for a look at accusations or evidence around misconduct within
the organization.
I am anxious to get to the operational issues, because you
are the COO of a $50 billion operation. With my background, you
and I have had great conversations, and I would like to have
more for the record.
But today, I would like you to focus on this IT issue with
me just a minute. It looks like there are thousands of
administrators who work for State who might or might not have
access to independent investigations, as well as, it looked to
me like yesterday, when we asked the question if there was a
breach in the State system, the IG wouldn't necessarily know it
immediately.
Mr. Linick actually testified yesterday that the State
network has actually been attacked and that it affected the
Office of the Inspector General. He also told us it took over 6
months to get an agreement with Diplomatic Security. Going
forward, they will notify the OIG when they go on their IT
network.
That is a memo of understanding, as I understand it. And
with the change of administration, that may or may not be
continued into the next administration.
Would you comment on this IT independence issue and also
right of first refusal, as well as this potential breach issue?
Ms. Higginbottom. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And I have
enjoyed our conversations and look forward to continuing them.
I meet, as you know, with the IG every week. We discuss
issues like the ones you just raised. We worked through the
issue of trying to get an MOU so that there was notification of
any entry onto the system.
Just recently, the IG has brought to my attention, as well
as to Secretary's, the request for a separate IT system. We are
looking at that very carefully. We are seeking to understand
how it would work. They need to have, as he testified
yesterday, some access to the system they currently have, the
architecture. We have to make sure our system is as secure as
it possibly can be.
We are attacked every day, thousands of times a day. So
those are difficult issues, but we are looking at that now and
examining it.
It is also important that we understand the cost.
Senator Perdue. I am sorry to interrupt. Have you actually
had a breach that you can talk about?
Ms. Higginbottom. I can tell you, Senator, that we have
been breached. This has been reported. Any further details of
that, I would be happy to discuss in a different setting.
So we continue to work through that, and I look forward to
making progress on understanding how it would work and what it
would cost.
With respect to the right of first refusal, this is an
issue that, as you know, Secretary Kerry appointed the IG, a
confirmed IG, which is important. He has been looking at a
variety of different functions to understand how this office is
set up. This is an issue he has brought to our attention.
I have some information that we are analyzing to understand
how it would affect statutory authorities we have, for example,
in reporting civil rights violations and other things.
So we are continuing to talk and understand what this will
take, and I have confidence that we are going to be able to
work through it.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Let me echo the chairman's comments earlier about Foreign
Service professionals. I just returned from a trip to
Afghanistan and Iraq. I have to tell you my observations are
that these men and women are the best and brightest. They are
working in very tough situations. They deserve our highest
support, and they are doing a fantastic job right now. So I am
honored to be an American and have these people supporting us
out there.
Yesterday, in testimony, the inspector general highlighted
the three purposes or missions, if you will, and if these are
incorrect, I would love you to add to them. Being the COO of
the State Department, it is your job basically to make sure
these missions are fulfilled operationally.
One is to improve the protection of people. These are the
Foreign Service professionals, as well as here at home. The
second is management of contracts, spending of money,
procurement, and grants. And then the security of sensitive
information. You have spoken to the third one. Would you speak
to the other two, and then talk about the operational
difficulties you have seen in the first year and what
conclusions you are coming to in terms of improving
effectiveness?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
The safety and security of our personnel and facilities is
of critical importance. It starts with the Secretary and it is,
certainly, my responsibility as well.
Since the tragic events in Benghazi, we have done a full-
scale review of our security posture, processes, et cetera.
That is a major focus of my time. I meet every week with our
Diplomatic Security Assistant Secretary. We are in weekly
meetings on all of these issues, overseeing ARB implementation,
et cetera. It is a major part of my responsibility and the
Department's responsibility. I can go into more detail about
that.
With respect to contracts and grants, we really appreciate
that the IG has created this new tool or mechanism to highlight
where he sees big weaknesses. In this case, he has highlighted
IT security contracts and grants. We received nine specific
recommendations that we have moved forward with.
It is this role, a robust IG role, that Secretary Kerry
wanted to have in appointing a confirmed IG. So we appreciate
this collaboration.
But it is not just implementing those recommendations,
which we have done. It is the continued attention and focus on
it. When Steve and I meet, when inspector general and I meet,
we talk about these things regularly.
Senator Perdue. Well, I have to say, for the record, he
said the same thing. He highlights these two areas. But we have
all had auditors in past lives, and his role is beyond that.
His role is to be a partner of yours. I applaud you for looking
at it that way.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have now. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I am glad we have someone who has
run major operations to work with this.
With that, Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today.
Let me add my compliments to Senator Perdue's, with respect
to the men and women who are serving. As danger and chaos
spread around the world, there are very few places in which you
can be working for the State Department and feel totally safe
and secure. So I think we are all in awe of the great work they
do.
I know we are talking about the confines of your budget
allocation and what you get to do within that budget
allocation, but just lend a bit of perspective here, in 1950,
when the United States was helping to rebuild Europe, win
friends, and try to marginalize our enemies, we were spending
at that point about 3 percent of our total GDP on foreign aid.
Today, that number is about 0.1 percent, 0.2 percent of overall
GDP. That is a 94-percent reduction in the amount of money that
we are spending to try to win friends and influence enemies and
adversaries around the world with respect to our State
Department budget.
I do not know that the effectiveness of that programming
has decreased by 94 percent during that time. At the same time,
today, our DOD budget is about 10 times that of our State
Department budget. I do not know that the tools in our military
budget are 10 times as effective as the tools that you have.
So I hope that, over time, we will get to have a
conversation about whether the allocation that we are giving
the State Department today, given the kind of threats that we
face, is sufficient.
But given that we are stuck where we are, I wanted to ask
you about flexibility today. Just two quick examples.
As we have some modicum of success in pushing al-Shabaab
out of some of its safe havens in Somalia, they are moving. For
instance, they are moving into Kenya, something that we might
not have thought of a year or two ago.
In the Middle East, the World Food Programme ran out of
money at the end of last year, all of a sudden threatening to
be unable to feed thousands of refugees who were going to
probably turn to extremist groups like ISIS, if they did not
get fed to the World Food Programme, examples of where the
State Department needs to move money when circumstances change.
Can you speak a little bit about your ability to move money
within your budget and what we could do in the context of an
authorization to unearmark some of these dollars that probably
are counterproductive the way that they are programmed today?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator, both to you and
Senator Perdue for the kind words about the Foreign Service
officers. It means a great deal to them to hear that.
So there are so many complex challenges that we are dealing
with. As we budget, we cannot anticipate all of them.
We budget a year in advance. We work with Congress. We get
appropriated resources. And then an emerging crisis happens and
we need flexibility to be able respond to it. We work through a
consultative process to try to do that, but that is a limited
ability to move funds around.
We have some provisions in our appropriations that allow us
to move a certain percentage of funding, but it is very often
insufficient to meet what a need is, and it is extremely
challenging.
Just in terms of the overall allocation question,
obviously, this is a difficult time in terms of the overall
top-line budget number. And when we look at how the
appropriations process might shape up for next year, for
example, if we see cuts to the extent that they are being
proposed, there are so many aspects of our operations and
assistance that would be dramatically impacted, whether it is
humanitarian or some of the anti-ISIL work that we are doing.
So it is top of mind to us, but the flexibility is really
critical. We are grateful for the flexibility we do have, but
we need additional flexibility to really be able to respond and
prevent things from becoming worse crises than they have been,
which is one of the reasons you hear Secretary Carter or other
Defense Department officials supporting our budget request,
because they see it as an investment that protects crises from
growing and becoming more of their problems.
Senator Murphy. An example of where you might want to shift
resources into is public diplomacy. We have seen the
militarization of information from ISIS, from the regime in
Moscow. And we are stuck with a pretty antiquated way of
getting our message out.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors is getting better, but
as we heard yesterday, they are a work in progress.
Can you talk to us a little bit about, as you are preparing
this strategic review, as you are asking for money, how you see
the ability of the State Department to reform public diplomacy
counterpropaganda campaigns, given the fact that our
adversaries are plussing-up these accounts, buying out press
outlets, in the case of Russia, in its periphery in a way that
we could have never anticipated, or would have been hard to
anticipate, just a few years ago?
Ms. Higginbottom. Yes, thank you. It is a really important
priority, Senator, for the Secretary, for the Under Secretary
of Public Diplomacy, who has been working very hard with
countries around the world to counter the ISIL messaging, in
particular. But we are doing it sort of out of hide, where we
can find resources to support it.
What we need to do is modernize the way in which we engage
our public diplomacy efforts, and we are doing that. But we do
not want to take that away from our traditional exchanges in
other programs.
So we are being as innovative as we can be, and we are
collaborating with partners around the world. But to really be
able to be at the scale we should be, we need a much bigger
investment there.
We do some metrics, of course, to see how our
countermessaging is going, and we can see some progress. But it
is not commensurate with what we are dealing with.
Senator Murphy. I would just make the pitch to my
colleagues that the numbers we are talking about are actually
not extraordinary. This is not billions of dollars. This is
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that are necessary, in
order to try to have some capacity to match what countries like
Russia are doing in and around the region. It is a pretty, I
would say, reasonable investment.
Mr. Chairman, to you and Senator Cardin and Senator
Menendez, thank you very much for making this a priority. I
know that the reauthorization has not happened for a long time
because it is not easy, because it is tough, because it puts us
in a position of having some debates that are sometimes
uncomfortable. But what I think what a lot of us love about
this committee is that through your leadership and Senator
Menendez and now Senator Cardin, the relevance of this
committee has fundamentally changed and our ability to do a
reauthorization I think is part of a trendline that is really,
really positive when we talk about reasserting Congress' role
in being a coequal branch with the administration on setting
foreign policy. So thank you very much for this hearing.
The Chairman. Well, thank you.
And if I could take personal privilege for a moment, you
know, it is only a few issues where we have had significant
disagreements. And I think if we can build off an authorization
that does not have many of those issues in it, and do those
things that we agree upon, I mean, let's do this in a
bipartisan way, we can give Heather and the Department the
flexibilities they need, the strength they need, we can build
from that the next year.
So I thank you very much for your comment.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
the Deputy Secretary for being here this morning.
A couple comments I heard this morning that I want to echo
as well. Senator Perdue, myself, several other Members,
traveled with Leader McConnell to the Middle East, engaging in
a series of conversations with leaders. But also the Foreign
Service officers that we met were incredible professionals,
very, very well-informed, helping us come up to speed on a
number of issues.
It brings to light the reality that they face each and
every day when we come back to work here and see on the news a
bombing in Erbil with the consulate staff right there that we
had just met with in Erbil just last week. So thank you for the
work that they do.
To Chairman Corker and the ranking member, I think it is
nice to see a series of articles that are being written today,
yesterday, Hill publications, off-Hill publications, about some
of the thawing of dysfunction in Washington, DC. Each that
story talks about how we are starting to chip away at the
dysfunction of Washington leads with the work that this
committee is doing, or at least includes a mention of the work
this committee is doing. So it is nice to see. I hope that sort
of erosion of dysfunction in Washington, DC, continues. So
thanks for the work you are doing.
This is an important hearing. It is important because
America has a responsibility to maintain its leadership role
around the world and to continue responsibly investing in our
foreign assistance and diplomacy programs.
As chairman of the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, I am
particularly concerned with sustained funding and oversight for
this vitally important region. The East Asia-Pacific region is
comprised of 35 countries, a third of the world's population,
and some of the world's most dynamic economies, including a
rising China.
We must ensure that our policies in the region strengthen
existing friendships and build new partnerships that will be
crucial and critical to U.S. national security for generations
to come.
At the heart of the President's Asia pivot, or the
rebalance policy, is a shared belief that despite the crises of
the day, our long-term strategic interests lie in the Asia-
Pacific region. This is why it is crucially important that we
conclude the landmark Transpacific Partnership, TPP, and
increase our security presence and our security partnership in
the region to reassure our allies that the United States is
here to stay.
I am not convinced that the State Department funding
priorities adequately reflect the intent of the rebalance
policy. The administration is investing $846 million in this
budget to support the rebalance policy, which is an 8-percent
increase from 2014. However, if you consider the broader
funding picture in the fiscal year 2016 foreign operations
request, the EAP ranks dead last of any region at 4 percent of
the total. I believe that we need to do better.
The questions we need to consistently be asking are, does
U.S. assistance help our partners in the region to address
pressing security challenges, such as countering China's
destabilizing activities in the South China Sea or effectively
responding to North Korea's continuing provocations? Are we
building trade capacities in the region to enhance
opportunities for U.S. exporters? Are we helping to promote
democratic governance, enhance the rule of law, and improve
human rights?
That is why I was proud to offer an amendment with Senator
Cardin, Senator Menendez, to the budget resolution, which
passed unanimously, which sought independent oversight of our
spending to support this important policy.
Last year, this committee offered a report titled
``Rebalancing the Rebalance,'' outlining some of the successes
and shortcomings of the administration's policy. In particular,
the report stated, ``The administration can improve the
effectiveness and sustainability of the rebalance policy by
increasing civilian engagement, strengthening diplomatic
partnerships, and empowering U.S. businesses.''
Do you believe the fiscal year 2016 budget adequately
reflects President Obama's stated goal to significantly
increase our commitment to the Asia-Pacific region?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you very much, Senator.
The fiscal year 2016 budget as a whole reflects what we
think is a reasonable request to fund our programs, operations,
and foreign assistance. I think it is fair to say on behalf of
the Secretary, we would like to have more than even what we
were able to request in the President's budget. We understand
the budget constraints and the conversation that is happening
here and with the administration about overall discretionary
funding levels. In fact, our request is above the Budget
Control Act levels, which currently, the budget committees have
written bills to and appropriations committees will look at.
So overall, we would like to have more resources for the
Asia-Pacific region, absolutely, and many other places as well.
We are trying to manage the best we can in a tough environment.
And the fact that, given overall our budget request is about
level, finding an 8-percent increase over the previous year's
request means we are doing less of other things. And we are
trying to prioritize.
Senator Gardner. So with an answer in mind, do you believe
the State Department has acted on the committee's
recommendations outlined in the report that I cited?
Ms. Higginbottom. I have not reviewed that report, Senator.
I will be happy to follow up with you and provide some
additional information.
Senator Gardner. That would be great. Thank you.
[The written response to Senator Gardner's questions
follows:]
Ms. Higginbottom. We agree that it is important to continue to
implement a carefully coordinated and comprehensive strategy for the
U.S. Rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. We have implemented many of
the recommendations in the report and are continuing to assess others
within the context of budget and operational constraints and
administration priorities.
Over the last 6 years, our Rebalance to the Asia-Pacific has
established a ``new normal'' of coordinated and intensified engagement
in the region. We are committed to extensive collaboration with Asian
allies and partners on important global issues and sustained engagement
by the President, Secretary Kerry, and other Cabinet and senior
officials.
The State Department and USAID's $1.4 billion FY 2016 budget
request for East Asia and the Pacific demonstrates that our focus goes
beyond just words: we are dedicating more diplomatic, economic,
military, public diplomacy, and assistance resources to the region in a
way that is commensurate with the truly comprehensive nature of our
engagement. This funding allows us to maintain a robust presence as a
preeminent trade and investment partner, security guarantor, and
supporter of democracy and good governance throughout the region.
We are also making progress on other goals cited in the report. Our
public diplomacy efforts are carefully coordinated to support the
multidimensional nature of the rebalance to advance mutual
understanding, support regional public diplomacy priorities, and foster
deeper people-to-people ties. For example, we have launched new
initiatives such as the Young South East Asian Leadership Initiative to
strengthen partnerships by building the leadership capabilities of
youth in the region.
We are also working to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
agreement to tap into the economic dynamism of the East Asia-Pacific
region. The most important thing we can do for our economic
relationship with East Asia is to complete the TPP agreement--which
also is critical to the future of our economy as it becomes
increasingly linked to the region.
In addition, we've made significant progress in enhancing
cooperation with China as we encourage Beijing to become a responsible
actor on the world stage. Last November, President Obama and President
Xi took a historic step forward by jointly announcing our respective
climate change targets, where China announced a cap on greenhouse
emissions over the next two decades. We are also working with our ASEAN
partners to promote regional security and economic integration. We are
now seeing ASEAN take stands on issues of global importance such as
ISIL, Ebola, climate change, and the launch of the ASEAN Economic
Community later this year will be an important milestone for
integration.
U.S. Government agencies regularly coordinate their efforts
concerning strategy implementation and strategic outreach in the Asia-
Pacific region, and we strive to create a unified voice and align
diplomacy, development, and defense objectives under a comprehensive
Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy. This includes an active and
regularized interagency joint planning and strategy review process,
which will soon enter its fourth year.
At the agency level, in 2013 the Department of State and USAID
completed a joint, multiyear planning and budgeting process for the
Asia-Pacific region that links strategy with resources, and supports
program activity with strengthened management guidelines and evaluation
oversight. Specifically, in close coordination with international
partners and other U.S. Government agencies, the Department of State
and USAID have established an integrated diplomacy and development
strategy in support of the following regional goals: Deepen Security
Ties and Alliances; Increase Economic Growth and Trade; Strengthen
Partnerships with China and Emerging Partners; Shape an Effective
Regional Architecture; and Supporting Sustainable Development,
Democracy, and Human Rights.
And what initiatives is the State Department pursuing in
the new year, the fiscal year 2016 budget, to further our
engagement and build partnerships in the EAP region?
