[Senate Hearing 114-786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-786
STATE DEPARTMENT REAUTHORIZATION:
AN OPPORTUNITY TO STRENGTHEN
AND STREAMLINE U.S. DIPLOMACY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 8, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-576 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From Tennessee.................... 1
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator From Maryland............. 3
Higginbottom, Heather, Deputy Secretary of State for Management
and Resources, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC........ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Additional Questions Submitted by Members of the Committee
Questions from Senator Flake................................. 36
Question from Senator Gardner................................ 39
Questions from Senator Perdue................................ 40
Questions from Senator Barrasso.............................. 52
(iii)
STATE DEPARTMENT REAUTHORIZATION:
AN OPPORTUNITY TO STRENGTHEN
AND STREAMLINE U.S. DIPLOMACY
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Perdue, Isakson,
Barrasso, Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Murphy, and Kaine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
The Chairman. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to
order.
I want to thank Deputy Secretary Higginbottom for continued
service to our country and your testimony today.
As chairman, one of our priorities has been to revive the
State Department reauthorization process. I want to thank
Senator Menendez for beginning that. I think it is critical. It
is a critical oversight tool and a healthy exercise to take an
annual look at the authorities that need updating.
We passed an authorization bill out of committee
unanimously last year for the first time in 5 years, and we
hope to build upon that progress with another bipartisan bill
for fiscal year 2017.
Like last year, our bill will focus on diplomacy programs
and the nuts-and-bolts operations of the State Department. I
know our staff has been having a very productive discussion
with you, and I thank you for creating that kind of tone about
these programs. I want to thank you for your help in the
process, as I know your written testimony, as I read, will
allude to.
One area we have been studying, which I know the ranking
member is also interested in, is how the U.S. can use its
influence to effect change at the U.N., particularly in the
areas of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers and
with regard to the peacekeeping budget in general.
Reports keep rolling in of U.N. peacekeepers and personnel
abusing the very people they are charged with protecting, which
is truly horrifying and a blight on the good we are trying to
do in those countries--more than a blight, I would say.
These bad apples operate with impunity because they know
that there are no mechanisms in place to bring them to justice.
We need to use our influence at the U.N. to fight this
impunity, to insist on onsite court-martials, standing claims
commissions for each of the peacekeeping operations, refusal to
deploy peacekeepers from countries that do not take charges of
abuse seriously, and whatever else it takes to root out this
incredible abuse.
The U.S. now pays close to 30 percent of the U.N.
peacekeeping budget, which is more than other permanent members
of the Security Council combined. I would not call that burden-
sharing. I think there is consensus around here that we would
like to look at that.
I know the State Department does not enjoy being saddled
with this U.N. bill either. I would like to know what you are
doing actively to create change. We talk about these things, we
concern ourselves, sometimes there isn't really active
engagement in trying to change the peacekeeping assessment
formula such that it captures a country's actual ability to
contribute and eliminate bogus discounts that relieve certain
countries of paying their fair share.
I am also concerned about the apparent systemic issues with
improper handling of classified information at the State
Department that has recently come to light. If some of your
cleared employees are struggling with proper handling and
safeguarding of classified information, which appears to be the
case, we view it as our duty to set up training and
accountability systems necessary to fix this problem.
I am also interested in how you incentivize Foreign Service
Officers to serve at less desirable posts. My impression is
that the extra pay Foreign Service Officers receive at these
posts are determined, not to be too pejorative, by bureaucrats
in Washington and do not reflect officers' actual preferences
about where they serve. It seems to me that it would be much
more effective and transparent to combine the various extra
pays into one rate for each post that takes into account the
popularity of that post.
Finally, I hope you will address the confusing and
potentially unsustainable consular fee structure, which
essentially bets on continued growth of demand for U.S. visas
to fund our other consular services. I know you did not design
the system this way. It was created ad hoc by statute. But we
are looking at ways to redesign the system so it is more
efficient and transparent. I hope you will work with us on that
also.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I know a big part
of an authorization bill, and certainly something important to
Senator Cardin but also us, is that you have some priorities
you would like to see put in place. We look forward to hearing
about those so we can work constructively toward a good
authorization bill. Thank you for your testimony.