Ms. Higginbottom. I just want to highlight the Transpacific
Partnership, because that is, in our view, the most critical
part of our policy and our approach, and obviously an issue
that is being addressed up here right now. And that is
critical.
There are several other initiatives. We have been investing
in Burma. We have been looking at the opportunities in Vietnam.
There is a whole series of initiatives we are trying to open
markets and strengthen growing economies. And we will continue
to have that focus going forward.
Senator Gardner. I had a great conversation with a series
of Asia policy experts last night, a long conversation about
the importance of the United States presence in the region, the
continued willingness of U.S. policy leaders, policymakers to
show up, to be a part of discussions.
With the changeover in elections every 2 years, every 6
years, new people coming to the table, it is important that we
continue to show up and to show the region that we are
committed to delivering our partnerships.
The committee report that I mentioned also stated that the
fiscal year 2015 budget request for EAP diplomatic engagement
is the second to last of all six regional bureaus, or 8 percent
of the total, despite the region's 35 countries accounting for
nearly a third of both the world's population and GDP.
Furthermore, EAP Bureau funding has decreased nearly 12
percent since its 2011 peak.
So just a question that you may have to get back to me on,
and I am running out of time, compared to last 5 years, how has
our diplomatic and trade engagement expanded? How many new
Foreign Affairs officers and trade promotion officials have we
added to the region?
Ms. Higginbottom. I would be happy to follow up with you. I
do not have that data today. But we will to that.
Senator Gardner. That would be great. The numbers I cited
from 2015, I would be curious about how they are reflected in
the 2016 request as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate you continuing to move in this direction. I
think this is one of the most critical elements that the
committee can pursue. It is a serious undertaking, and one that
ultimately is I think primal in terms of what the committee's
effort should be to help the State Department achieve its
goals.
I want to echo the statements made about our Foreign
Service officers. I think they are the unsung heroes of
national security and national interest promotion for our
country. Recognizing them is incredibly important, which is why
I want to come to my first question.
When you were here before the committee about a year and
half ago as a nominee, I raised questions with you about our
diversity in the Foreign Service and in the senior Foreign
Service.
To be honest with you, a year and a half later, I do not
see anything much better, which is disappointing. I do not see
any real effort to have the Foreign Service reflect the face of
America, which I think is incredibly important, in terms of
promoting the essence of America abroad, in addition to its
ideas and ideals.
I heard from several groups about the impact of assignment
restrictions and preclusion programs that appear to disparately
impact Hispanic, African-American, and other ethnic groups.
So what can you tell me today that is better significantly
in any way than it was a year and half ago?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
What I can tell you is what I have done since I was last
before this committee on this question. When I was confirmed,
one of the very first things I did was ask for a comprehensive
review of what steps we have taken, what the data looks like,
and what tools we have that have resulted in the improvements
we have seen in the diversity of the Foreign Service and civil
service.
That was a very data-driven and very exhaustive review that
really showed that the biggest impact we have had was with the
changes in the exam procedures that Secretary Rice initiated
several years ago, and that has had the greatest impact.
The second greatest impact has been the Pickering and
Rangel fellow programs. Those are programs that we think are
vitally important, and we can see and track how people are
coming in, and their racial----
Senator Menendez. Those have existed for some time.
Ms. Higginbottom. They have. And we are looking at how
people learn about them, how they apply, how they come in.
Those are really important.
The places where I think we have room for improvement and
we are making improvements just with our existing resources,
first, we have some paid advertising for recruiting. I am not
convinced that that is necessarily moving the needle in terms
of who is applying, and we are looking at that closely to see
how we might change that. And the second is our diplomats in
residence program, which is a very important program in which
we have diplomats at universities doing recruiting. I met with
all of them when they were in Washington recently to talk about
how their strategic plans needed to be more closely aligned
with what our diversity priorities are.
I am working closely with our newly confirmed director
general, Ambassador Chacon, who you know, on this question. And
it is really, really important.
So I cannot point to a specific number today, Senator, but
I can tell you it has our attention and our focus. But the
thing that is even more important in my mind right now than
recruitment is ensuring that we are really focused on retention
of the diverse Foreign Service officers we do have, so that we
can see them in the senior levels as they come through the
system.
Senator Menendez. Well, let me just say that I appreciate
your answer, but nothing that you have said there is different
than what was happening before. Nothing.
So if nothing changes in terms of how you approach it,
nothing will change in terms of the results.
The State Department has one of the worst records of
diversity of all the Federal agencies. And it is of all the
places, in my mind, one of the most critical ones to be able to
pursue this. So I am disappointed that a year and a half later,
I basically heard your answer be replicating what has already
taken place.
So it seems to me that unless at the very top there is a
clear message throughout the Department that diversity is
important, and that part of the judgment standards that will be
held against those who are in management positions is how well
you are doing in this regard, that is not going to change.
I hope you are going to look at assignment restrictions and
preclusion program, because that only exacerbates the problem.
If you are going to have a quadrennial review, I just hope
you also have some element in there about how you going to
change what is an issue that I have been working on since my
days in the House of Representatives. It is not just this
administration. It goes back several. But it has not moved the
needle forward, and it has not promoted our interest.
So disappointed. I hope you can do a lot better the next
time you are here.
Let me ask you, in a different context, economic
statecraft, I started an initiative where what I would like to
see, and I am wondering whether you have any focus in this
regard, not in the just traditional economic statecraft, but
how do you create a whole-of-government approach to helping
American businesses promote their products and services abroad?
For me, I look at our agencies as they exist right now, and
we have a lot of great agencies, but they are all working out
there on their own spheres, from OPEC, Ex-Im, TDA, Foreign
Commercial Service. But there is no whole-of-government
approach, unlike other countries, that powerfully promote
business interests abroad in terms of products and services,
which at the end of the day mean jobs here at home, which is my
major focus and why it is important.
And some of our ambassadors simply, to be very honest with
you, do not see economic statecraft as something that is very
important in their portfolio. Of course, depending on the
country you are signed to, there may be major bilateral issues,
but that does not mean you cannot promote economic statecraft
as part for that.
I consistently hear from American businesses, both here at
home and as I travel abroad, that they compete against other
companies from other countries in the world in which their
countries are actually very much engaged in pursuing helping
them achieve market success.
So can you give me any sense of whether the quadrennial
review is going to include something along those lines? Or
separately, are you doing something along those lines?
Ms. Higginbottom. Sure, Senator. Just one point of
clarification, we are taking steps on diversity. We were
scheduled to have seen you a little while ago with Director
Chacon. We can go into more detail, and I want to continue that
conversation.
On the economic diplomacy front, as I alluded to in my
testimony, we will have economic recommendations, specific
economic diplomacy recommendations in the second QDDR. I would
also note that at post, under the chief of mission authority,
Foreign Commercial Service econ officers we have there are
tasked with doing that work and coordinating.
What we want to do is ensure that the priority on this is
elevated across the Department, across all of our posts. Both
Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry have been very focused on
that. We have some concrete ways and thoughts about how to do
that.
We also hear from many businesses that find great allies in
our embassies in doing that.
So part of it I think is connecting. We set up a new system
called the bid system that transparently shows from a post
where there is an opportunity for a business investment and
allows businesses to look at it. It is divided by sector. You
can export the data in different formats. So we are looking for
different tools to improve that, and we will have some concrete
recommendations in the QDDR.
Senator Menendez. I look forward to seeing it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the testimony. Let me talk about OCO,
Overseas Contingency Operation funding. As you know, the Budget
Control Act, there are spending caps on international affairs,
but that which the President and Congress designate as Overseas
Contingency Operations are not subject to that budget cap.
There is no definition of OCO in statute, and the State
Department began requesting OCO funding in 2012 and has
requested some ever since. As we know, that just adds to what
is in the base budget.
I am just trying to get a sense of where we are going here.
Secretary Kerry, answering questions that I asked, wrote back
saying these were for extraordinary circumstances, unforeseen,
but we keep requesting it.
The State Department, when it first requested, it was just
for Iraq and Afghanistan. And then Pakistan was added, then
Syria, now Jordan, Ukraine. I am just wondering where it stops
here.
Can you give me a sense of how long we are going to use
this device and have spending that is not subject to budget
caps?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
OCO, as you stated, was created to deal with extraordinary
costs in the frontline states. As I am sure you know,
traditionally, when the State Department has confronted an
emerging crisis or an unbudgeted emerging problem, Congress has
turned to supplementals or provided additional appropriations.
It has been many years, with the exception of Ebola last year.
It is not regular order now to have supplementals.
OCO has been an important way for us to address
extraordinary costs. We are still in an extraordinary period of
time with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. And there have been
emerging crises that we have had to turn to OCO, the crisis in
Syria and Jordan, obviously as an outgrowth of that.
One step that we have taken in the fiscal year 2016
President's budget is to ensure we are going through a process
to migrate what are truly base costs into the base, and that is
a DOD responsibility as well as a State Department
responsibility, and be able to only ask for or request and fund
things that are temporary, unforeseen, or truly extraordinary
in OCO.
So in terms of the length or period of time, it can be a
different budget mechanism. On the domestic side we have in the
Budget Control Act created a disaster cap. You do not know when
a disaster will happen. You know you need resources. There is a
regular way to do it, and it is part of the Budget Control Act
that is envisioned under the caps. We could entertain another
mechanism to do this.
But what is not possible is to not be able to respond to
emerging crises that we have a shared belief we should be
engaged in. So I think with respect to OCO and the path
forward, we are moving in a good direction to ensure the base
costs are regularized, but I think there is a larger issue
about how, in the absence of regular supplemental appropriation
bills, what budget mechanism we can use to address emerging
crises.
Senator Flake. Well, I am just wondering, when we are using
OCO funds for the operation of embassies in some of these
areas, do we foresee having embassies in perpetuity in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, those--excuse me.
Senator Flake. If so, how can we say that these are
extraordinary or unforeseen expenses?
Ms. Higginbottom. Regularized operations of embassies
should be funded in our base appropriations.
In Afghanistan, we are moving to a civilian-led presence.
We have to assume a lot of responsibilities that the military
provided before. Paying for those, setting up a trauma unit,
providing additional security, those are not ongoing. They are
operational costs, and we have turned to OCO to fund those.
The same with the sum of the airlift capacity we have
there.
But we do not see that as an ongoing cost that we would
fund forever in OCO.
Senator Flake. But we feel the need to put it in there now,
though?
Ms. Higginbottom. That is correct. And our goal is to move
truly base costs to base, and operational expenses that are
truly unique and one-time, that OCO is the appropriate place to
fund them--security upgrades, as I mentioned, the trauma unit,
other things like that.
Senator Flake. Well, the concern here, obviously, is that
we simply supplant and free up money in the base budget for
things that may not be the priority.
I mean, let's face it, by definition, the State Department
is going to be dealing with unforeseen circumstances. There are
always those and I would suggest that we better find a way to
way to deal with that in the base or the enduring budget,
rather than going to OCO.
I mean, like I said, we have only started with the State
Department. It was first just the DOD. Now it is State
Department, just for the past couple years. I see that as a
growing trend, and it is a dangerous one to have so many lines
off-budget.
Let me just say, for those of us who are concerned that we
are simply supplanting or freeing up money in the base budget,
there are programs that have received some criticism, like the
Art in Embassies program. Now, some of them are small issues,
but then there are bigger ones as well. $1 million for a
sculpture, one granite sculpture for the Embassy in London that
turned out to be too heavy for the Embassy itself.
Who is in charge of that program? What office at State?
Ms. Higginbottom. The Office of Overseas Building
Operations is in charge of that program.
Senator Flake. Is that program ongoing? Is this an ongoing
program or is this, the Art in Embassy program?
Ms. Higginbottom. The Arts in Embassy program?
Senator Flake. Yes.
Ms. Higginbottom. Yes, that is an ongoing program. The Arts
in Embassy program receives donated art, largely. The OBO part
of our budget, the Overseas Building Operations, provides
resources to outfit our embassies. I would be happy to follow
up with additional information.
Senator Flake. I would like that, because these amounts
that I am hearing are taxpayer funding, $400,000 for a
sculpture of an albino camel staring in the eye of a needle in
Pakistan. I mean, sometimes it does not pass the laugh test.
Ms. Higginbottom. I would be happy to follow up with you.
Senator Flake. Really, when we are putting amounts off-
budget, and continuing and growing OCO accounts, and we have in
the base budget some of these programs, to justify that to our
constituents, the taxpayers, is a bit tough.
I am all for art. We need beautiful embassies overseas. It
is our face around the world, and that is fine. But I would
suggest that some of these programs need to be brought a little
under control.
So I appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. If I could, would you certify that of all of
the OCO moneys you are spending, not a single penny of that is
for ongoing operations? Is that what I just heard you say?
Ms. Higginbottom. Our requested OCO, there is a distinction
between how our funding is appropriated. When we are requesting
OCO, we are making every effort to request funding for
extraordinary or temporary costs.
The Chairman. I know you are making efforts. I am just
asking--I want to move on to the next Senator. I am just
asking, would you certify to us that every penny of OCO funding
is only for these contingency operations and not a single penny
of that is for the kinds of things that would be ongoing
operations.
Ms. Higginbottom. That is subjective of what are----
The Chairman. So the answer is probably no to that. Is that
correct?
Ms. Higginbottom. We have several years of OCO funding and
several billions of dollars. I do not want to certify anything
before this committee without being certain of it.
Senator Flake has just written me a letter to look at our
fiscal year 2013 OCO allocations, which we are doing analysis
on now, and we are happy to provide that to be able to go into
that detail.
The Chairman. I look forward to you pursuing that.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, Madam Secretary, for this.
You will be glad to know that your independent IG yesterday
assigned his priorities in the same way you did and put
security of State Department personnel and our operations as
the first priority.
Senator King and I were in Beirut, Lebanon, in February
2014 and visited a memorial on the Embassy compound to all
those State Department officials who lost their lives. Most
Americans remember the Marine barracks bombing and the loss of
lives of military personnel in Lebanon during the 1980s, but
they are not aware of how many State Department and other U.S.
allied governmental employees lost their lives as well. So that
is the appropriate area.
I want to focus on two parts of the Benghazi
recommendations dealing with security. The IG testified
yesterday that there is a study forthcoming that will look at
all the ARB recommendations after Benghazi and give a progress
report, and that that might be done within the next couple
months.
But two, in particular, that I want to talk about are
embassy security training and then local guard contracting and
vetting.
Embassy security training is encompassed by ARB 17,
Benghazi ARB 17. The State Department started a study in 2009
to look at a facility that could be used for training folks,
especially for high-threat posts. Seventy sites were examined.
In the summer 2012, before I came into the Senate, the
State Department made a determination that the best site for
this was at Fort Pickett in Virginia. That was in the summer of
2012.
Within a very few months after that decision was made and
announced publicly, the attack occurred in Benghazi. The ARB
recommendation 17 suggested that this facility and this
training needed to be done. The State Department said yes, and
we are responding to that by moving forward with the center at
Ford Pickett.
In connection with Secretary Kerry's confirmation hearings
and his first status hearing before the committee, I asked if
that was the State Department's intent. He told me it was.
The OMB in the spring of 2013 sort of put a yearlong hiatus
on the project, to reanalyze the multiyear effort the State
Department had underway to determine the need for the facility.
During that time, the State Department chief security witness
Greg Starr testified before this committee that this was
important to do and do promptly because lives were obviously at
stake.
In April 2014, the administration, the State Department and
OMB together, decided for a second time that this was, in fact,
a priority and needed to be done to meet our priority number
one, keeping our personnel safe.
The President's 2016 budget has funds proposed in it for
this mission--7 years after the search began for the facility
and the need was identified, more than 3 years after the
decision was announced, nearly 3 years after Benghazi occurred
and the ARB recommendations indicated that this was necessary.
I just want to make sure that the State Department--this
has been going for a very long time--that the State Department
is still moving forward with this plan to try to keep our
personnel safe by providing them the training that they need.
Ms. Higginbottom. Yes, Senator. We are. We are really eager
to move forward with the construction of the FASTC site at Fort
Pickett. We want to train all of our foreign affairs personnel
going to post in this important training. And we are concluding
the environmental impact statement right now and hope to be
able to break ground later this spring and get going. It is
critically important. It is keeping our personnel safe.
And while the ARB recommended that we have this site and
that we have this training, and that we train everyone going to
high-risk posts, we believe we need to train the entire foreign
affairs community to be prepared, because we are in such a
complex threat environment.
Senator Kaine. I mean, it would be wonderful, as much of a
tragedy as Benghazi was, it would be wonderful to think we
would not face more. But we have had to evacuate two embassies
since Benghazi, our Embassy in Libya, obviously, in 2014, and
more recently in 2015 already the Embassy in Yemen. That is a
big deal, and it demonstrates the security challenges that are
not getting easier. They are getting harder.
The second issue, which is sort of subject to multiple ARB
recommendations, deals with security at the embassies
themselves, especially in high-threat posts. We use Marine
security guards. We use State Department security personnel.
But there is also a practice of using host government security
and relying on them, or locally contracted security.
An OIG report in June 2014 analyzed whether local guard
vetting processes were being followed. They chose six security
contractors in high-threat areas, and the OIG concluded that
not one of the six was fully performing vetting procedures on
local folks who were hired.
Obviously, if you read the ARB report, the analysis of the
Benghazi incident, the local security was very problematic in
the midst of that horrible thing. They were engaged in a pay
dispute with the State Department and some of them were kind of
on a work slowdown, and that might have contributed to some of
the challenges.
Talk to us about what the State Department is doing with
respect to the vetting of local security, how you are choosing
when to use them as opposed to using U.S. security assets. And
then when you do choose to use them, what is being done to make
sure they are appropriately vetted?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator, very much for the
question.
The security profile of a particular post is determined by
the regional security officer on the ground, by the chief of
mission, by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. And it is a
combination of both our personnel, often a local guard force,
depending on the threat environment.
We always engage the host country, and most places have
good cooperation, to provide protection. That is critical and
part of how we rate whether a post is high-risk.
We contract for local guard forces all around the world,
and it is really important. The provision we are requesting in
this authorization to contract with the best value, as opposed
to the lowest cost, it assures that we are getting the right
type of guards to supplement and complement our security.
The IG report was important, highlighting some weaknesses
that we have had in the vetting of those guards, some guards in
some places. Part of that is the responsibility of our regional
security officers at post. Part of it was the problem of the
contractors, the companies themselves.
So we have taken those recommendations and are improving on
them. But we do feel as though authority that would allow us to
work with different contractors could also just this issue.
In some places, the vetting, there are insufficient records
and information. We are going to face that in certain
environments around the world. There are not as good of
recordkeeping systems in some countries we are operating in.
That is just something we have to work through and do the best
job we can. But we feel like this authority could make a big
difference.
Senator Kaine. I really hope, as part of the
reauthorization, the additional authorities to make sure that
these locally hired security are to be trusted, I hope we
provide authorities to the State Department they need.
Thank you to the witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I want to thank you again, and
Senator Perdue, and our Deputy Secretary for creating the kind
of environment that I hope will cause us to be successful. You
all work very well together, and it is deeply appreciated.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank you and Senator Cardin and Senator Menendez for
this effort to reauthorize the State Department. I also serve,
as several of us do, on the Armed Services Committee. I think
this past year, for the 51st year in a row, we passed an
authorization for the Department of Defense. Wouldn't it be
nice if we could count on every year passing an authorization
for the State Department. And I hope that this will be the
start of that effort.
Now, one of the most positive statements about the
direction of dealing with diplomacy and global affairs I
thought occurred early in the administration when Secretary
Gates and Secretary Clinton talked about the importance of
rebalancing resources and emphasis between Defense and State,
and the importance of diplomacy in helping to avoid conflicts
in places.
So I do think that was an important initiative. I think it
is one we need to continue.
One of the things that struck me as Senator Murphy was
asking about ways to engage in public diplomacy, to improve the
communications as we are seeking to respond to terrorist and
other efforts around the world, as Senator Kaine was talking
about the need to train personnel for security threats, is that
those are places where we are doing a lot on the defense side
and we need to do a lot and we are on the diplomatic side.
But how are you working together to address those kinds of
joint challenges that the country faces that we should be
dealing with in a coordinated way?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you very much, Senator.
Recently, Secretary Carter came to the State Department to
address our chiefs of mission, when they were here for a
conference. And he spoke for quite some time about his
observation of how the relationship over the course of his
career has changed between State and the Defense Department,
and to the current moment, where we really are coordinating and
collaborating in so many places.
I think about the work we are doing a partnership in
different places in Africa, some of the security training and
support that we are providing. There are certain authorities
that the Department of Defense has that we have concurrence on,
the Secretary of State has concurrence on, to ensure our
diplomatic objectives and our Defense Department objectives are
aligned and coordinated. I think that is critically important.
And Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton really laid a
foundation of partnership that we are seeking to build upon,
both on the resources side as well as on the authorities and
the work that we are carrying out.
So there is a whole host of examples where we are working
very well together.
The President proposed the counterterrorism partnership
fund last year. We have requested it in our budget. Part of
that is State Department. Most of it is the Defense Department.
But again, it is working together to say, what are the civilian
capabilities that the State Department is best suited to lead
on in partnership with the core functions of DOD?
I think the leadership of both of our agencies in this
administration is really committed to that principle.
Senator Shaheen. That is encouraging to hear. It sort of
raises the question in my mind, and I support the efforts to
address security of our embassy personnel because I share the
belief that all of us here have that they are doing tremendous
work under very difficult circumstances often, but it makes me
wonder if we really need a whole new facility to do that
training, or if we do not have existing facilities someplace
where we are doing similar training, where we could modify that
to accommodate the needs of the State Department.
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, the Department undertook a
review, as Senator Kaine said, of many different sites. One
option that has been discussed is the law enforcement training
facility in Georgia. Our combined assessment found that we
would need to build or augment 90 percent of the capabilities
the State Department needs for its unique training, which is
not in law enforcement in nature, to do that. And having both
the capability and the synergies in this region, to get not
just Foreign Service officers but everyone going to post--that
includes the intel community, the Defense Department, and
others--to go through this training.
So we looked at many different places. I should say, the
administration looked at many different places and came to the
conclusion that this was the right answer.
And we feel strongly that we need to train people. Security
is a shared responsibility. And we have to equip everyone with
the tools and resources and training to be safe at post.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I, certainly, agree with that.
Let me ask, the inspector general reported that over the
past 6 years, that contracts worth a total of more than $6
billion were found to have incomplete records. In some cases,
files were missing. That increases the risk of fraud and waste
and abuse. The IG identified contract management as a key
challenge facing the Department. I know that the Department has
agreed with that.
So what do you need in order to be able to improve your
contract management and actually comply with what the inspector
general was recommending?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator. The State
Department's amount of grants and contracts increased a lot
with our investments in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the things
that we really appreciated in the IG's review is that, in that
growth, we needed to ensure our systems were sort of up to the
task of managing that amount of money, and his office has
pointed out several ways in which we need to do that.
I think that getting qualified people in contract oversight
positions and having those responsibilities is always a
struggle. In Washington, there is a lot of competition for
those roles.
Senator Shaheen. Do you have the positions approved to
allow you to do that? If you could hire qualified people, do
you have the positions to hire them into?
Ms. Higginbottom. We have added people. We have added
positions to do that. I think we could do more with additional
people and additional resources. But that was one of the
recommendations, and we have aligned resources there.
Finding qualified people is important. We have great
people, but finding more to fill those positions. And training
and a real understanding of the responsibility is something
that we have the capability to do but we need resources to
further develop.
Senator Shaheen. Well, certainly, I hope that you will be
successful at that. We have a lot of people come through
office--I bet everybody on this committee does--who want to
work for the State Department, who are very idealistic about
the role of the United States in the world and the difference
we can make. It seems to me we have a great pool, and if we can
encourage them to think about their training in a way that
would allow them to come to work for the Department, that would
be very important.
So thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I know we have a vote that is getting ready to kick off
here in a second.
Do especially either of our subcommittee leaders have any
additional questions?
Senator Perdue. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
very brief. I think you can answer this very quickly. I know we
have to go vote.
We learned another Washington acronym yesterday, ARB,
Accountability Review Board. Would you comment on the report
that over the last 17 years, actually, we have had 12 of these
ARBs and some 40 percent of the recommendations are repeat? I
know many of these were not on your watch.
I do not want to go through a litany of those 40, but in
your time there, what can you tell us about what you are doing
now to follow up? I know that these are backward-looking, and I
know the IG and you are forward-looking and are more concerned
about that. But are there lessons we can learn from these?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, in terms of the forward-looking
and backward-looking, one principal responsibility I have is
oversight of ARB implementation of recommendations, not just
for the Benghazi ARB, which obviously has been the most recent,
but those going back further.
It is true that there are topics that are repeated in terms
of ARB recommendations, but the security environment and the
circumstances also change. So increasing the number of
Diplomatic Security agents, for example, is a repeated
recommendation. It is not that the numbers didn't increase. It
is that an additional recommendation to add--we have nearly
doubled the number of Diplomatic Security agents.
So some of these we might think of as showing up again not
because we didn't implement them, but because the circumstances
require it.
In other cases, we need sustained implementation and
oversight. That is why the Deputy Secretary is focused on this.
Secretary Clinton asked my predecessor to focus on it. I have
assumed that responsibility and will going forward.
So some is, circumstances that have changed, and some is
about leadership and oversight.
Senator Perdue. Thank you. I also have questions about
special administrative positions, but I will submit that in
writing for the written testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Senator Shaheen. This is not really a question. I just want
to commend the State Department for your work to improve the
special immigrant visa program and to address the remaining
long line of Afghans and Iraqis, although that program is
almost finished, who are still waiting to get into this
country, who have risked their own lives to help our men and
women on the ground in those countries during the conflicts.
It is a very important program, and I certainly applaud the
State Department for your efforts.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
support in helping us get the number of visas that we need to
meet that demand. We have made a lot of procedural
improvements, and we are continuing it. We just made another
one recently, and we owe it to people to administer this
program well. We appreciate your attention to it, because it
has helped be better at our responsibilities.
The Chairman. If I could ask, and Senator Cardin may have a
question too, since the bell has not quite gotten off, I spent
most of my life in the private sector and we tried to build our
companies and their capacity. And one of the greatest things
was seeing people thrive and then educate their families in
unique ways, and all of those kinds of things.
I see these special envoys that get created. And, of
course, there is no confirmation for most of those, unless they
are legislatively created, and very few of them are. What
effect does it have on the culture of the organization, when
you have professionals who have been there for years, who have
responsibilities over certain areas, and then all of a sudden
wafted in out of the blue is some special envoy that is created
that has a special status? What effect does that have over time
on the organization itself, when people themselves have trained
to have those kinds of responsibilities themselves?
Ms. Higginbottom. Well, the role of those special envoys is
to supplement the work that we are doing on a regular basis.
Many of them are to meet specific, discrete issues or missions.
The special envoy for building the ISIL coalition, for
example, has a very specific mission. He is working closely
with our Near Eastern Affairs Bureau. But he is going out and
getting support around the globe for the coalition efforts.
When Secretary Kerry came into the State Department, he
asked us to do a review of special envoys and special offices
and understand what was a critical mission that still existed,
where we could reintegrate into the bureaus those functions.
And we did that. We have taken some functions and normalized
them. He has asked us to do a regular review of that.
So we just established one over last summer for Ebola
response. Now that the disease is in a different place, we have
regularized that back into the bureaucracy.
So they do play an important role, and I think it is
important that, at Secretary Kerry's direction, we are
regularly reviewing them to ensure the mission and mandate are
still relevant.
The Chairman. Do you have anything you want to add before
closing?
Senator Cardin. I see Senator Markey is here, so I would
yield to Senator Markey.
But let me just say, what Senator Menendez said on
diversity, there are a lot of us who are very concerned, and we
would very much appreciate you keeping us informed as to how
you are making progress in using current tools and looking at
new tools to improve diversity.
Ms. Higginbottom. Absolutely. We will do that, Senator.
The Chairman. Excuse me. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
good work.
The African continent is home to incredibly challenging
statistics: 9 U.N. peacekeeping operations; 14.9 million people
affected by conflict, violence, and human rights abuses. But at
the same time, there are incredible signs of progress on the
horizon.
The number of mobile phone subscriptions in sub-Saharan
Africa is predicted to rise to 930 million people with cell
phones by 2019, up from 635 million right now.
In 2015, sub-Saharan Africa GDP is expected to grow at 4.5
percent, making it the fastest growing economic zone in the
world, outpacing Asia, which is 4.3 percent growth this year.
But you cannot work in a continent like Africa on a
shoestring budget or with insufficient personnel and expect to
see positive results. I have been made aware of a recent study
conducted by the State Department that reveals some important
and concerning facts about the Africa Bureau's resource level.
The Africa Bureau completes more assignments than any other
Bureau. Its staffing level is the second lowest of all the
regional bureaus, but has the second-highest resource
requirement for program implementation and policy initiatives.
This means that they are doing a whole lot more work than most
bureaus, but with far fewer personnel.
For example, there are 159 domestic personnel slots for the
Africa Bureau compared to Europe's 306.
So in order to meet those many demands, from critical
elections to emerging crises, the Africa Bureau relies
extensively on temporary movement of personnel from one
position to another. For a continent with so many crises and
opportunities, this staffing pattern prevents genuine
preparedness to handle challenges as they arise.
Can you tell me about the Department's plans to review and
translate the findings of this report into genuine staffing and
structural improvements for the Africa Bureau's resources?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
We commend Assistant Secretary Thomas-Greenfield for
undertaking this review of her Bureau. The workload that they
are facing, the numerous crises they are dealing with, they had
a lot to deal with last year with the Africa Leaders summit,
not to mention the various global challenges that we are
dealing with in the region.
I have met with the Assistant Secretary, as has the Under
Secretary for Management, and we are working through the
requests to see how they can be addressed. Obviously, we are in
a tight budget environment, and we have to look to see how we
can align resources.
Just yesterday, in fact, Secretary Kerry invited Assistant
Secretary Thomas-Greenfield to present her findings to the
entire senior leadership of the Department, both to show as an
example of how we should be looking at our operations and
empowering our assistant secretaries to do that analysis, but
also to be clear what types of burdens the Bureau is facing.
So we are taking it very seriously, and we are working
through those requests.
Senator Markey. Okay, great.
In 2011, the State Department expanded its existing Office
of the Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural
Affairs and replaced it with an Office for the Under Secretary
for Economic Growth, Energy and Environment. Part of this
effort was meant to promote and prioritize State's role in
economic policy development overseas. But the inclusion of
environmental and energy issues placed more responsibility in
one sole office over the State Department's separate but
related work in the three areas.
I applaud any effort to prioritize the environmental and
economic issues in our diplomacy. However, I am concerned that
another administration, one less concerned about issues like
renewable energy and a clean environment, could easily sweep
away any policy progress made by having an Under Secretary
devoted to economic growth, energy and the environment.
In order to demonstrate our country's enduring commitment
to these important issues, should we seek to codify the
creation of an Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and
the Environment?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator. The creation of the
Under Secretary and the emphasis on environmental issues is
really important. Our Bureau of Environmental Science works on
a variety of issues across the globe and the region. I think
that what you would see, regardless of administration, is if
there are critical environmental issues affecting the countries
we are engaged with, whether they are mitigating impacts of
climate change or others, our diplomats and our Foreign Service
officers are focused on helping countries address those. I do
not think that will change.
The system that we have established, the Under Secretariat
and the Bureaus, have expertise and focus on that. While
political leadership, of course, changes as administrations
change, not necessarily the experts who are there carrying out
that work.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Finally, in reviewing available funding for Africa that
addresses good governance, it appears that since fiscal year
2011 to fiscal year 2015, there has been more than a 50-percent
drop in available funds that deal with issues of good
governance.
These funds are used for crucial activities surrounding,
amongst other things, election preparation. These funds were
pivotal in U.S. support to the recent successful Nigerian
elections.
We hear often that the United States prioritizes the
promotion of democracy and governance, yet the funds available
for this critical pursuit are shrinking steadily.
So could you explain how the United States can continue to
claim we are prioritizing democracy and governance but have 50
percent less resources that we are going to dedicate to that
effort?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, we are very focused on working
with Congress to try to receive as high a level as possible to
support those efforts. We think they are critically important.
They address many priorities we have, particularly on the
African Continent.
There are issues that we are working through to ensure that
there are flexible resources to meet those needs. It is a big
priority.
Because we do not have as much as we would like right now,
I have actually started a group in my office working with our
budget folks and some of the regional bureaus to figure out how
we can leverage the dollars we do have to go even further,
partnering with organizations and with other efforts. So we are
trying to take the resources we do have and leverage them and
have them go further. But ultimately, we would like to see a
higher level appropriated in those accounts.
Senator Markey. Okay, and thank you for all of your
efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Deputy Secretary, we thank you for your testimony today.
You acquitted yourself very well, as always. And we appreciate
the way you are working with all of our offices toward a good
end.
I have no further questions. I think we have a vote.
Again, we look forward to working closely with you.
The record will be open through the close of business
Thursday for people who want to ask additional questions. We
would just ask that you and your staff answer those promptly.
And we look forward to a successful authorization. Thank
you again for being here.
Ms. Higginbottom. We will do that.
The Chairman. Without objection, and with the committee's
approval, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to Questions
Submitted by Senator Bob Corker
Question. Foreign Service officers receive an assortment of special
pays, including overseas comparability pay, cost of living adjustments,
hardship pay, danger pay, priority staffing post incentives, separation
pay, and education and housing allowances.
Has State completed a comprehensive review recently to
ensure that each allowance is achieving the intended purpose,
such as addressing staffing gaps, and set at reasonable levels?
How much does the Department spend on these allowances
annually?
Does State have an estimate for what percentage of total
compensation is comprised of allowances for its employees
serving overseas?
Answer. Allowances and supplemental compensation are available to
all U.S. Government employees serving overseas, and rates are
determined by the location and difficulty of the posting. The State
Department regularly reviews the levels of allowances and recruitment
and retention incentives to confirm that they are fair and equitable.
We review data submitted from posts abroad, generally every 2 years, to
ensure that the allowances are set at the appropriate levels. In
addition, the impact of exchange rates on the cost of living allowance
is adjusted every 2 weeks. These reviews are based on survey data
received from each post, as well as information about each location
which is available both generally and from other U.S. Government
agencies. We develop and coordinate policies, regulations, standards,
and procedures to administer the government-wide allowances and
recruitment and retention incentives under the Department of State
Standardized Regulations (DSSR).