Now I will turn to our distinguished ranking member,
Senator Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me thank Secretary Higginbottom for her
attendance here today, but more importantly for her service to
our country. We very much appreciate the work that you are
doing on behalf of America.
I want to thank our chairman, Senator Corker, for not just
this hearing, but his commitment for our committee and for the
United States Senate and for the Congress to carry out our
responsibilities on the reauthorization of the State Department
or the authorizations for the State Department.
Mr. Chairman, if I am correct, I do not think there is a
member of this committee that was in the United States Senate
the last time we passed an authorization bill.
The Chairman. Unless you were serving with Abe Lincoln.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. It has been a while since we passed an
authorization bill.
It has even been a longer time--I think you have to go back
to the 1980s, when we reauthorized the USAID programs. So this
is something we need to do.
In certain respects, we are hamstringing the State
Department by our failure to pass an authorization bill. You
mentioned outdated laws. That is certainly true with the
consular fee service issues. That was developed a long time ago
when the services were a lot different than they are today. It
requires an update of that authorization.
We could talk about the current concerns on overseas
comparability pay. That is an issue that this committee needs
to speak to and Congress needs to speak to.
There are many areas where Congress needs to act. On
diplomatic security issues, we did have a bill that we worked
on. We did not get it done, but it should be included in an
authorization bill.
We have work force diversity issues that this committee has
spoken about. I hope the Secretary will talk about that. They
are still far from where I would like to see opportunity in
America reflected within our Foreign Service.
There are important areas, as the chairman already
mentioned. The United Nations reform issues, it is
controversial, I will admit that, but we need to deal with
these issues.
I am not placing blame as to why we have not been able to
get this done. I am very much working with the chairman to see
whether we cannot find a path where we can reach the finish
line and start, I hope, a process that in every Congress there
will be a State Department authorization bill considered by
Congress and acted on by Congress, recommended by the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of time in this committee. I
do not know of any other committee that has more hearings, more
in-depth knowledge of what is going on globally, than the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We know each of the
regions. We have spent a lot of time on each of the regions. We
know the State Department. We know what is being done in the
State Department.
We are the committee that should be recommending to the
United States Senate the policies for the State Department. It
should not be the appropriators. It should not be Armed
Services. It should be the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I think this hearing is a good first opportunity for us to
explore how we, in fact, can carry out that responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
If I could, I do not normally do this, but we have two
outstanding Senators from Georgia. Senator Perdue has taken the
lead on the authorization bill, but he is also taking the lead
on our side, on the budget process. For what it's worth, I hope
he will not be offended, but he has made comments very much
like what you are saying: That is that it really is ridiculous,
the way appropriators that I respect greatly, I really do, meet
for about 5 hours and determine the budget on all these
programs where, in essence, we spend the entire time we are
here looking at what is happening.
I do think that authorization process is one that is very,
very important, and way underutilized.
So thank you for saying that. I want to thank, again, the
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, the
Hon. Heather Higginbottom. Thank you for being here and sharing
your thoughts. We appreciate your service to our country.
I think you have done this before and understand that you
can summarize in 5 minutes, if you wish, and your written
testimony, without objection, will be entered into the record
in full.
So thank you again for being here and cooperating with us
on this matter. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. HEATHER HIGGINBOTTOM, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Corker,
Ranking Member Cardin, and distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
regarding State Department authorization.
As Secretary Kerry has said, American leadership is not
just about a button that we push in time of emergency. We must
be backed by resources and authorities, so we are committed to
working with the committee on a bill that provides a strong
foundation for the State Department and enhances our efforts to
be more effective and efficient.
Today, I will highlight a few of the authorities that we
believe are critically important, and I want to thank members
of the committee for your partnership on several of these
issues. They include permanent authority to contract local
guards with the best value firms to better protect our people
and infrastructure; administrative subpoena authority for the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security to enhance their efforts to
counter passport and visa fraud; permanent authorities to
provide greater flexibility to set fees for border crossing,
fraud prevention and detection, and passport and visa
surcharges, which would support our execution of consular
services; authorities to pay our UNESCO contribution, as well
as to pay our United Nations peacekeeping dues at the assessed
rate, which would help us avoid accruing arrears and enable our
continued leadership; and overseas comparability pay authority
to better support and retain our work force by leveling the
playing field for overseas pay.
The committee has also indicated its interest in hearing
from the department on other issues, which I will briefly
address now and look forward to discussing further.
First, the international community relies on United Nations
peacekeeping missions to advance our collective global
security. The State Department is committed to U.N. reform, and
we are working to ensure other countries pay their fair share
of U.N. budgets, especially larger developing countries like
China, which is now the second largest peacekeeping cost
contributor.
We recognize the value of peacekeeping missions, but we are
appalled by continuing allegations of sexual exploitation and
abuse by peacekeepers. The United States has been a driving
force behind the U.N. zero-tolerance policy and will continue
to push the U.N. to bring an end to abuses and hold
perpetrators accountable.
We are directly pressing troop and police contributing
countries, named for the first time in last week's United
Nations report, to promptly and credibly investigate
allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse and, where
appropriate, prosecute offenders.
Second, the United States faces not only risks to our
physical security but also risks to the security of our
information. Since the breach of our unclassified email system
in 2014, we have aggressively worked to enhance our
cybersecurity. We have strengthened the way our users access
the systems, the security testing of our networks and
applications, and the training of our staff on the threats that
we face.
Third, responding to Freedom of Information Act requests is
an important element of our transparency efforts. While the
volume of FOIA requests to the department has increased by 300
percent since 2008, our resources to address them have not kept
pace. That is why we have requested a 77 percent increase in
this year's budget for FOIA. And in addition, Secretary Kerry
has appointed a transparency coordinator, who is spearheading
the department's efforts to improve its systems and processes.
Finally, our work to advance American leadership in
diplomacy around the world is only as strong as our people. To
ensure we have the right people in the right places at the
right time, we are adopting policies and tools to support our
work force, enhance leadership at all levels, and expand
innovation.
Mr. Chairman, as discussed in more detail in my written
testimony for the record, a strong State Department
authorization bill will put the department on robust footing as
we pursue security and prosperity for the American people. I
look forward to working with you on this important endeavor.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer questions.
[Ms. Higginbottom's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deputy Secretary of State for
Management and Resources 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 State Department
reauthorization. As the former Chairman of this committee, Secretary
Kerry continues to believe that a State authorization bill will enhance
the Department's efforts to become more efficient and effective. We are
committed to working with the committee on a bill that would provide a
strong foundation for State Department operations while reflecting a
balance of both Department and Congressional priorities.
The State Department has shared its priorities with the committee.
I will highlight a few of the most critical issues, and will also
briefly address the other topics you requested, including information
security and transparency, consular fees, United Nations reform, and
strengthening our workforce. Before I begin, I want to thank the
committee and its leadership for being a good partner on many of these
issues.
Shortly after I appeared before the committee last year, Secretary
Kerry unveiled the second Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
(QDDR). Building on the 2015 National Security Strategy, the QDDR
serves as a blueprint for the next generation of American diplomacy and
development, looking beyond day-to-day challenges to set strategic and
operational priorities. Over the past year, we have focused our efforts
to advance the four strategic priorities it identifies for the State
Department and USAID: (1) preventing conflict and violent extremism;
(2) promoting open democratic societies; (3) advancing inclusive
economic growth; and (4) mitigating and adapting to climate change. We
are currently in the process of implementing dozens of the QDDR's
recommendations, including those to strengthen our organization and
support our workforce. The authorities we will discuss today would help
us to further advance these priorities and reforms to help ensure that
U.S. diplomacy is effective and efficient.
improve safety and security
One areas of particular importance is authorities to enhance
protection of U.S. citizens, government employees, and facilities
overseas. Authorities to enhance security for ``soft targets'' overseas
are critical as threats to schools, malls, hotels, and restaurants have
increased. In addition, permanent authority to contract local guards by
selecting the firms that provide the best value to the U.S. Government
rather than just the lowest bidder would help us make further progress
in our efforts to counter these types of threats. We are also seeking
administrative subpoena authority for the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security. This authority would greatly assist the Bureau in
investigating and preventing threat cases, as well as allow them to
conduct much more efficient investigations into the over 6,000 cases of
passport and visa fraud it receives annually.