Hardship Differential and COLA achieve their intended purposes
under Title 5 U.S.C., which is to assist U.S. Government civilian
employees at foreign locations where conditions of environment differ
substantially from those in the continental United States or are
significantly more costly than in Washington, DC. The Danger Pay
allowance is intended to compensate employees for the serious
conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. The Department recently completed an
extensive review of the processes which determine the rates of both
Danger Pay and Hardship Differentials, and we are currently
implementing updates and other changes to ensure they continue to
achieve their intended purpose.
The Bureau of Human Resources conducted a survey in 2015 to learn
more about the incentives that compel employees to serve at Priority
Staffing Posts (PSPs)--Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen.
The survey, a followup to a 2010 study of hardship incentives, covered
both monetary and nonmonetary incentives. While respondents indicated
that multiple R&R breaks, linked assignments, and early handshake
incentives were part of their decisionmaking process, monetary
incentives were two of the top three drivers for those who had served
at a PSP, with Danger Pay being the most influential incentive.
In FY 2014, the Department spent approximately $268 million for
recruitment and retention incentives and allowances to support the
presence of Department personnel overseas. This amount includes: Post
Allowance (COLA), Post Differential, Danger Pay, Special Differential,
Language Incentive Pay (LIP), Other Premium Pay Not Otherwise
Classified (NOC), Physicians Comparability Allowance (PCA), Service
Needs Differential (SND), and Separate Maintenance Allowances (SMA).
Please note that not all are paid at all posts, nor are all available
to all categories of employees. In addition to these amounts,
$17,845,000 was reimbursed as part of Living Quarters Allowance (LQA).
LQA is currently approved in full or in part at the following posts:
all posts in Canada; Bern, Switzerland; Valletta, Malta; Quito,
Ecuador; Geneva, Switzerland; and Guatemala City, Guatemala. Housing in
other locations is supported by Department-paid residential leases or
Government-owned housing. For FY 2014, $150,791,000 was spent through
the Dependent Education Allowance to provide U.S.-comparable primary
and secondary education for eligible employee dependents overseas. In
CY 2014, the Department paid $152,945,000 in Overseas Comparability Pay
(OCP).
Excluding Dependent Education Allowances, Living Quarters
Allowances, and OCP, the overseas recruitment and retention incentives
and allowances listed above comprise approximately 15 percent of total
compensation \1\ on an annual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total compensation consists of basic pay, including locality
pay, regular premium pay, Government contributions, as well as the
recruitment and retention incentives and allowances listed above.
Question. Advocates of full Overseas Comparability Pay argue that
its absence could affect diplomatic readiness by increased Foreign
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service officer attrition and recruitment challenges.
What evidence can you provide to support this claim,
particularly given that applications to the Foreign Service are
at record levels and the Foreign Service has significantly
lower attrition rates than Federal Government civilians?
Answer. Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP) is intended to ensure that
employees worldwide start at a comparable salary baseline. OCP (just
like domestic locality pay) is part of each USG employee's base pay.
Overseas service (required for the FS) without OCP would not only have
an immediate impact on an employee's take-home pay (resulting in an
immediate pay cut of just over 16 percent of their base pay and a
similar amount on all allowances calculated on base pay), but also
follow them into retirement via reduced contributions to their Thrift
Savings Plan, which is intended to be an integral and significant part
of employees' retirement package.
We compete with other U.S. agencies, international business and
finance, international organizations, and nongovernment organizations
for new candidates for the Foreign Service, and for retention of
existing FS professionals. We all draw from the same limited pool of
highly qualified candidates interested in careers overseas who are
willing to endure sometimes difficult and dangerous conditions as well
as separation from family and friends. The competition can be intense.
When non-USG entities, particularly international business and finance,
can quickly adjust pay and benefits to attract and retain top talent,
it becomes even more difficult to remain competitive.
Some elements of the Department of Defense and other agencies have
received full overseas comparability pay (currently 24 percent) since
2003.
We are extremely proud of our ability to recruit and retain a
highly qualified workforce at the Department of State. However, two
recent surveys indicate this picture would change if OCP were to be
eliminated or not fully implemented.
The first, conducted in 2012 by the Department of State in response
to a 2011 GAO report, indicated that:
More than one-third of officers would consider employment
outside the Foreign Service if the Department cannot deliver
the final tranche of OCP.
More than half of Foreign Service personnel would be less
likely to bid on overseas assignments in the total absence of
OCP.
The second, the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, indicated
that for more than 60 percent of officers the elimination of OCP would
deter them from bidding on overseas assignments.
Question. It is my understanding that State's retention issues with
regard to millennials is due to a variety of factors, including
structural issues, but that compensation is not one of them.
Answer. There is insufficient data currently available to determine
whether attrition among millennials in the Foreign Service is an issue.
Given that employees join the Foreign Service at the average age of 31,
millennials are just beginning to join the Foreign Service workforce in
significant numbers. The majority of millennials are likely to be in
entry level positions, where attrition remained under 2 percent in
2014.
As the average age for a Civil Service employee is over 40,
millennials compose a minority of Civil Service employees. Attrition
levels in the Civil Service over the past 5 years averaged 6.7 percent.
A more extensive analysis of who leaves the State Department and why is
planned as part of an ongoing expansion of our attrition analysis tool.
We closely monitor overall attrition, and the Department-wide exit
surveys that we will implement later this year will give us more
specific information on why employees leave State's workforce.
Question. Defense Secretary Carter has recently announced a major
effort to modernize the inflexible and antiquated manpower structure of
the military. What is the State Department doing to overhaul the
structure of the Foreign and Civil Services to attract and retain the
current and next generation?
Answer. Improving recruitment and our work environment is part of
our mission to attract and retain the best of the current and next
generation. The Partnership for Public Service named the State
Department the third-best-large agency to work for. State has ranked
within the top five agencies for the past 3 years and in the top ten
for 10 years. Forbes and Statistica.com just named the Department one
of America's Best Employers for 2015, based on a survey of 20,000
American workers at large U.S. companies, government agencies, and
nonprofit institutions; we were the only federal agency in the top 50.
To promote retention, we offer comprehensive and in-depth long-term
career guidance and counseling to all Foreign Service personnel
throughout their career. We are continually expanding the guidance,
counseling, and development opportunities for our Civil Service
employees through our Office of Civil Service Human Resource
Management, Career Development Division. We offer a range of work-life
programs, a student-loan repayment program, opportunities for both
Civil Service and Foreign Service employees to rotate into different
jobs, and opportunities for Civil Service employees to serve overseas
with Foreign Service colleagues on excursion tours.
We monitor attrition closely and are expanding our attrition
reporting tool in coming months. Foreign Service (FS) attrition
averages about 4 percent per year, with the majority leaving due to
retirement. The highest attrition rates are at the more senior levels
as officers and specialists alike reach mandatory age retirement or the
expiration of time-in-service rules associated with the up-or-out
system, though both can happen at any grade. Civil Service attrition
rates are somewhat higher than the Foreign Service, averaging between 6
and 7 percent per year. Neither FS nor CS attrition rates are out of
line with the Federal Government average of 5.9 percent (2004-12 GAO
data).
We have developed, and are now implementing, a variety of
standardized electronic exit surveys to improve the information we have
about the reasons employees leave our workforce. This information will
be used to isolate and address any retention problem areas and assist
in recruiting efforts. Our existing monitoring of employee departures,
and what we are told in letters of resignation, indicate that the
majority leaving the Foreign Service do so for family and health
reasons.
Question. State has the authority to direct the placement of
Foreign Service officers. However, State does not use this authority,
and instead induces Foreign Service officers to choose difficult-to-
fill posts with an array of incentives.
What is the opportunity cost of the significant investment
of resources necessary to maintain a full presence in
challenging locations?
Have you considered directing Foreign Service officers to
fill hard-to-fill posts, particularly in frontline states?
Answer. The Department constantly evaluates our presence around the
world. Some of the most challenging locations in which we are present
are also areas of critical national security interest. The Department's
incentives to encourage volunteers to serve in these areas represent
important investments to ensure that the Department is able to maintain
the necessary presence to best support our national security. We are
prepared to use directed assignments when they are needed. We have thus
far relied on volunteers to staff our critical needs posts, including
our Priority Staffing Posts (PSPs) of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Libya, and Yemen, and have not needed to resort to directed
assignments. In the small number of hard to fill positions, we have
been able to fill those slots largely with volunteers. Our Service
Recognition Packages, which include a mix of monetary and non-monetary
incentives, together with a desire to serve, are sufficient recruitment
tools. In our most difficult posts, our experience has shown that
volunteers are more resilient and better able to perform successfully.
Question. In your testimony you stated that, ``Foreign Service
officers deployed overseas have absorbed cuts to their basic pay
compared to their domestic counterparts.'' When FSOs are assigned to
Washington DC, they must pay for their housing expenses out of their
basic pay. However, when FSOs are assigned overseas, they either have
government-provided housing or are given a living quarters allowance.
How do you justify the need for paying FSOs at the
Washington, DC rate, when housing is provided?
Answer. Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP) is designed to ensure that
Foreign Service personnel are compensated for their labor overseas at
the same rate as they are compensated for their labor in Washington,
DC, like their DOD and other agency colleagues. The provision of
housing overseas, whether provided by the USG or by a Living Quarters
Allowance (LQA) is an entirely separate issue. The Living Quarters
Allowance (LQA), or the provision of government housing while overseas,
ensures that all U.S. Government employees have housing that meets
American safety, health, and security standards. Such housing can, in
many of the world's cities, be priced far beyond the reach of a federal
employee's salary.
Allowances are not a zero sum equation. Instead, each type of
allowance is set up to compensate for a specific type of hardship or
inequity. Some posts have several allowances because several types of
hardships or inequities intersect there.
Question. Much attention has been given to training of peacekeeping
troops to prevent peacekeeper misconduct, particularly as it relates to
sexual exploitation and abuse, but significant problems persist.
What aspects of this problem are the most challenging and
what steps are we taking at the United Nations to address this
problem?
Answer. The United States is a leading and long-standing proponent
of efforts to prevent and investigate misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers,
in particular sexual misconduct, and is a strong supporter of the
U.N.'s efforts to implement fully its policy of zero tolerance of
sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by any U.N. personnel.
Outraged in 2002 by allegations of widespread abuses by U.N.
peacekeepers in West Africa, the United States and other U.N. member
states demanded action. The United States took the lead in negotiations
in the Security Council and General Assembly on measures to address
such abuses, including a revision to the Model Memorandum of
Understanding with troop and police contributing countries (TCC/PCCs),
creation of a Victim's Assistance Strategy to provide medical and legal
help to persons alleging SEA while the allegations are being
investigated, and updated procedures to address allegations of
misconduct levied against civilian U.N. peacekeepers.
Other measures adopted at U.S. initiative or with our strong
backing include: implementing training for all personnel on standards
of conduct; establishing conduct and discipline teams in missions to
publicize procedures to local populations and conduct initial
investigations; and, placing restrictions on personnel use of local
facilities, such as bars, where necessary. The work requirements for
U.N. leaders in peacekeeping missions now include responsibility for
enforcing the zero-tolerance policy.
The United States also pressed for published statistics, and
continues to press for expanded information. Despite the increasing
demands on U.N. peacekeepers and a near doubling in the number of
peacekeepers, it is encouraging to note a downward trend in allegations
of SEA over the last 10 years since the U.N.'s procedures and
regulations were put in place.
The Department continues to work with our partners at the United
Nations to initiate a firm prohibition on payments to governments for
troops sent home for misconduct, including for sexual exploitation and
abuse.
Nevertheless, challenges remain. We would like to see more
followup, particularly with victims and the local community, on actions
taken against perpetrators. Unfortunately, the U.N. cannot compel
member states to report on actions taken. To this end, we are also
pressing TCCs and PCCs to take action when their personnel are
repatriated, supporting the Conduct and Discipline Unit and Office of
Internal Oversight, providing resources where needed to address gaps in
their ability to oversee or investigate, and encouraging U.S. Embassies
and NGOs to report on allegations of incidents involving U.N.
personnel. We are also working with the Secretariat to ensure that
measures are in place and properly implemented to address allegations
of misconduct against civilian personnel.
Finally, supporting the capacity of the U.N. itself to address this
issue is important to long-term success. The U.N.'s Conduct and
Discipline Unit (CDU) in the Department of Field Support is responsible
for overseeing policy and regulations on misconduct. They have a small,
very dedicated staff. The Department of State is funding an entry-level
position in CDU, filled by a talented young American, to help with this
essential work.
Question. U.N. peacekeeping missions are transitioning away from
their original purpose of maintaining peace during a political
transition to a more offensive nature, including with the use of
special teams of offensive forces. With a veto on the Security Council,
the United States is responsible for such missions and their
consequences.
Should the U.N. be entering into conflicts when there is
not yet a peace to keep and, if so, under what circumstances?
Are you concerned that such offensive operations may
compromise the perception of U.N. neutrality?
Answer. Historically, many U.N. peacekeeping missions have been
deployed to facilitate implementation of peace agreements and neutrally
monitor borders and disputed territories. An increase in intrastate
war--often brutal and directly affecting civilians--has contributed to
an increasingly complex international environment over time. The
Security Council has responded, where appropriate, by mandating U.N.
peacekeepers to deploy into situations where conflict is not fully
resolved in order to help create the security conditions needed for a
political process to take place. The United States supports the use of
peacekeeping in this way, as it is an investment in a larger process to
bolster legitimate governmental and nonstate actors and to address
underlying drivers of conflict. U.N. peacekeeping in and of itself is
not a solution to war, but it can help to create an environment more
conducive to a burgeoning peace process. When there is no burgeoning
peace process, or when a more robust military engagement is
appropriate, we have supported, on a case-by-case basis, U.N.-mandated
peace enforcement operations conducted by regional organizations,
including the African Union.
In facing new challenges and more complex environments, the U.N.
also has struggled to remain neutral and effective. After a thorough
review of U.N. peace operations, the Report of the Panel on United
Nations Peace Operations (``The Brahimi Report'') concluded that
impartiality, rather than neutrality, remains a bedrock principle of
U.N. peacekeeping. The report proposed that impartiality means that a
peacekeeping mission must adhere ``to the principles of the [U.N.]
Charter and to the objectives of a mandate that is rooted in those
Charter principles''--or, in other words, a mission should not, for
example, ignore clear violations of a peace agreement by any party. A
mission may use force at the tactical level if acting in self-defense,
in defense of civilians under threat of physical violence, and in
defense of the mandate. In certain volatile situations, such as in
Mali, the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the Central
African Republic, U.N. peacekeeping missions have engaged in well-
analyzed, preemptive offensive operations to prevent violence against
civilians under threat of physical violence. The United States supports
language in peacekeeping mandates specifying that missions engaged in
operations offensive in nature should mitigate risks to civilians and
take into account any potential humanitarian implications.
Question. How does the State Department ensure that it maintains
the right international footprint? Wouldn't a zero-based assessment
similar to the military's Base Realignment and Closure process save a
lot of money by determining a more efficient footprint?
Have you considered ways to empower the Rightsizing Office?
Could a State Authorization be helpful in this area?
Answer. The Department recently has taken significant steps to
revamp its rightsizing framework precisely for the purpose of affirming
an optimal balance in the USG's overseas footprint. That framework aims
to utilize existing strategic planning documents prepared by the
missions themselves, and validated by Department bureaus and other USG
agency headquarters, to analyze and align as closely as possible the
staffing required to achieve our foreign policy objectives. It includes
greater emphasis on the security environment of our overseas missions
and the significant costs associated with sustaining American employees
abroad.
Recognizing that chiefs of mission are Presidentially authorized to
determine the staffing levels at their missions, we also have more
closely integrated mission strategic objectives, security, and fiscal
costs into the revised National Security Decision Directive 38 (NSDD-
38) cable that we send to post whenever an agency seeks a change in its
staffing level at that mission. We do not hesitate to recommend that a
chief of mission disapprove an agency's staffing request when the
justification does not appear to align with the mission's strategic
vision and plans. The Department often recommends that the chief of
mission offset any position increases by identifying and seeking to
abolish other positions that contribute less to the goals being sought.
The Department believes that this process offers a more realistic
perspective on our needed engagement than the resources and time that
would be required to undertake a zero-based approach to rightsizing the
USG presence abroad.
The Office of Rightsizing, through P.L. 108-447, is already
empowered to engage the interagency, and its revised framework promises
to extend the rightsizing mandate in ways that have not always been
practiced in the past. For example, the Department is engaging agencies
earlier in the process of rightsizing an overseas mission. We seek to
include other agencies on rightsizing team visits to larger,
complicated posts when a site visit is particularly compelling.
The Department appreciates Congress' support and looks forward to
working with the committee on an authorization bill.
Question. Since the beginning of this administration, the number of
Schedule B hires at the State Department has more than doubled.
Schedule B hires are intended to be used for temporary subject matter
experts. They are not intended to circumvent normal hiring procedures.
Please explain the recent large increase and what the
Department has done to ensure that it is properly using
Schedule B hiring authority.
Answer. The Department has four specific OPM authorities for
Schedule B hiring:
Nonpermanent senior-level positions to serve as Science and
Technology Advisors to the Secretary.
Positions on the household staff of the President's Guest
House, and Blair and Blair-Lee Houses.
Technical experts in the area of arms control,
nonproliferation, and verification and compliance, limited to
10 percent of FTEs allocated to the Department in support of
arms control. The Department is under its authorized cap. This
authority can only be exercised by the Secretary or the Under
Secretary for Arms Control.