In the 21st century, the United States faces not only risks to our
physical security, but also risks to the security of our information.
As the breach of our own unclassified email system in 2014
demonstrated, our adversaries see information handled by the
Department--and many other U.S. government departments and agencies--as
a desirable target. Protecting our information as we face increasingly
sophisticated, frequent and well-organized cyberattacks is one of the
Department's top priorities. Working closely with the White House and
several interagency and private sector partners, we are upgrading our
Information Technology (IT) systems' protections, including enclaving
our most sensitive and high-value data, finding new ways to identify
and analyze emerging cyber threats, and expanding the training and
accountability of personnel in ensuring the security of our systems.
increase efficiency and effectiveness
The State Department and USAID have requested $50.1 billion in
discretionary funding for fiscal year 2017. We take seriously our
responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and look forward
to working with Congress to enhance our efforts.
Transparency and accountability are fundamental to good stewardship
of our resources. To increase the data available to the public, we are
implementing President Obama's Open Data policy. I am pleased to report
that we have expanded the data available on ForeignAssistance.gov, a
web site managed by the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources on
behalf of the U.S. government. Last year, the State Department updated
and expanded our evaluation policy, requiring each bureau to conduct
and publicly post annual evaluations of foreign assistance and of
diplomatic engagement. In December, we published a report on the
Foreign Assistance Data Review, which evaluated how the Department
captures foreign assistance budget and planning data, and made
recommendations that we are currently carrying out to further improve
our foreign assistance management, coordination, and transparency tools
and processes.
Public access to the records of the government through Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) processing is also essential to our transparency
efforts. While the volume of FOIA requests has tripled since 2008, our
resources to respond have not kept pace. In fiscal year 2015 alone, we
received approximately 22,000 FOIA requests. Thus, we've requested a 70
percent increase in fiscal year 2017 funding for FOIA processing and
electronic record archiving. In addition, Secretary Kerry appointed
Ambassador Janice Jacobs as the Department's Transparency Coordinator
who reports to me and is helping the Department transition from paper-
based, manual records processing to an advanced electronic records
management system. We are expanding our already widespread training on
handling classified and sensitive information and increasing oversight
of the Department's Office of Information Program Services to help
improve the FOIA process.
We could also enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our work
with authorities that provide greater flexibility to support fee-funded
consular functions. We are seeking to make permanent the authorities to
increase some border crossing fees for minors to half of the amount
that adult applicants are required to pay, expand our use of fraud
prevention and detection fees, and expand existing passport and visa
surcharges. In taking these steps, the Department can provide a more
sustainable basis for funding consular operations, increase the quality
of its global consular service to the American people, devote
additional resources to combatting all types of visa fraud, and
maintain high customer service standards for U.S. citizens who request
a passport.
Finally, we are seeking authorities that would ensure our continued
leadership in international organizations, such as the United Nations
(UN), enabling the United States to continue to lead from within these
organizations and leverage other countries' resources. U.N.
peacekeeping has been one of the most meaningful forms of international
burden-sharing for almost 70 years. As President Obama has said,
``[peacekeeping] is not something that we do for others; this is
something that we do collectively because our collective security
depends on it.'' On September 28, in connection with the Leaders'
Summit on Peacekeeping at the U.N. President Obama released a Policy
Memorandum on U.S. Support to U.N. Peace Operations, the first of its
kind in over 20 years. It directs the State Department and other U.S.
departments and agencies to take actions that will help to improve the
performance and accountability of peace operations and their uniformed
and civilian personnel. Implementation is underway. We have requested
authority to pay our peacekeeping dues at the assessed rate through the
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities account, which
will allow us to more effectively shape and reform peacekeeping
operations to deliver maximum impact and avoid potentially accruing new
arrears at the U.N.
We firmly believe that emerging countries must pay their fair share
of U.N. budgets, as they have an increasing stake in ensuring the
U.N.'s success in addressing global challenges. The assessment rates
for larger developing countries are continuing to increase as their
share of the world economy grows. China, for example, is now the second
largest contributor to U.N. peacekeeping costs, contributing over ten
percent of those costs annually.