Scientific, professional, and technical positions at grades
12 through 15 that can be utilized Department-wide. These
positions must be filled by persons with special qualifications
in foreign policy matters. Total employment cannot exceed 4
years and are subject to approval by the Director General of
Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources prior to
appointing.
The Department carefully reviews all Schedule B appointments to
ensure they are in line with appropriate authorities. Our authorities
for the first three are capped at one Senior Science and Technology
Officer, 17 Blair House employees and limited to 10 percent of FTEs in
the T Bureau. The overall number of Schedule B appointments with
foreign affairs/technical expertise varies with mission requirements.
It is currently less than it was even 1 year ago.
Question. We all agree that our ambassadors should possess the top
professional qualifications. I understand the American Foreign Service
Association has provided Guidelines, which build on the Foreign Service
Act, that are being used to draft the Certificates of Demonstrated
Competence.
Are these the appropriate guidelines and how are they used?
Answer. Identifying strong and experienced leaders to serve as
ambassadors is critical to achieving our foreign policy objectives and
ensuring the safe, effective management of our missions. Under the
Foreign Service Act of 1980, Certificates of Competency must be
presented to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for each candidate
nominated by the President to serve as a bilateral Ambassador overseas
and for the candidates for Ambassador to some international
organizations. The Department welcomes AFSA's efforts to produce
guidelines for selection of chiefs of mission.
Career candidates for chief of mission are expected to demonstrate
a wide range of qualities and experience, including:
Demonstrated competency in leadership, management, and
public diplomacy;
Ability to articulate and coordinate U.S. foreign policy, to
promote democracy and rule of law, and to practice economic
statecraft;
Effective interagency experience;
Skill in outreach to foreign publics, i.e., beyond
governments;
Openness to innovation and constructive change;
Willingness and ability to take smart programmatic risks to
advance U.S. interests;
Outstanding interpersonal skills; and
Broad professional experience.
Question. CSO has been heavily criticized in what are now multiple
inspector general reports, including in a recent ``compliance followup
review,'' which found that the Department ``has made progress, but not
resolved fundamental issues involving the Bureau's mission, the extent
of its overlap with other bureaus and interagency partners, and staff
size and organization.''
What is the mission of CSO, why is it necessary, and what
is the Department doing to implement the recommendations of the
inspector general to ensure it is not duplicating the work of
other bureaus and agencies?
Answer. The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO)'s
mission is to advance the Department of State's understanding of how to
anticipate, prevent, and respond to violent conflict through high-
quality analysis and planning; ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and
learning; and targeted in-country efforts that inform U.S.
policymaking. This mission statement was approved by the Under
Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights (J) and
submitted to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as part of our
response to their recommendations.
As one of seven bureaus and offices reporting to the Under
Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, CSO works
within the State Department's broader umbrella of civilian security,
diplomacy, and programming. The Bureau works to improve the
Department's understanding of conflict and ability to act effectively,
developing and employing a full range of tools to effectively
anticipate, prevent, and respond to conflict-related risks; sets
Department-wide priorities for conflict policy and programs; and
launches focused operations to address these priorities on the ground.
In support of the State Department's lead foreign policy role, CSO
works hand in hand with regional bureaus and embassies to help plan for
contingencies, identify priorities, and make strategic choices to
counter destabilizing political violence. CSO monitors the impact of
conflict-focused efforts, particularly around State's diplomatic,
security, and political roles, in order to inform decision-making,
capture lessons, and contribute to effective U.S. Government action in
these conflict environments. Similarly, CSO undertakes evaluations to
build the Department's body of knowledge of what does and does not work
in developing political and security solutions to potential conflict.
Finally, the Bureau works to improve approaches within State for
combating the most extreme forms of violence, including mass atrocities
against civilians and violence caused by extremism. In support of the
President's Atrocities Prevention Board (APB), the Bureau serves as
State's Secretariat and works with the interagency, regional bureaus,
and embassies on earlier identification of countries vulnerable to mass
violence, better diagnoses of causes, and better alignment of policies
and programs to address the risk of atrocities. This work brings needed
resources, expertise, and policy attention to policymakers and
embassies in at-risk countries.
With respect to violent extremism, CSO is conducting research and
analysis on the factors associated with violent extremism, including
what makes communities more vulnerable to its appeal and how local
resiliencies against violent extremism can be strengthened. Our aim is
to help the Department identify areas that are vulnerable to the spread
of violent extremism and then design and deploy context-specific
diplomatic and programmatic tools to try to prevent the spread of
violent extremism into new areas. We are also taking a lead role in
advancing the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit, promoting
research into local drivers of violent extremism and effective
responses to build an evidence base for future U.S. Government CVE
programming and to encourage more effective CVE approaches by
international partners.
To avoid duplication with comparable roles played by other bureaus
and agencies such as USAID/Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) for
USAID-specific programs and development policy, CSO works closely with
USAID to share analysis, undertake joint State-USAID assessments and
plans, and ensure effective division of labor in focused efforts to
support embassies in conflict zones.
CSO is undergoing a reorganization, with an anticipated completion
date of midsummer 2015. As part of this reorganization, CSO is
developing a new structure to better reflect and integrate bureau
priorities. The goal is to ensure that CSO has both regional and
functional offices with conflict analysis, planning, programming, and
learning expertise more deeply embedded in everything we do. CSO is
also taking this opportunity to look closely at our staffing numbers
and structure, identifying where there are unmet needs or gaps, and
looking for ways to create additional Foreign Service billets.
______
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to Questions
Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. Under Secretary for Management ``Span of Control''
Concerns: Several groups, including the Benghazi Review Board, have
raised the concern that the Under Secretary for Management has ``span
of control'' issues and oversees some of the counterbalancing functions
within the organization (such as budget and procurement) that can
create conflicts of interest.
What reforms might you recommend Congress consider
regarding the M family of bureaus when reauthorizing the State
Department to address these concerns?
Answer. With the current organization of the Management Under
Secretariat, we do not believe there are either span of control issues
or potential conflicts of interest.
The Management Under Secretariat, or ``M family'' is comprised of
nine bureaus and seven smaller offices that all provide support
services and the operating platform for the rest of the Department, as
well staff from several dozen other U.S. Government agencies who are
assigned to our overseas posts. Services include contracting
assistance, embassy construction, financial, medical, training, human
resources, information technology, security, and other support. The M
family of bureaus and offices work closely together to provide seamless
support.
The Bureaus of Diplomatic Security (DS) and Overseas
Buildings Operations (OBO) collaborate on security standards
for new embassy construction and renovations.
The Office of Medical Services (MED) works with the Bureau
of Human Resources (HR) on the medical clearance process to
determine availability of staff to serve abroad in a variety of
environmental conditions. MED provides medical support staff to
DS's Mobile Security Deployment teams.
The Department's training facility, the Foreign Service
Institute, works closely with HR on the Department's training
needs, particularly foreign language skills related to
language-designated positions, mandatory leadership training,
and onboarding programs for all new hires.
The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA), a global service
enterprise, is mandated with protecting U.S. citizens and
facilitating legitimate travel in support of U.S. economic and
security interests. CA works collaboratively with multiple
bureaus through its Border Security Program to achieve its
mission. For example, CA works together with DS both
domestically and overseas to protect the integrity of the
world's most valuable travel documents--U.S. visas and
passports. CA coordinates closely with OBO to ensure capital
investments meet the needs of the Department's staff and
customers. HR and CA work together to ensure that staffing
models are flexible and responsive to changing workloads. CA
and the Budget and Planning Office collaborate to ensure the
integrity, transparency, and accountability of our revenue
collections and funding streams.
During the Department's hiring process managed by HR, the
security background checks for all Department hires are
performed by DS.
The Bureau of Administration (A) utilizes the Integrated
Logistics Management System (ILMS), to operate our global
supply chain for over 41,000 users worldwide at 285 posts and
over 100 domestic sites. The A Bureau is working with the Chief
Information Officer (CIO) to improve data accuracy and
streamline logistics business functions across the Department,
supporting procurement, transportation, warehouse, diplomatic
pouch and mail, and asset management activities.
Many M bureaus work closely with the Bureau of the
Comptroller and Global Financial Services (CGFS) center: HR
works with CGFS on payroll for over 72,000 American and locally
employed staff; and CGFS works with all other M family offices
on accounting for and disbursing U.S. obligations in multiple
currencies.
The CIO and DS each undertake complementary elements of the
Department's cyber security program.
Keeping these service bureaus in one family allows us to set
coordinated priorities and resolve issues that could adversely affect
our platform; splitting these bureaus would be counterproductive. The
Department appreciates Congress' interest in management issues and
looks forward to working with the committee on an authorization bill,
including authorities that we are seeking to facilitate increased
efficient and effective operations of several M family bureaus.
Question. FSO Training Capacity: How would you rate our current
ability to train the new and current FSOs for the challenges presented
in the current foreign policy arena?
Answer. Secretary Kerry is determined to set our diplomats up for
success, so they can help ensure America's success. He has made
training and education for our workforce a top priority and has driven
innovation in several critical areas, including content, methodology,
and accessibility of our training programs. While we are proud of our
preparation of our foreign affairs corps, there is always more that can
be done.
In a resource constrained environment, the most prudent investment
we can make is in our people. The Department of State recruits some of
the best talent our country has to offer. We are committed to doing
everything possible to hone and cultivate the skills of our people so
they are ready to handle the challenges of our diplomacy, today and
into the future.
The Foreign Service Institute is now engaged in an intensive
effort to modernize both the content and the pedagogy of its
training.
FSI has revamped and lengthened flagship programs, such as
A-100 orientation for new FSOs, Area Studies, and the
Ambassadorial Seminar.
FSI has dramatically expanded virtual training, with live
mentored language training, avatar-based training, on-demand
DVC training, mixed media leadership training, and regular
webinars.
FSI has developed a new immersive and interactive language
training program for Diplomatic Security Agents called
``ALERT.'' This task-based, intensive program produces ``street
ready'' agents in 12 weeks.
FSI has developed new training programs covering diplomacy
in high threat posts, leadership and authority in groups, and
the need to innovate in the face of emerging global trends.
Since 2010, enrollments at FSI have increased 56 percent while
appropriated funding has decreased 28 percent. In 2015, FSI will
support almost 180,000 enrollments, with courses ranging from 2 days to
2 years (for long-term training in super hard languages). To ensure
that American diplomats remain among the best in the world, FSI will
maintain its quality at the very highest standards.
Question. Special Envoys: In your view, what is the role of Special
Envoys in the Department? Do they fill a critical void? Where have we
seen major progress on an issue as a result of a Special Envoy?
Answer. Special Envoys fill temporary positions created to address
critical foreign policy needs. Some urgent efforts require high-level
representatives to coordinate immediate and cohesive responses across
the government and with foreign governments, like the Special
Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition Against ISIL. Other
positions are created for occasional events and filled by people who
generally work full-time in other positions. For example, our Special
Representative to the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States is a
role filled by our Ambassador to Barbados when meetings of the
Organization of Eastern Caribbean States occur. We regularly evaluate
the number of Special Envoys. The ad hoc nature that makes these
positions useful for accomplishing specific and limited foreign policy
goals means that the number changes often. At the moment, we have 45
Special Envoys, Ambassadors at Large, Special Advisors, Special
Coordinators, and other related senior officials. Sixteen of these are
Special Envoys. These numbers have and will continue to vary widely,
particularly in what is generally acknowledged as the most complex
foreign policy environment in recent memory.
Special Envoys do not duplicate the work of our long-standing
organizational system; they complement existing staffing and
leadership, offering unique expertise and perspective to mission
critical programs and initiatives. An example would include the Ebola
Response Coordinator, a position created to respond to a sudden crisis,
but whose work now has been reintegrated into standing State Department
offices. During the time the position existed, the Ebola Response
Coordinator helped greatly to harmonize our efforts to aid countries
stricken by the Ebola virus.
Question. Anti-Discrimination Efforts: Generally, there has been a
growth in intolerance and discrimination in Europe that negatively
impacts our security, economic, and human rights interests in the
region, exemplified by the recent Paris and Copenhagen tragedies. A
department-wide foreign policy strategy on antidiscrimination and
inclusion is needed to bring additional Department resources to address
the escalation in hate crimes and discrimination we are seeing in
Europe and elsewhere in the world.
a. What assurances can you provide that a department-wide
antidiscrimination and social inclusion strategy is placed on
the U.S. foreign policy agenda to complement the existing human
rights foreign policy strategies for vulnerable groups, and
that special emphasis be placed on implementation of this
strategy in Europe in response to the recent Paris and
Copenhagen tragedies?
b. Can you provide a report summarizing all of the special
initiatives the State Department has for vulnerable communities
including personnel and office?
c. While there may be special efforts for engagement with,
and protection of, Women and Girls, LGBT, Youth, Disabled,
Muslim, Jewish, Religious communities generally, what efforts
are there, if any, that focus on racial and ethnic minorities,
such as Roma and migrants?
d. Given the Paris and Copenhagen tragedies, what immediate
plans are there to assist Jewish communities with security
beyond the countering violent extremism efforts?
Answer. The U.S. Department of State emphasizes the promotion and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all individuals
regardless of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious belief,
sexual orientation or gender identity. We support initiatives in an
array of multilateral institutions and advance this foreign policy
objective in our bilateral diplomacy and public diplomacy programs.
The United States takes seriously the need to protect and defend
vulnerable communities, and the Department provides some reporting on
efforts made to assist vulnerable persons in the annual Advancing
Freedom and Democracy Report. We can provide your staff with further
details on these initiatives and the staff who carry them out at your
convenience.
The United States has been at the forefront of efforts in the OSCE
to condemn and combat all forms of intolerance and discrimination and
hate crimes, including against persons belonging to religious, ethnic
and racial minorities, persons
with disabilities, LGBTI individuals and members of other vulnerable
groups. We strongly support the work of the High Commissioner on
National Minorities (HCNM), the Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights' (ODIHR's) Hate Crimes Unit, the Chairperson's Three
Tolerance Representatives, and the Contact Point on Roma and Sinti
Issues. We have worked with ODIHR to strengthen its efforts to ensure
that the rights and needs of persons with disabilities are more
systematically taken into account in elections planning and processes.
In all of these endeavors, we have worked in partnership with, and have
greatly benefited, from the counsel and ideas of the members of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and its expert staff.
Combating discrimination against the Roma, Europe's largest and
most marginalized minority, is a priority human rights issue for the
State Department in Europe. U.S. embassies across Europe engage with
Romani communities and work to empower Romani civil society to better
advocate for their individual human rights and push back against
discrimination and stereotypes. The State Department speaks out
publicly against anti-Roma discrimination, rhetoric, and violence and
presses our European partner governments to systematically address the
sociopolitical exclusion of the Romani community. Embassies place
particular attention on school desegregation, preventing extremist
violence targeting Romani communities, and ending discrimination in
employment, housing, and health care. Our embassies have leveraged
public diplomacy initiatives to unite the Romani community and combat
xenophobia.
Fighting anti-Semitism is supported at the highest levels. Our
leaders--including President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of
State Kerry, U.N. Ambassador Power and OSCE Ambassador Baer--have
spoken out and worked with our allies to condemn and combat anti-
Semitism worldwide. One of the most effective tools we have been using
to push back against anti-Semitism is the engagement of our embassies
and consulates overseas.
On numerous occasions over the past year, behind-the-scenes efforts
by our posts have helped enhance security for Jewish communities in
concrete ways. Our ambassadors and diplomats have brought religious
leaders together to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of religious
hatred, and have reached out to reassure Jewish communities that
fighting anti-Semitism is not only an issue of concern to Jewish
communities but an issue of human rights that the United States will
never ignore.
The U.S. Department of State is committed to combating intolerance
and xenophobia and bureaus and posts integrate these issues into their
daily work. For example, every regional bureau has dedicated staff
focused on crosscutting regional issues, including intolerance and
discrimination toward minority groups and vulnerable populations. These
offices work closely with policy leads in the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor, which also includes the Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom, the Special Advisor for International
Disability Rights, the Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI
Persons, and the Special Representative for International Labor Rights;
the Office of Global Women's Issues; the Office of Religion and Global
Affairs, which includes the Special Representative for Religion and
Global Affairs, the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism,
the Special Representative to Muslim Communities, and the Special Envoy
to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; and the Special Adviser for
Global Youth Issues; the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration;
the Bureau of International Organization Affairs; and, the Office to
Combat and Monitor Trafficking in Persons. Together these offices and
bureaus work with country desk officers and diplomats at our embassies
to develop and implement policies and programs to combat hate and fear
of the other and to protect and assist the vulnerable.
Finally, some regional bureaus have developed specialized units
designed to call attention to racial and ethnic inequality, racism, and
other forms of discrimination, and to integrate those efforts into
broader bilateral policy efforts and budgetary decisions. For example
the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs' Race, Ethnicity, and Social
Inclusion Unit (WHA/RESIU), established in 2010 with support from
Congress was institutionalized in WHA's Office of Policy, Planning, and
Coordination (PPC) in September, 2012. RESIU was created to coordinate
the Action Plans on Racial and Ethnic Equality with Colombia and Brazil
and related initiatives in the region. Since its creation, RESIU has
facilitated WHA partnerships with civil society, private sector and the
governments of Brazil, Colombia to advance equity in access to
education and justice, and to engage on issues such as environmental
justice, racial disparities in health, and economic opportunities for
indigenous and African descendent groups. RESIU coordinated WHA efforts
with Posts to commemorate the 2011 International Year for People of
African Descent and is coordinating Department efforts in the Western
Hemisphere to commemorate the International Decade for People of
African Descent. WHA is the first regional bureau to design a strategy
to support the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
persons, and the Bureau has also been at the forefront of the promotion
of gender rights.