While we recognize the invaluable nature of international
peacekeeping missions, we are appalled by continuing allegations of
sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. The United States has
been the driving force behind the U.N.'s zero tolerance policy and will
continue to push the U.N. to bring an end to abuses and hold
perpetrators accountable. We strongly support U.N. measures to
strengthen prevention, enforcement, and accountability for sexual
exploitation and abuse, including the Secretary-General's repatriation
of military contingents that have demonstrated a pattern of abuse and
his suspension of payments to countries for their personnel who face
credible allegations. We will continue to monitor the U.N.'s
implementation of its proposals and we are also directly pressing troop
and police contributing countries--named for the first time in the
March 4 U.N. report on these abuses--to promptly and credibly
investigate allegations and, when appropriate, to prosecute offenders.
In this challenging budget environment, we have also been working
closely with the Department of Defense on the significantly increased
authorities and resources to provide assistance to foreign nations. As
part of our efforts, we continue to implement the Presidential Policy
Directive on Security Sector Assistance, which emphasizes comprehensive
interagency approaches and close collaboration in the planning and
execution of security sector assistance between State and DOD. We
appreciate this committee's work with its counterparts on the Armed
Services Committees to ensure that security sector assistance is
coordinated not only within the administration, but also in Congress.
We look forward to working with you to ensure State's ability to
effectively coordinate security sector assistance in line with broader
foreign policy goals.
strengthen and retain a talented workforce
In our work to advance American leadership and diplomacy around the
world, we are only as strong as our people. We need the right people,
in the right places, at the right time. Thus, we are investing in an
agile, diverse, and skilled work force. We are committed to creating
and retaining a diverse workforce--one that more closely reflects the
diversity of our nation. We have made important changes, such as
increasing our focus on leadership at all levels of the organization,
updating our training, adding recruitment opportunities, and expanding
efforts to hire and retain a diverse workforce.
As we capitalize on the top talent attracted to the State
Department, we must work hard to retain them in a competitive labor
environment. Our top priority is to secure full 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
addition, our colleagues from other agencies with whom we serve
overseas do not face this discrepancy. One recent Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey revealed 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.
Another priority in the retention of our employees is the payment
of our locally-employed staff (LE Staff). The role of LE Staff is
absolutely essential to our mission. Overseas, America is often a
magnet for local talent, however, if we do not pay competitively, we
stand to lose valuable skills, institutional knowledge, and their
critical local relationships. In the current fiscal year, we are
targeting our resources to countries where our current pay rates make
it difficult to retain local employees.
Mr. Chairman, a strong State Department authorization bill will put
the Department of State on robust 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. Thank you very much for being here.
All of us have read the stories in the Washington Post and
certainly have had testimony here about what is happening with
peacekeepers. This is abhorrent, and it's hard to believe that
we are participating in U.N. peacekeeping and trying to help
people and yet they are being taken advantage of. There is a
terrible report regarding the DRC recently.
What is it that we can actually do? I fear sometimes that
we have other priorities at the U.N., and we do not want to
rock the boat unnecessarily. It just does not appear to me that
we are really laying on the railroad tracks on this issue. I
wonder if you would tell me that maybe I am wrong and what we
are doing to actively cause changes to occur.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, we share your outrage. This is appalling behavior.
We have been very active in the U.N. to try to address it.
In the report that the Secretary General issued on Friday,
for the first time, they have named the countries of alleged
violators of sexual exploitation and abuse, which is a policy
we have been pressing them to do.
As a result of that, we have already directed our
ambassadors in those affected countries to go in and demand a
rapid investigation and prosecution where appropriate.
So we have been pushing that for a while. We are pleased
they have finally done it.
We have also been supportive in pressing the U.N. to
suspend reimbursements for the personnel who are alleged to
have committed these abuses, so they are not being compensated,
as well as to repatriate contingents of peacekeepers where
there is a trend of abuse. The U.N. has taken that action once
already with the DRC contingent.
We also have pressed the U.N. and they are moving forward
on establishing sexual exploitation and abuse task forces
within each peacekeeping mission, so we can ensure that the
leadership is focused, that there is training and engagement on
this.
So we have taken several steps. We will continue to take
more, and this is a very top priority for us.
The Chairman. Where are we on the onsite court-martials,
so that we know that justice is being served, and they are not
going back to their home countries and never being seen again?