Question. Conflict and Stabilization Operations: The concept of a
State Department capability to conduct conflict and stabilization
activities and operations has evolved significantly in recent years;
the Department's efforts in this area are currently led by the Bureau
of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO). After a troubling
inspector general report in 2014, CSO has undergone restructuring and
notes it will focus on atrocities and conflict prevention activities
going forward.
a. What is the State Department's vision for the
appropriate role of the State Department in managing conflict,
from prevention to post-conflict stabilization?
b. How are State Department's actions overseeing
stabilization programs substantially different from and not
duplicative with the activities of USAID and USAID/OTI in
particular?
Answer. The State Department's approach to conflict involves
addressing the most damaging forms of violence around the world. As
laid out in the 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
(QDDR) and reinforced in the most recent QDDR, State has adopted crisis
and conflict prevention and resolution; the promotion of sustainable,
responsible, and effective security and governance in fragile states;
and fostering security and reconstruction in the aftermath of conflict
as a central national security objective and as a core mission for the
Department. This mission requires that State (and USAID) work to reduce
or eliminate short, medium, and long-term threats to American security
and to help create opportunities for governments and their citizens to
address domestic challenge themselves. It also determined that State
would lead operations in response to political and security crises and
conflicts. These efforts are not limited to acute crises but may
include persistent conflict and instability. As the Department's lead
bureau for advancing the Department of State's understanding of how to
anticipate, prevent, and respond to violent conflict, CSO uses analysis
and planning; monitoring, evaluation, and learning; and targeted, in-
country efforts to inform U.S. Government policymaking. Working with
the Department's regional bureaus and missions as well as interagency
and international partners, CSO emphasizes conflict prevention,
focusing on three priority themes: preventing and responding to mass
atrocities, preventing violent extremism, and political violence.
As one of seven bureaus and offices reporting to the Under
Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, CSO works
within the State Department's broader umbrella of civilian security
diplomacy and programming. To avoid duplication with comparable roles
played by USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) for USAID-
specific programs and development policy, CSO works closely with USAID
to share analysis, undertake joint State-USAID assessments and plans,
and ensure effective division of labor in focused efforts to support
embassies in conflict zones.
Question. Implementation of PSD-10: President Obama released the
PSD-10 in 2011. PSD-10 mandated the establishment of early warning
systems.
a. What elements of the directive have been implemented?
What has yet to be implemented?
b. What early warning systems to mitigate potential mass
atrocities are in place at the State Department and across the
agencies?
Answer. Since the release of PSD-10, the Department of State is
honing its ability to effectively prevent, mitigate, and respond to
mass atrocities. A number of elements of the directive have been
implemented, foremost the establishment of the interagency Atrocities
Prevention Board (APB). Since the Board first convened in April 2012,
it has helped oversee several lines of effort, including:
The Intelligence Community's work on the first National
Intelligence Estimate on the Global Risk of Mass Atrocities,
which was completed in 2013.
The State Department systematically conducts Department-wide
reviews of at-risk countries, identifies policy and
programmatic opportunities, and makes recommendations to the
APB. Where possible, the Department--working with other
agencies on the Board--has identified resources and technical
expertise to assist embassies in implementing the
recommendations.
Thanks to bipartisan legislation signed by the President in
2013, which led to the expansion of the War Crimes Rewards
Program, the State Department has increased authority to offer
financial rewards for information leading to the arrest or
conviction of persons indicted by international criminal
tribunals for atrocities.
State Department and USAID developed an atrocity assessment
framework tool for decisionmakers and field officers to analyze
and understand the atrocity risk factors and dynamics that
could lead to atrocities. State added new training modules to
existing curricula and has built a library of atrocities
prevention resources; the library includes a compilation of
best practices, a list of U.S. Government-wide training
opportunities, information on the 2013-2014 pilot program in
Burundi, and a consolidated list of tools to aid embassy staff
facing an emerging atrocity threat.
The APB is supporting the refinement and expansion of
training opportunities on atrocity prevention for U.S.
Government personnel. In line with PSD-10 commitments, USAID
recently completed a new online training, which will be
required for all USAID technical officers working in high-risk
countries, as well as a field guidance manual. The State
Department is adding a diplomacy-focused module to this
training platform and companion materials to elevate
sensitivity to atrocities risks and effective response
strategies.
Through the development of an analytical framework, lessons-
learned reviews can now be systematically conducted following
any significant mass atrocity prevention or response. There
have been ongoing efforts in a number of early warning
countries and we are working on a case study on Central African
Republic.
USAID launched a technology challenge to identify innovative
uses of technology in the service of atrocity prevention and a
new online training platform.
Elements that are ongoing priorities include:
State and USAID are developing programs aimed at capacity-
building in countries that have endured mass atrocities to
bring perpetrators to justice in their own courts.
Addressing atrocity prevention and response activities in
the State Department's strategic planning processes, with
appropriate emphasis given to countries deemed priorities by
the Board.
To identify emerging risks, the APB relies upon a range of
resources to identify countries at different levels of risk and assess
opportunities for impact. The National Intelligence Estimate on the
Global Risk of Mass Atrocities (and Prospects for International
Response), completed in 2013, provides a rigorous analytical framework
that is helping the Board anticipate and prepare for mass atrocities in
the coming years. The monthly APB meeting provides an interagency forum
for discussing at-risk countries, and the Board is able to share
concerns and raise awareness through appropriate channels of
government. Outside the U.S. Government, the Board now conducts
quarterly meetings with the NGOs and engages them to raise awareness
and generate international exposure for abuses that are tied to
potential triggers for mass atrocities.
Question. Safe from the Start Initiative: The Bureau of Population,
Refugees and Migration leadership committed to implementing the Safe
from Start initiative and other gender-based violence prevention
efforts in its programming. And, yet, huge GBV-related problems persist
in PRM-funded programs at the POC sites in South Sudan and in camps in
and across Africa and the Middle East.
What specific steps is PRM taking to address this
escalating problem in South Sudan but also across Africa and
the Middle East?
Answer. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration is
committed to helping to address the global pandemic of gender-based
violence (GBV) in humanitarian emergencies. We understand how high the
stakes are for women and girls--these issues can be a matter of life
and death and are always life-altering. Addressing GBV is a challenge
given its pervasiveness, particularly in complex humanitarian
emergencies. Despite increased financial and political momentum, not
enough progress has been made to address GBV from the earliest stages
of emergencies. The United States assumed leadership of the Call to
Action on Protection from Gender-based Violence in Emergencies
(launched by the U.K. in 2013). The United States is working with
leading humanitarians--including concerned states, donor governments,
nongovernmental organizations, and international organizations--to
formulate a set of priorities that can serve as a roadmap for moving
the humanitarian community forward. This will include establishing
clear milestones and indicators to promote accountability and measure
the progress of GBV programs. The roadmap is expected to be launched
this fall. The ultimate goal of the Call to Action is to reduce the
prevalence of GBV, as well as to respond to the needs of survivors.
U.S. commitments to the Call to Action includes programming for
Safe from the Start. Under Safe from the Start, we seek to build the
capacity of aid workers to better prevent and respond to gender-based
violence (GBV) at the very onset of humanitarian emergencies, including
in response to the situation in South Sudan. PRM has supported work
undertaken by UNHCR, for example, through funding to train UNHCR staff
on GBV prevention and response. We also fund deployments of Senior
Protection GBV Officers for up to 6 months to countries in need of
expert support. To date, UNHCR Protection Officers have been deployed
to Erbil, Iraq; Gambella, Ethiopia; Batouri, Cameroon; Cairo, Egypt;
Kabul, Afghanistan; and Adjoumani, Uganda. These positions have helped
to supplement UNHCR country office staff and partners to conduct
assessments and ensure that GBV programs are established from the
outset. In response to the South Sudan situation, through Safe from the
Start, PRM is supporting several UNHCR efforts in Uganda: the
deployment of a Senior GBV Protection Officer; population-based
research examining the impact of UNHCR's child protection system on the
well-being of South Sudanese refugee children and adolescents; and a
number of community-based protection activities designed to prevent
GBV, including installation of solar lights, community sensitization,
establishment of community watch groups, and training of Ugandan law
enforcement. In South Sudan, PRM funding supports UNHCR's efforts to
prevent and respond to GBV among internally displaced populations,
including in the Protection of Civilian (POC) sites--particularly in
the clinical management of rape and other life-saving activities;
training of health care providers; strengthening referral systems; and
awareness-raising within communities.
PRM has supported ICRC's work on addressing sexual violence through
its new 3-year institutional Strategy on Sexual Violence, which is at
an initial stage of implementation in South Sudan. Three assessments
were completed in 2013 and 2014. Based on these assessments, ICRC will
develop a response to sexual violence in the country, in collaboration
with the South Sudanese authorities. Current ICRC sexual violence
activities in South Sudan include sensitization and training of
midwives and traditional birth attendants (TBAs), medical treatment for
survivors of sexual violence in ICRC-supported health care structures,
and efforts to prevent sexual violence for example through locating
latrines in safe areas and separation of men and women in food
distribution lines to ensure that women are receiving adequate food
rations. An ICRC psychosocial expert has also recently been deployed to
Nairobi to strengthen ICRC's response to sexual violence in the region.
ICRC also trains state and nonstate armed actors on international
humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) in
South Sudan, and has specific sessions on conflict-related sexual
violence.
PRM is also supporting discreet NGO projects through Safe from the
Start in response to current emergencies in Ethiopia (South Sudanese
refugees), Chad (for Central African refugees and Chadian returnees),
Lebanon and Iraq (Syrian refugees), and Uganda (South Sudanese
refugees). This year, PRM plans to continue support for NGO, UNHCR, and
ICRC efforts, as well as begin funding UNFPA and IOM to build their
capacity to prevent and respond to GBV.
PRM's goal is to ensure that women and girls are never needlessly
at risk in emergencies and that survivors receive appropriate care--not
as an afterthought, but as standard practice. Making this happen will
require a long-term commitment from not just the United States, but all
concerned.
Question. Fortress Embassies: Many have used the term ``fortress
Embassy'' to describe our current diplomatic posture in challenging
locales. We want to be sure we do everything we can to protect our
diplomats and their families while balancing their own desire--and our
Nation's need--to ``get out among the communities'' and discuss issues,
understand concerns, and affect global opinions. To undertake
diplomacy, staff--beyond the Ambassador--must be able to get outside
the walls.
What changes would you recommend to ensure we strike the
correct balance in protection of our diplomats and development
professionals while also enabling them to do their job on
behalf of the American people?
Answer. We have made several significant security policy
improvements over the past few years, to protect our staff while
allowing them to operate in higher threat environments. The Department
instituted two new Department policies: the High Threat Post Review
Board and the Vital Presence Validation Process. Through the Vital
Presence Validation Process (VP2), the Department is able to weigh our
national security interests and policy priorities against evolving
security threats. The Department is able to manage risk by balancing
threats, applying appropriate mitigating measures, and implementing
quality security programs so that the Department can carry out our
national security interests.
One of the core components of the Department's risk management plan
for high risk posts is the High Threat Post Review Board, which is
chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security. The Board
quantitatively and rigorously assesses the threat environment to
identify posts around the world that are high threat, high risk. This
is not a static process and as emergent conditions change, for better
or worse, at any post worldwide, designations will shift and posts may
be added or deleted from the high-threat, high-risk designation.
Carrying out American foreign policy requires first-hand engagement
beyond our secure facilities and enabling our diplomats to move safely
``outside the wire.'' Our security is based on a systematic approach
using concentric rings of security consisting of host government
resources combined with strong physical security programs in addition
to chief of mission security personnel and assets. In order to protect
our people and our missions, we constantly assess our security posture
to reflect rapidly changing environments and potential threats they may
present.
The Department has been taking a number of measures, in some cases
at an extraordinary level to provide the protection necessary for these
movements to go forward including:
Well trained, supervised, and armed security professionals
experienced in providing protective security in harsh,
nonpermissive environments;
Fielding highly advanced armored vehicles combined with
continuing research to meet constantly evolving terrorist
tactics, techniques and procedures;
Sophisticated and secure communications, electronic
countermeasures, and sophisticated tracking devices; and
Integrating strong and timely tactical intelligence into
planning for moves.
The Department continues to bolster security at certain high-
threat, high-risk posts by enhancing the professional capabilities of
host nation security forces assigned to directly respond to emergencies
at our diplomatic facilities overseas through the Special Program for
Embassy Augmentation and Response (SPEAR).
We must also acknowledge the inherent risk of carrying out
diplomacy in certain places. For that reason, and after a careful
assessment of the threat and all available intelligence and
information, recommending that moves be limited or suspended at a
particular location will always remain one of the Department's options
to exercise when necessary.
We remain committed to ensuring the safe and effective conduct of
foreign policy.
Question. Foreign Service participation in risk-reward decisions:
It is part of AFSA's job, as the sole bargaining unit for the Foreign
Service, to participate in decisions that affect the safety, and
financial and general well-being of their members. For that reason,
AFSA has requested that their post representatives participate in the
Emergency Action Committees at each post. This would allow the AFSA
post representative--an employee with a top secret security clearance--
to represent the concerns of rank and file employees that may not
percolate up through an Embassy's hierarchical structure. AFSA's
participation is an employee safeguard that ensures proper procedures
are being followed.
Can the AFSA Post Representative be included in EAC as part
of the Department's new proposed risk-reward system (the Vital
Presence Validation Process) or the role of the Emergency
Action Committee?
Answer. The Department values AFSA's views on ways we can better
serve Foreign Service (FS) employees and their families, but, based on
AFSA's role as the employee association to enhance the professionalism
of the FS and as a bargaining agent, it is inappropriate for AFSA
representatives to play a role in the Vital Presence Validation Process
(VP2) or in the Emergency Action Committee (EAC).
First, under 22 U.S. code Sec. 2651a, the Secretary of State is
responsible for administering, coordinating, and directing the Foreign
Service of the United States and the personnel of the Department of
State. Further, under the Diplomatic Security Act, it is the
responsibility of the Secretary to develop and implement security
policies and programs at all U.S. Government missions abroad (other
than those subject to the control of a U.S. military commander). The
Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security assists the Secretary in
formulating security programs worldwide and continuously monitoring the
threat situation in dangerous locations.
The Vital Presence Validation Process (VP2) and the Emergency
Action Committee (EAC) are distinct processes that serve different
purposes. VP2 is first and foremost a policy process, while the
decisions taken at Emergency Action Committee meetings are action
items.
VP2 was designed to support strategic decisionmaking regarding the
overarching diplomatic presence in high-threat, high-risk (HTHR)
locations. For each HTHR post, we conduct a policy analysis outlining
core national interests, risks, risk mitigation options, and resource
constraints in order to determine whether it is in the United States
best interest to continue or restart operations. We do not address the
conditions of work, recruitment, or other tactical or operational
issues. A VP2 analysis articulates that the Department has developed a
defined, attainable, and prioritized mission based on U.S. national
interests; undertaken an assessment of the risk and resources needed to
mitigate risk to the maximum extent possible; explicitly accepted those
risks that cannot be mitigated; developed recommended conditions for
the U.S. Government presence in this location, including an
identification of residual risk and highlighting any gaps; weighed the
needs of U.S. policy against the risks facing U.S. personnel; and
considered whether adjustments to the U.S. presence must be made.
Determining how and where the U.S. conducts diplomacy and development
overseas, must continue to be decided at the highest levels of the
Department and administration.
A post's EAC is a group of subject-matter experts appointed by the
chief of mission, and is generally comprised of section heads and all
U.S. agencies represented at post. An EAC is charged with preparing for
and responding to threats, emergencies, and other crises at post or
against other U.S. interests. The Department's Foreign Affairs Handbook
policy states that certain programs, such as a post's security
policies, are inappropriate for AFSA post representatives to discuss
and thus may not be raised.
However, no policy is made in a vacuum. The VP2 policy process is
driven by informational input and recommendations from career Foreign
and Civil Service and other employees at HTHR posts, as well as in
Washington, as a part of their official position duties. Likewise, an
EAC is made up of career employees. The officials involved all have in
common their concern for the safety and security of their colleagues
who serve abroad, as well as a policy and operational responsibility to
objectively weigh the perils of operating in high-risk environments
with our national security needs as a nation.
The State Department has a proud tradition of sheltering and
respecting policy disagreements through official channels. Should
employees disagree with policy decisions related to a VP2 analysis or
an EAC operational decision, employees may raise concerns via the
Dissent Channel, as they could with any other policy challenge.
Question. Assignments rules and management of language workforce:
OIG and GAO have previously found fault with the State Department's
management of its language workforce. AFSA also drew attention to these
systemic issues in its Section 326 report on the ``State of the Foreign
Service Workforce'' that the Department submitted to Congress.
How is State Department working to ensure it is using
existing language capacity to the greatest extent without
having to resort to expensive language training when there are
bidders on positions who are well qualified and already have
the requisite language skills?
Answer. The Department strives to assign the right people to the
right jobs as well as to promote professional development. In making
assignment decisions, the Department considers employees'
qualifications, previous relevant experience, regional and functional
expertise, interpersonal skills, and language ability (or time required
for language acquisition) against the job requirements in order to
place employees into assignments for which they are most qualified.
Employees are asked to plan their careers around a series of
training and assignment milestones calculated to develop the essential
skills of a Foreign Service professional. One of those core
requirements is either the development of, or expansion of, language
capability. In many cases, an employee with existing language skills is
assigned into a position over someone with little or no language skills
due to urgent staffing needs overseas.
Employees with language ability can pursue positions for which they
are qualified outside their normal assignments cycle, enabling them to
bid well ahead of when they would normally seek an assignment. This
rewards those with existing language talent, and capitalizes on the
training dollars already spent, especially for those with languages
that take 1-2 years to reach proficiency. While extremely important,
foreign language skills are only one of several skills needed to
successfully fulfill an assignment. For example, a particular position
may also require an employee with expertise in trade negotiations or
press relations.
As an organization, we must continue to expand the pool of
language-qualified officers so that we build upon the diversity of
skillsets needed to meet foreign policy goals.
Question. Pickering Fellowship: The State Department has reduced
the number of the undergraduate fellows of the Pickering Fellowship.
What was the reasoning for this decision? What impact will
this have in terms of diversity recruitment by the Department
of State? Can you share with the committee the review
(including data and numbers) that went into making this
decision?
Answer. In 2013, the Department completed a programmatic review of
the Pickering and Rangel fellowship grants, coinciding with the 20th
and 10th anniversaries of these respective programs. The key findings
and recommendations of the review primarily affect retention rather
than recruitment. Recruiting diversity is not enough. We must work to
retain our diverse talent, which is why the Department undertook an in
depth review of the statistics and challenges to the programs. The
resulting recommendation was that we maintain the same overall number
of fellows but shift to ``all-graduate'' Pickering and Rangel programs.
The two most compelling factors considered in the Department's
decision to realign the Pickering undergraduate program were retention
rates and program withdrawals prior to joining the Foreign Service.
Retention rates and program withdrawals directly affect the
Department's return on its investment and our ability to maintain a
diverse workforce. In all assessed categories, graduate fellows
outperformed undergraduate fellows. A statistical review of the
Pickering graduate and undergraduate fellowships showed that after 4
years in the Foreign Service, retention rates among graduate cohorts
are 24 percent higher than undergraduate cohorts. This percentage is
consistent for the entire span of the program from 1992 to present.
Projected retention rates are expected to continue to favor graduate
fellows.
A statistical analysis of Pickering Fellows who withdrew from the
program before entering the Foreign Service shows that graduate fellows
withdrew at a rate of 1 percent, compared with the undergraduate
withdrawal rate of 6 percent, over the life of the programs.
Additionally, in responding to our survey as part of the 2013
programmatic review, undergraduate Pickering Fellows themselves stated
that committing to a career in the FS at the undergraduate level was
too early and influenced their decision to leave the Foreign Service.
Although the initial recommendation was to eliminate the Pickering
Undergraduate Program entirely, the Department decided to maintain the
program at a reduced level in order to continue engagement at the
undergraduate level At the same time, the Department decided to
maintain the overall number of Pickering and Rangel fellowships. Though
it varies, historically this has meant 60 new fellows per year. The
newly realigned programs now stand at 20 Pickering Graduate Fellows, 10
Pickering Undergraduate Fellows, and 30 Rangel Fellows.
For the sake of parity and fairness, the 2013 review also
recommended that the Department establish parity between both grantees
with respect to the number of fellows for each grant and the amount of
the financial award each fellow receives, which were previously
different. The 60 fellowship slots were divided equally between the
Pickering and Rangel grants at 30 fellows per grant, and financial
awards to all fellows were made equal.
The Department recognizes the long-term impact of these programs on
the diversity of the Foreign Service and remains fully committed to
investing in their success even in a time of constrained budgets. The
2013 review and our implementation of resulting recommendations reflect
this commitment.
Question. Areas of Improvement for Recruitment and Retention:
During the hearing--you outlined several places the State Department
could do better in terms of recruitment and retention of diversity
candidates.
What are the steps you and State Department can take? What
steps is the Department of State taking in order to analyze and
implement its findings?
Answer. The Department is committed to recruiting and retaining a
diverse, talented workforce that advances U.S. values, interests, and
goals around the world. As part of our efforts to achieve an ever
stronger, more agile, more flexible, and more innovative workforce, we
closely monitor recruitment and retention in the Foreign Service and
Civil Service. Our employees in both the Foreign and Civil Service, as
a result of responses to OPM's annual Employee Viewpoint Survey, have
kept the Department ranked highly in the Partnership for Public
Service's Best Places to Work in the Federal Government ranking,
including our ranking number three out of all large agencies in 2014.
We have been in the top three large agencies for the last 3 years and
in the top 10 since 2005, indicating not only that we have reason to be
proud, but that we continue to improve.
While there is more work to do, we have numerous efforts in place
to continue recruiting a diverse, 21st-century workforce. Diplomats in
Residence (DIRs), based at colleges and universities across the
country, are dedicated to recruiting qualified applicants from all
backgrounds. We are also expanding our outreach to high schools; data
shows that cultivating students during those formative years generates
future qualified applicants with a passion for diplomacy and foreign
policy. The Department-funded Rangel and Pickering Fellowship programs
are a tool the Department uses to reach out to a diverse pool of
candidates and as a result, diversity in the Foreign Service has
increased by 21 percent in the last 20 years. We also work with
affinity groups and professional associations to reach out to their
communities, and we maintain a strong social media engagement program.
The United States Foreign Service Internship Program (USFSIP), a
paid internship program, stands as an important complement to, and
potential feeder for, the Pickering and Rangel fellowships. In 2014,
there were 16 USFSIP interns, and this number will rise to 21 this
year. DIRs' recruitment outreach and the partnerships they develop with
academic institutions connect us with different pools of diverse,
qualified applicants. One USFSIP intern from the first cohort was
selected this year for a Rangel fellowship, and another made it
successfully through the selection process as a Diplomatic Security
Special Agent. Two-thirds of the initial cohort took and passed the
written Foreign Service Officers' Test. USFSIP currently covers only 21
students and to expand the program the Department would need to fully
fund additional intern-related expenses, to include additional FTEs to
administer the program.
In FY 2016, the Department is partnering with Don Bosco Cristo Rey
High School to host 4 to 8 high school interns to encourage them to
consider a career with the Department. Don Bosco Cristo Rey High School
offers a unique work study program that provides opportunities for
underrepresented and financially disadvantaged students to gain work
experience in a ``real world'' setting while helping to defray a
portion of their tuition costs. The program shares one job between a
cohort of four students at a time; each student works 1 day per week at
the same location during his/her regular academic year.
We monitor attrition closely. The data in our quarterly attrition
reports show that Foreign Service (FS) attrition has remained
consistently low, averaging about 4 percent per year, with the majority
leaving due to retirement. The highest attrition rates are at the more
senior levels as officers and specialists alike reach mandatory
retirement age or the expiration of time-in-service rules associated
with the up-or-out system, though both can happen at any grade.
Civil Service attrition rates are somewhat higher than the Foreign
Service, yet still within a healthy tolerance, averaging between 6 and
7 percent per year. Neither FS nor CS attrition rates are out of line
with the federal government average of 5.9 percent (2012 data, the most
recent available).
The Department recognizes the need to more systematically track the
reasons why diverse employees leave its workforce. For this reason, we
have developed, a variety of standardized electronic exit surveys that
will go live later this year and which we will link to demographic data
of the respondent. This information will be used to address any
retention problem areas and assist in recruiting efforts. Our existing
monitoring of employee departures, and what we are told in letters of
resignation, indicate that the majority leaving the Foreign Service do
so for family reasons.
Question. Senior Career Level Officer Diversity: What diversity
programs specifically target the promotion of mid-level career officers
into senior-level positions?
Answer. Selection Boards reflect the full diversity of the Foreign
Service as part of our commitment to ensuring that all aspects of the
promotion process reflect the values of our institution, and one of
those values is diversity. The Office of Continuity Counseling provides
comprehensive and in-depth long-term career guidance and counseling to
all Foreign Service personnel, which includes a focus on those from
minority backgrounds. We also provide Senior Leadership Liaisons to
mentor members of our Employee Affinity Groups, most of which are
diversity-based.
To improve diversity in the Senior Executive Service (SES), we are
reaching out to targeted communities, working with individual bureaus
to develop outreach plans, and improving guidance on SES application
and selection provided to the workforce through our Executive Diversity
Outreach/Program Manager. We are analyzing SES applicant flow data to
identify any barriers to diversity in SES recruiting. Early analysis
shows that by percentage, SES diversity increased overall from 6.1
percent in FY 2012, to 9.1 percent FY 2013, and 10.6 percent in FY
2014.
We have also amended our SES Merit Staffing Policy and Processes to
include mandatory interviews for all referred applicant and
justifications for selections as well as nonselections. Our
qualification review panels reflect the full range of our employees'
backgrounds.
Finally, the Diversity Governance Council, consisting of high-level
Department officials, applies a diversity lens to the development and
implementation of Department management policies and initiatives.
Question. Foreign Service Exam Procedures: During the testimony you
mentioned changes in exam procedures. Can you clarify which procedures
were changed and what impact have they had in diversity recruitment?
Answer. The Foreign Service Employment Selection Process is
comprised of three parts: the written Foreign Service Officer Test
(FSOT), the Qualifications Evaluations Panel (QEP), and the Foreign
Service Oral Assessment (FSOA). Each component assesses a different set
of skills and abilities. The FSOT measures cognitive skills; the QEP
provides educational background and work experience; the FSOA assesses
the 13 dimensions necessary for a successful career in the Foreign
Service. In 2007, the Staff of the Board of Examiners completely
redesigned the Foreign Service assessment process as the result of a
study conducted by the McKinsey Group, significantly increasing the
number of minorities passing the FSOT and FSOA.
Prior to 2007, the assessment process consisted of a Foreign
Service Written Exam (FSWE) and the Oral Assessment. Candidates were
selected to proceed to the Oral Assessment based on their FSWE scores.
Minorities have historically had lower pass rates on written tests such
as the FSOT than nonminority candidates. Since the FSWE controlled the
flow of candidates to the FSOA, minority pass rates were proportionally
lower than the rates of white males.
Beginning in 2007, the Department set a cut score that, combined
with the written essay score, allows the Board to invite a different
mix of candidates to the next stage, the QEP. This allowed a more
heterogeneous mix of candidates to advance to the next two stages (QEP
and FSOA) with little or no adverse impact on the quality of the
candidates themselves. As a result, the minority pass rate and the
passing rate for women has increased. From 2000-2006, the African
American pass rate of the FSWE was 5.9 percent; from 2007-14, the FSOT
pass rate was18.4 percent. From 2000-06, the Hispanic pass rate of the
FSWE was 11.5; from 2007-14, the FSOT pass rate was 29.1.
The QEP gives the Board the opportunity to take a good look at
strong candidates we might otherwise miss, and search for valuable
personal traits and experience that would not have been taken into
account previously in deciding whom to invite to the oral assessment.
The QEP shows no adverse impact against any of the minority subgroups,
and often minorities are selected at higher rates than nonminorities.
Women, in particular, have done well on both the QEP and oral
assessment portions of the assessment, and their greater pass rate in
these areas more than offsets their slightly lower pass rate in the
FSOT.
Among other changes recommended by the McKinsey Group, the Board
implemented a ``total candidate'' or resume-based approach as one of
the best practices of the private sector, and the most effective way to
identify the strongest candidates by including a review of their
educational background and work experience. To do this, the
Qualifications Evaluations Panel reviews the files of every successful
FSOT candidate. These files contain the candidate's application/resume
and six personal narratives keyed to the FS promotion precepts. The
candidates are scored and rank ordered on a register. The staff
director then establishes the number, based on projected hiring needs,
of those who will be invited to the third and final component, the oral
assessment. Since the QEP is identifying stronger, more qualified
candidates all around, the pass rates in the oral assessment for all
candidates, including minorities, has increased as well. The African
American pass rate increased from 29.5 percent in 2000-6 to 32.0
percent in 2007-14. The Hispanic pass rate increased during the same
time periods from 19.7 percent to 31.0 percent.
Percentage of hires of African Americans and Hispanics reached a
high in 2013 with both groups over 10 percent. This was also the first
year that the percentage of hires (10%) roughly matched the percentage
of minority applicants for African Americans and Hispanics, as well as
Asians. As noted above, women perform almost as well as men on the FSOT
but in general have higher passing rates than men on the QEP and FSOA,
which serves to increase their percentage pass rate at the end of the
entire process. In FY14 the percentages went down to 7 percent for
Hispanic hires, 8.3 percent for African-American hires, and 12.4
percent for Asian hires. Women were 42.6 percent of all hires, but only
37.2 percent of all applicants. Fluctuations in hiring of minorities
over the past 3 years have occurred for various reasons: improved
economic environment which impacts the number of total applications for
the Foreign Service, lower hiring numbers for the Department, and the
number of Pickering and Rangel fellows hired in any given year as these
are not always consistent. In 2013, we hired 74 Pickering and Rangel
fellows, in 2014 we hired 51, and in 2015 we will hire 66. In 2015, we
are on track to hire at least 10 percent Hispanics. This is a 3 percent
increase over 2014 hiring numbers.
The Board of Examiners takes many pro-active measures to guard
against bias and ensure that the process is fair and transparent. All
assessors who administer the oral exam receive a week of mandatory
training, with a special emphasis on how to mitigate for personal bias.
The Board makes extensive efforts to ensure gender and diversity
representation on the assessment panels. An Industrial/Organizational
Psychologist reviews, conducts analyses, provides recommendations,
assists in drafting assessment materials, and validates the testing
process to ensure compliance with legal and professional testing
guidelines and the Foreign Service Act of 1980. The Board of Examiners,
comprised of the Director General, five public members (all I/O
Psychologists), and representatives from the other foreign affairs
agencies meet annually to review hiring procedures and outcomes to
monitor and mitigate for adverse impact.
______
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to Questions
Submitted by Senator Jeff Flake
Question. When the State Department first began requesting OCO
funding, it was to address operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then
Pakistan was added. Then Syria was added. This year's request includes
OCO funds to support efforts in all of these countries, plus Jordan and
Ukraine.
How does the Department determine what it will designate as
being in support of ``Overseas Contingency Operations?''
Do you foresee a time when the State Department will stop
requesting OCO funding?
Answer. OCO is the flexible and transparent mechanism the
Department and USAID need to respond to extraordinary, uncertain events
that require an immediate response. In cooperation with Congress, we
have used OCO to address extraordinary emerging contingencies arising
from ongoing conflicts, post-conflict situations where stabilization
gains are fragile, and where U.S. engagement is critical to protecting
U.S. national security. OCO funding allows State and USAID to deal with
extraordinary activities that are critical to our national security
objectives without undermining efforts to achieve our enduring
diplomatic, foreign policy, and development goals. We greatly
appreciate the flexibility that Congress has provided via OCO funding,
allowing us to respond more effectively to a rapidly changing world.
As in past years, FY 2016 budget proposes to normalize some OCO-
funded activities into the ``base,'' while identifying a limited number
of new OCO priorities to meet emerging contingencies.
The administration is developing a strategy to transition elements
of the OCO budget to the base budget. This plan must balance ongoing
contingencies with the likely constraints on the base budgets of the
Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and the Department
of State/Other International Programs. Any transition of enduring OCO
to base can only work if sequester level spending caps are lifted so as
not to jeopardize ongoing, enduring efforts.
Question. This year's budget request includes $150 million in OCO
funding for a new program called the ``Peace Operations Response
Mechanism,'' which according to budget justification documentation
``would allow the U.S. to support potential emergent peace operations
without disrupting continued American assistance for existing
peacekeeping missions in Africa and other areas of conflict.''
Authority was also requested to transfer these funds to the
Peacekeeping Operations or Contributions to International Peacekeeping
Activities to provide for additional flexibility.
Peace Operations Response Mechanism OCO: How and why was
the determination made to request this new account with OCO
funds, rather than including it in the so-called enduring
budget?
Answer. In recent years, the Department has faced the recurring
challenge of addressing unanticipated costs that emerge outside of the
regular budget cycle to support peacekeeping operations, including U.N.
peacekeeping operations and activities. The Peace Operations Response
Mechanism was requested in OCO in an effort to provide a specific
funding source to meet these new or expanded global peacekeeping
activities, without disrupting other important, ongoing missions and
programs. Activities funded by the mechanism will be initial responses
or significant expansions, rather than recurring or ongoing costs. Any
recurring costs for a particular peace operation would then be
requested in the base budget. Such a contingency fund would be similar
to a number of other OCO-funded programs.
Question. In the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance
account, $275 million in OCO funding is requested to pay for
``construction costs for the Afghanistan transition and lease costs for
properties in Iraq.''
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance OCO
Secretary Kerry has specified that the use of OCO funding `is
to address short-term, emerging requirements in very limited
circumstances.'' Considering the United States will maintain a
diplomatic presence in both countries for the foreseeable
future, how does this request address a ``short-term, emerging
requirement?''