This will be court-martials, by the way, by the countries
that are involved, not by some outside group. But where are we
on that?
Ms. Higginbottom. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We are
pressing them to rapidly convene those tribunals. On a sort of
country-by-country basis, we have to assess what capabilities
and capacity they have and work with them to develop it, but
that is a priority for us and something we are working with the
contributing police and troop-contributing nations on.
The Chairman. The lower U.S. assessment that I know you
spoke to earlier, and I did and Senator Cardin did, in opening
comments, but what are we doing? Again, this is another area I
feel like we have let pass because we have other priorities.
But we have a period of time now to lower the assessment. What
are we doing actively to get things in the right place? I mean,
we have members of the U.N. Security Council that are not
paying their fair share. There is some bogus formula that is
put together because of what they are as a country and what
their status is that keeps that from being the case.
What are we doing to prevent that in the future?
Ms. Higginbottom. Mr. Chairman, two pieces.
First, we have been working with the U.N. over a period of
years to reduce the cost of the peacekeeping missions. Over the
past several years, we have been able to reduce the cost per
peacekeeper by 17 percent. In the latest proposal for
peacekeeping missions, the overall amount has been reduced by
$200 million, so we are continuing to press on the overall
costs.
Likewise, we are working very hard----
The Chairman. If I could, many of the countries that send
troops there actually make money off of it. They make money off
of it. In most cases, they are being paid far above what it
actually costs them. Yet countries self-report their costs,
which is ridiculous. It reminds me of the Libor scandal where
people were self-reporting.
What are we doing to have some accountability there,
because we know, again, many of these countries see it as a
profit-making issue? Go ahead.
Ms. Higginbottom. Mr. Chairman, we have been pressing the
U.N., both in the general U.N. budget as well as in the
peacekeeping sphere, to improve transparency and
accountability. We will continue that engagement and work.
To your previous comment about the contributions of other
countries, we have pressed hard to deal with the credit issue,
and we will continue that work. We are pleased to see China and
Russia and some of the other countries significantly increasing
the amount that they are paying toward the peacekeeping
missions, but that is work that we need to continue to engage
in and would like to work with you to figure out the best ways
we can do that.
The Chairman. All of us travel extensively--fortunately,
people on this committee take their job seriously--and spend a
lot of time overseas. On pay, I want to state that I think our
people should be well paid. I think our Foreign Service
Officers are doing the Lord's work around the world trying to
make sure that we pursue U.S. interests. So I want to get that
out on the front end.
At the same time, I do hear them saying, and we have lots
of private conversations with them, as you can imagine, that
coming back to Washington is a pay cut. So we have this foreign
pay issue, and yet most of them believe the higher cost-of-
living here in Washington and the fact that their housing is
not paid for is actually a pay cut.
So are we really dealing with the issue of Foreign Service
and what they are paid in these other countries in the
appropriate way with the understanding that most of them would
prefer to be overseas than here as it relates to what they are
paid?
Ms. Higginbottom. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think it is
quite customary for the Foreign Service Officers to want to be
deployed overseas where they most enjoy doing their work.
But with respect to the allowances and the cost-of-living,
the hardship, those are based on exceptional costs of serving
overseas. The increased costs of goods and services, hardship,
living in a dangerous place, living in a place where there is a
lot of crime, where there are health risks, that category of
hardship differential is an incentive payment to encourage
people to take those riskier and more complicated assignments.
The cost-of-living adjustments are intended to ensure people
can obtain goods and services comparably to the way they would
in Washington, D.C.
We review those regularly. We think the allowances and
differentials are appropriate and important, both to provide
compensation as well as incentive to get to some of our----
The Chairman. Is there a rational way of arriving at what
that is? It seems to me that we have a small group of people
back here in Washington who set these various differentials,
and they may not be based on the realities that exist on the
ground.
Ms. Higginbottom. I would certainly be very pleased, Mr.
Chairman, to talk with you about different ways of approaching
this. Though the process is managed in Washington, it is done
with input from post. So whether it is assessing the conditions
on the ground with respect to danger, public health, some of
the other conditions, that is with input from post. It comes to
Washington.
The cost-of-living adjustment, we have a survey that goes
out every couple years that looks at the specific costs of
goods and services in those countries.
So it is managed centrally, but it really benefits from a
lot of input at post.
The Chairman. Lastly, the ranking member and myself have
had a number of conversations. We have gone down to the SCIF
together to get a sense of what has been occurring at the State
Department relative to emails. We have gone out of our way to
make sure that this committee does not politicize an issue at a
time when that should not be done.
But would you agree that some type of training and some
type of systematic checks need to occur within the department
to make sure that classified information is being handled in an
appropriate way?
Ms. Higginbottom. The department takes its responsibility
to protect sensitive information very seriously. We do do a lot
of training.
As part of the most recent process we concluded just a week
ago, in the release of Secretary Clinton's emails, we are going
to conduct a lessons-learned process both in how we process
those emails and some of the issues that arose.
But we do have robust training both when someone enters the
department, just so they understand the type of information
they will see and why that might be of interest to an adversary
or someone with an interest that is not in the United States'
interests, but also as you get security clearance as you are
allowed to review and handle classified information. So we do
do a lot, but we should certainly look at----
The Chairman. Is that new? Is that training new?
Ms. Higginbottom. It is not new, Mr. Chairman. We have had
training for a long time, and we adapt. For example, I get
locked out of my computer, as does every other State Department
employee, if I do not take an annual cybersecurity awareness
course. So I literally cannot get on. I have to take it. It
takes a few hours.
So we are adapting as we see different threats, and we
provide different levels of training.
The Chairman. I would like to pursue that further with you
in another setting.
Ms. Higginbottom. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, on the last point, I thank
you, because we do share the same responsibility of this
committee to oversee the State Department's handling of
information. As has been pointed out, the transition to an
electronic transfer of information requires a different way of
handling material, and I look forward to working with the
chairman. This is not a problem of one administration. It goes
back several administrations.
There is no information that there have been state secrets
that have been disclosed, but we do need a more efficient way
to handle sensitive information.
So I look forward to working with the chairman carrying out
the responsibility of our committee.
Madam Secretary, through the last 10 to 20 years, there has
been an incredible change in attitude from Americans in support
of our diplomacy and development assistance programs. When I
first came to Congress, I think it would have been very
difficult for us to pass a foreign operations appropriations
bill. Now that bill becomes, in some respects, a driver for
other issues getting done.
The American people understand that the modest investment
we make, less than 1 percent of the budget, is very important
for national security.
So I think it is really ideal for us to be able to put
together a State Department authorization bill for passage. We
do look forward to working with the administration in that
regard.
There is one part of your budget that is going to make it
more difficult for us, and I mentioned it to Secretary Kerry.
That is why you are using OCO funds to fund core parts of the
State Department's commitments. I do not know how we transition
to a sustainable support for your mission when we are using OCO
funds that will not be there.
So can you just briefly explain how you intend to make sure
the legacy of your leadership provides the resources necessary
to carry out this important function of government?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you very much, Senator. We share
the concern that an increasing percentage of our resources are
funded through contingency operations.
The Bipartisan Budget Act that was passed last year and set
the parameters for both the 2016 appropriations process and the
2017 included increasing the percentage of our budget that
would be funded as OCO. That reduces our base funding and
skews, to a certain extent, what is funded where.
And while we have agreed to the budget deal, of course,
that the President signed, and we are adhering to it, we do
have concerns about what that means going forward. We would
like to see our truly enduring base costs, our ongoing
operations, funded in a base at a sufficiently high level to
enable us to conduct our missions, and to preserve the
contingency operations for short-term, exceptional events.
I think that it is necessary to have contingency funding
for State and AID going forward, but it should be rationalized
from where we are today. I hope that will be a process that we
can engage in with Congress going forward.
Senator Cardin. That sounds rational, but when you have
base core programs funded through contingency funds, the makes
it difficult to see how that is going to be transitioned off
when you know how difficult it is to get other funds. It is
something we will have to deal with in an authorization bill,
so I would just urge you to look at the long-term
sustainability of your mission as core functions and funded as
core functions, not as contingent functions.
I agree with Senator Corker in that, as I travel and meet
people who are in Foreign Service, they are incredible, and
they deserve the full support and thanks of the American people
and our political system, so I strongly support their
compensation and I strongly support their having the resources
necessary.