Answer. As outlined in the FY 2016 budget request, OCO activities
include operational and assistance activities that are extraordinary
due to short-term, emerging requirements or due to security conditions
that impose exceptional costs. The $134.6 million FY 2016 Embassy
Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) OCO request includes
$124 million for security upgrades to nonpermanent structures on the
Kabul Embassy compound that will be used for swing space during
construction of new housing and provide hardened office space for surge
requirements, and $10.8 million for leasing two properties that
comprise the Embassy compound in Baghdad. These projects reflect the
national security imperative to sustain our diplomatic presence in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The Kabul project's costs are extraordinary due to the
current operating environment and security situation, and it is
distinct from the type of facilities funded through the ESCM Capital
Security Cost-Sharing program.
Question. Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance Frontline
States OCO: At what point will we bring State Department activities in
Iraq and Afghanistan back inside the ``enduring'' budget?
Answer. The OCO request enables greater fiscal discipline and
transparency by sun-setting extraordinary costs over time, while at the
same time providing ESCM enduring programs with predictable base
funding and preventing those programs from being eroded to support
extraordinary costs in select locations, including Afghanistan. While
security conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan may continue to require
OCO-funded facility enhancements and upgrades to safeguard U.S.
Government personnel, the ESCM ``enduring'' budget does include funding
for the ongoing maintenance of our facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The administration is developing a strategy to transition elements
of the OCO budget to the base budget. This plan must balance ongoing
contingencies with the likely constraints on the base budgets of the
Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and the Department
of State/Other International Programs. Any transition of enduring OCO
to base can only work if sequester level spending caps are lifted so as
not to jeopardize ongoing, enduring efforts.
Question. The Department conducts programs like ``Art in
Embassies,'' which spends taxpayer dollars on extravagant art for
embassies abroad.
Can you tell us more about this program? Roughly how much
annually does the State Department spend to commission or
procure art at overseas installations?
What State Department office is in charge of the program?
In what public account are funds drawn for this program?
Answer. The Department's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations
manages the Art in Embassies (AIE) program. AIE was initiated by
President John F. Kennedy and contributes to U.S. cultural diplomacy
through loaned art exhibitions for Chief of Mission Residences (CMRs),
acquisitions for new embassy and consulate construction projects, and
cultural exchanges with artists, universities, and cooperatives. The
Art in Embassies program is primarily funded from the ``Operations''
budget of the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM)
account. For FY16, the requested program budget for AIE is $2.75
million. For new diplomatic facilities, funds for art are allocated at
0.5 percent of the value of the construction cost. This funding covers
all costs for art purchases for the public spaces. This percentage is
in line with other Federal Government art budgets. In FY16, it is
expected that $6.1 million will be spent as part of four New Embassy
Compound projects.
Question. The FY 2016 budget request asks for $99 million to
construct a ``Foreign Affairs Security Training Center.''
How much money over the years has been spent on identifying
the appropriate site for a Foreign Affairs Security Training
Center (FASTC)? How much has been spent on construction of such
a center?
What efforts have individual Congressmen or Senators taken
to influence the selection process of a FASTC site? How have
these efforts impacted the goal of creating a FASTC?
Answer. Since project inception in 2009, the U.S. Department of
State (the Department) has spent approximately $18,162,685 on site
selection activities for the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center
(FASTC). Site selection activities include such things as requirements
development, suitability studies, feasibility studies, master plan
development, acquisition planning and environmental impact analysis. To
date, the Department has committed approximately $39,478,810 to
preconstruction activities associated with FASTC. Preconstruction
includes all the previously listed site selection activities, plus
design and site acquisition activities. Actual construction is
scheduled to begin in late July 2015.
Since 2009, the Department and the General Services Administration
(GSA) have evaluated over 70 different sites before selecting Fort
Pickett near Blackstone, VA, as the preferred location for FASTC. The
Department has been vigorously engaged with Congress throughout the
process and appreciates the continued support of the critical mission
and need for a consolidated hard-skills security training center. In
April 2014, the administration reaffirmed the selection of Fort Pickett
as the preferred site for FASTC, based on factors, including but not
limited to, availability of land, compatible use, and location in the
mid-Atlantic region.
After years of searching for a site, we are excitedly moving
forward with Fort Pickett, as it meets all the criteria and will enable
us to keep our people safer around the globe. The future of the site
has been litigated and studied thoroughly and logical, well-thought out
decisions have been made.
______
Responses of Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom to Questions
Submitted by Senator David Purdue
Question. More than 45 diplomatic functions at the State Department
are currently headed by individuals titled Special Envoy, Ambassador at
Large, Representative, Coordinator, or similar. While some ``special''
positions at State are mandated by Congress, most are created by the
administration to highlight particular priorities or challenges. The
Obama administration has reportedly made the most extensive use of such
positions than previous administrations.
Has the State Department conducted an internal assessment
on duplication of effort and coordination issues with
``special'' positions? What is being done to address this
issue?
Answer. We regularly evaluate the number of Special Envoys. The ad
hoc nature that makes these positions useful for accomplishing specific
and limited foreign policy goals means that the number changes often.
The numbers have and will continue to vary widely, particularly in what
is generally acknowledged as the most complex foreign policy
environment in recent memory.
Special Envoys do not duplicate the work of our long-standing
organizational system; they complement existing staffing and
leadership, offering unique expertise and perspective to mission
critical programs and initiatives. An example would include the Ebola
Response Coordinator, a position created to respond to a sudden crisis,
but whose work now has been reintegrated into standing State Department
offices. During the time the position existed, the Ebola Response
Coordinator helped greatly to harmonize our efforts to aid countries
stricken by the Ebola virus.
Special Envoys fill temporary positions created to address critical
foreign policy needs. Some urgent efforts require high-level
representatives to coordinate immediate and cohesive responses across
the government and with foreign governments, like the Special
Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition Against ISIL. Other
positions are created for occasional events and filled by people who
generally work full-time in other positions. For example, our Special
Representative to the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States is a
role filled by our Ambassador to Barbados when meetings of the
Organization of Eastern Caribbean States occur.
Question. On IT System Independence.--I was concerned to hear that,
particularly given vulnerabilities of the State Department's network,
there is no firewall between the State Department and the IG's
networks.
There are thousands of administrators that work for State, who have
the ability to modify or delete information, and could even pose as IG
employees.
What's more troubling, if there was a breach of the State system,
the IG would not know it happened. Mr. Linick testified that State's
network has been attacked, and that it affected the OIG.
IG Linick told us yesterday that it took over 6 months just to get
an agreement from Diplomatic Security that going forward they will
notify the OIG when they go on their IT network.
The IG has expressed the need for an independent IT system in order
to conduct secure oversight.
Have these issues been brought to your attention? What are
you doing to implement the changes requested? Could more be
done for a long-term solution?
Answer. The Department is fully compliant with the Inspector
General Act and supports the independence of the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) and the necessity to ensure the integrity and
confidentiality of the data the OIG collects and stores. Working
together with the OIG, we can strengthen controls to ensure that OIG
systems and data may be accessed only with OIG concurrence, without the
need and extraordinary expense of establishing and operating a
separate, independent network. The Department is currently implementing
additional access controls and encryption that will significantly
reduce, if not eliminate, the threat of exposure of OIG data by inside
actors.
Establishing a separate network will not mitigate all of the
threats that the U.S. Government now contends with and any separate OIG
network will be subject to the same attacks as any other U.S.
Government network.
Additionally, the professional expertise of the Chief Information
Officer operation and the capabilities of Diplomatic Security,
especially those exhibited at the Department's facility in Beltsville,
MD, would be both challenging and costly to fully replicate by the OIG.
Finally, the Department believes there is a more positive benefit
of continued access by the OIG to the Department's networks. The
current operational model depends on the OIG's ability to reach out to
Department employees through their questionnaires and SharePoint site,
for example. Separating this access will make it considerably more
difficult and less secure for employees to access the OIG.
Question. On the investigations issue, I am concerned that without
the IG being informed of all allegations and investigations, there is
an appearance of undue influence and of senior State Department
officials investigating themselves, if you will.
Have these issues been brought to your attention? What are
you doing to implement the changes requested?
Answer. The work of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is of
great importance to the Department in promoting economy and efficiency
and preventing and detecting waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of
programs and operations. I have personally met with the Inspector
General to discuss his concerns regarding allegations and
investigations of senior State Department officials. I am fully
committed to finding an appropriate resolution and will keep the
committee informed of any decisions made.
Question. Benghazi/Accountability Review Board Recommendation
Follow-Through.--Another major issue we raised with IG Linick yesterday
was the lack of sustained interest in Accountability Review Boards
(ARBs), which investigate serious incidents, such as the 2012 attacks
on diplomatic personnel in Benghazi, Libya.
As Mr. Linick testified, a number of the Benghazi ARB
recommendations mirrored previous ARB recommendations.
He stated that of the 12 ARBs conducted from 1998 to present, 40
percent of the 126 recommendations put forth were repeat
recommendations.
He recommended that the sustained interest and oversight of State
Department leadership is needed.
What steps are being taken to ensure follow-through on
putting these recommendations into place?
Answer. The OIG's Special Review of the Accountability Review Board
Process from September 2013, specifically stated--``The OIG team
conducted its own review of the 126 recommendations made before
Benghazi during the 14-year span of the review. Common ARB report
themes include the need to construct new embassies to meet current
security standards; the need for more and better training not only for
DS employees, but also for embassy staffs globally; the need for
additional DS agents and for a significantly expanded Marine security
guard program; and the need to improve interagency coordination and
information-sharing. Of the 126 recommendations made in the 12 ARBs
from 1998 to the present, 40 percent of them addressed elements of
these core areas.''
ARB recommendations may appear similar or repetitive as they all
relate to the saving of lives, protection of property, or classified
information. However, just as each incident is unique, so have been the
recommendations.
Similarities between ARB recommendations do not mean that the
Department has not implemented them. It shows that even if the
Department has addressed an issue, our enemies' tactics may evolve and
threats may increase and arise in new locations.
For example, in 1985, State had about 150 Regional Security
Officers (RSOs) assigned to overseas posts. Our RSOs are highly skilled
law enforcement professionals, trained to operate in overseas
environments. By late 2012, there were approximately 800 RSOs serving
overseas; this increase was due in part to recommendations of previous
ARBs. The Benghazi ARB found that we needed to yet again increase
diplomatic security coverage; in 2013, when Congress funded our
increased security proposal, we hired another 75 RSOs.
Each year the threat level continues to increase in many areas of
the world, yet it is imperative that the Department and other U.S.
Government agencies continue to carry out our U.S. foreign policy at
over 275 posts worldwide. This reflects two truths: (1) we can reduce
risk, but we can never eliminate it; and (2) our work to improve
security is never done.
The Department works to implement ARB recommendations by building
them into Department policies, programs, procedures, and through annual
budget requests. Many ARB recommendations are ``evergreen''--
recommendations that require long-term, sustained commitment to
security, building standards, hiring additional staff, constructing new
safe facilities, training, etc. The Department closely reviews all past
ARB recommendations on an annual basis.
Implementation of ARB recommendations receives the attention of the
highest levels of the Department. The Foreign Affairs Manual States
that the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources will
oversee the Department's progress on ARB implementation (12 FAM 036.3).
The Under Secretary for Management, in coordination with the Under
Secretary for Political Affairs, is responsible for implementation of
ARB recommendations.
Question. By your own assessment, State would need to build or
augment 90 percent of the capabilities at the FLETC facility in Glynco,
GA, to be able to meet the capabilities planned for the proposed FAST-C
facility in Fort Pickett, VA. Can you please elaborate on how you
reached this ``90 percent'' figure?
Answer. In October 2013, the Department of State and the Department
of Homeland Security developed a consensus document that outlined
existing facilities and required new construction. The consensus
document took the 47 FASTC requirements and determined that 35 of the
47 requirements would be done via new construction, 7 could be achieved
with supplementation of existing facilities, and only 5 requirements
could be met using existing Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
facilities.
Question. The FACT training that was originally anticipated to be
carried out at the proposed FAST-C facility in Fort Pickett, VA, will
now be carried out at FLETC. Considering that the FACT training was
planned to make up about 6,500 of the 9,200 anticipated students that
would attend FAST-C annually----
How does this change the plans for capacity and scope of
the anticipated training at the proposed FAST-C facility and
the ability of FLETC to facilitate the training?
What impact does this have on the assessed need to build or
augment 90 percent of the capabilities at FLETC?
What are your long-term (5-10 year) forecasts for training
numbers--for requalifications and for first-time training?
Answer. In discussions with the Executive branch, and the agreed-
upon Foreign Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) training ramp-up plan, there
was never an understanding by any party that FACT training would be
only done at Georgia. The certification of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) to carry out FACT does not significantly change
the number of students that will be trained at the Foreign Affairs
Security Training Center (FASTC) at Fort Pickett. The Department of
State has always planned that the majority of the 6,500 FACT students
will still be trained at Fort Pickett. The Department has no plans to
send DOS personnel to FLETC for FACT training as long as sufficient
capacity exists in existing contract facilities or newly constructed
facilities at Fort Pickett to meet its needs. These students will
either be serving in Washington, DC, or will be in Washington, DC, on
consultations before heading out to their next assignments. It is not
cost-effective to fly them to Georgia for a week-long class. However,
organizations such as the Center for Disease Control, who are located
in Georgia, may choose to train at FLETC, as it would be more cost-
effective for them. In addition, Department of Homeland Security may
want to provide FACT training to its Customs and Border Patrol
employees, or other law enforcement officers who would benefit from
FACT training.
The 90 percent figure was based on the purpose-built facilities
needed to conduct all hard-skills training for FASTC as a whole, as
part of the due-diligence process in 2013. The Department is not in a
position to comment on any additional facilities FLETC may require to
meet its self-determined FACT goal, which would depend on the number of
FACT courses that FLETC plans to run.
In line with its FACT ramp-up plan, approved by both the National
Security Staff and the Overseas Security Policy Board, the Department
plans to reach its target goal of approximately 6,500 students per year
by the end of FY 2018. From that point, the Department anticipates
similar numbers for each of the following years as a permanent part of
the professional training required for personnel assigned under chief
of mission authority abroad.
While FACT training is the majority of the training that will take
place at FASTC, other training will take place at Fort Pickett as well,
such as Special Agent training, which helps prepare individuals for
serving in today's dangerous overseas environment.
Question. Assistant Secretary Greg Starr promised Department of
Homeland Security a list of training requirements of FAST-C (rather
than a capital master plan) to allow DHS to conduct an adequate cost
estimate for a build out of FLETC, maximizing the efficiencies from
current FLETC training capabilities and capacity.
What is the status of the fulfillment of this request?
Could you please copy my office on this correspondence? Could
you please provide me an update on the current Environmental
Impact Study being conducted for the proposed FAST-C location
at Fort Pickett, VA? In the hearing, you stated you hope to
break ground by ``later this spring.'' What is the difference
in the annually reoccurring costs of expected per diem using
current applicable rates for FASTC and FLETC and travel costs
between FLETC and FASTC? Is it guaranteed that 100 percent of
students would leave FASTC on weekends while training? If so,
please factor that into the response.
Answer. As part of the due-diligence process, from February 2013
through October 2013, the Department of State provided documentation to
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) regarding the
Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) requirements. This
information included, but is not limited to, curricula for current
hard-skills training classes, duration and length of courses, and
facility requirements for the reduced-scope project at Fort Pickett. In
April 2014, the administration reaffirmed that Fort Pickett was the
best location for FASTC. In February 2015, the President submitted a
$99.1-million request for FASTC as part of the FY 2016 budget. The
future of the site has been litigated and studied thoroughly and
logical, well-thought out decisions have been made in by the
administration, working with all involved parties.
With the April 2014 announcement of the decision to move forward at
Fort Pickett, the Department of State has been taking the necessary
steps to execute the project. The final Environmental Impact Statement
will be released for comment on April 24, 2015 and can be found at
``www.state.gov/recovery/fastc.''
As a responsible steward of public funds, the Department worked
with FLETC to determine if the Department's hard-skills diplomatic
security training requirements could be met there. As part of our
analysis, we factored in the ``hard costs,'' such as operating costs,
transportation, and construction of the necessary facilities for our
training requirements. Through our analysis, in October 2014, the
Department found that we would need more than $80 million in additional
air and transportation costs for the first 10 years alone using plane
flights and buses to FLETC versus chartered bus transportation to Fort
Pickett. The Department recognizes that FLETC has dormitories on site,
but we also know that as a training partner with 90 other agencies,
FLETC does not have the available occupancy for the majority of our
students. A blended rate of onsite and offsite lodging, meals, and
incidental expenses, results in a 10-year cost of nearly $139 million
for FLETC. Using the Department's historical negotiated rates for
lodging and applying them near Blackstone, VA, and the surrounding
areas, along with meals and incidentals, the Department estimates the
cost will be $167 million. This cost difference is easily offset by the
10-year compensation costs to the U.S. Government for travel to FLETC
estimated at $51 million compared to $28 million for travel to Fort
Pickett. Keeping in mind, this figure does not include the loss of
productivity for the additional travel time required for FLETC, which
is difficult to quantify.
It is not guaranteed that 100 percent of the students would leave
Fort Pickett on the weekends. The Department estimates of the 9,200
students per year, approximately 500 will have a private vehicle and
will drive to and from the training facility. The training to be
conducted at FASTC ranges from a few days to 6 months. It should also
be noted that the Department would not be flying employees from
overseas to train, but rather the majority train while they are here in
Washington, DC, preparing for their next assignment or are back in
Washington, DC, on consultations. For this and many other reasons, such
as our ability to train with the U.S. Marines from Quantico, the
proximity of the consolidated hard-skills training center to
Washington, DC, is critical.
[all]