But when I look at the leadership in our Foreign Service,
and I look at the pipelines for how we are developing future
leaders, it does not represent, to me, the demographic changes
of America. I want to know what you are doing to make sure that
we carry out our commitment to have the face of America
representative of the people of America.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator. The diversity of our
work force is a very important priority for the Secretary, for
me. We included it in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review that we issued last year, shortly after I was here,
elevating it as a priority for senior leadership and the
department.
We have increased in our fiscal year 2016 budget our
resources devoted for recruiting and retaining a diverse work
force by 50 percent. One of the core aspects of that is
increasing by 50 percent of the Pickering and Rangel fellows,
which have been an effective way to ensure we have a qualified
and more diverse work force.
One of the key priorities from my perspective as I look at
the data and do the analysis of our work force, in particular
the Foreign Service, is ensuring that as we bring in a more
diverse work force, we have support to retain and put on a path
to senior leadership positions that more diverse work force.
So some of the resources that we are asking for in the
budget are to expand some midlevel career development
programming. We have just contracted with the Cox Foundation to
do a review of our retention and mentoring programs, which we
hear from our personnel are critically important. We want to
know that we are using our resources effectively and targeting
them in the right way.
Senator Cardin. I think it is very important this be done
in a very open, transparent way, so I am going to ask, with the
chairman's help, that you keep our staffs actively informed as
to the process that you are using, how transparent it is, how
you are reaching out for recruitment, et cetera, so that we are
fully engaged with you in this effort on diversity. I hope we
would have your cooperation.
Ms. Higginbottom. Absolutely. We would welcome that
opportunity, Senator. I should also mention that Secretary
Kerry has asked all of his Assistant Secretary level or above
officials to do a domestic recruiting trip coordinated with our
diplomats in residence so that we are targeting the right
institutions in the right parts of the country and using what
tools we have, in addition to additional budget requests to do
that kind of outreach.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Lastly, let me mention an area where I think the allocation
of resources are not adequate to meet the challenges we have.
That is democracy funding and anticorruption efforts.
Every place I travel and talk to our missions, in countries
that are either in transition or have challenges, they tell me,
``Give me more money for democracy. Give me more money for more
focus on anticorruption issues.'' Every dollar we get, it
produces incredible results for America's mission. They just do
not have enough of it.
So what efforts can you suggest to us, working with you,
where we can get funds allocated in those regions that are in
desperate need of democracy assistance and throughout the world
on anticorruption issues.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
We agree that we have not been able to allocate the
democracy resources the way we would like to, the way that
truly aligns with our policy, in part because we have a lot of
crises that we are dealing with around the world and have to
make tradeoffs in our budget dealing with the directives and so
forth.
But that is why we have increased funding in 2017 for
democracy programming. We have also heard from Congress that
they want to see through the appropriations process greater
focus. So I am hopeful that we can come together and be able to
protect that funding. We think it is important.
As we build our budget, it is a bottom-up process. We hear
from posts first, and this issue is particularly acute in many
places, and we are very cognizant of that.
Senator Cardin. Your point about through the appropriations
process underscores the point that Senator Perdue and Senator
Corker have made. Give us the tools so we can give you the
statutory authority to be able to allocate those resources,
rather than depending upon an appropriations process that does
not always work smoothly in this institution.
Ms. Higginbottom. We look forward to working with you on
that. Thank you.
The Chairman. If I can make one point before turning to
Senator Isakson, I know this may be just out of bounds by some
Foreign Service Officers in their thinking, but to address
diversity, but also to address bringing professional in--I
mean, we have a lot of folks who are aging out in the Foreign
Service. Does it make any sense to allow people who have been
incredibly competent in civil society to be able to transfer in
at a level that is not stamping visas and those kinds of
things?
I mean, is that something that would be rational and help
on the front that Senator Cardin was just asking about?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is an idea that has been tested at various points. I
think we can continue to talk about and try to figure out a way
to handle that. We have wrestled with how to best take
advantage of the contributions that we could get in the Foreign
Service, while also having a system that we sign people up and
they spend their careers at the State Department and work
through a series of different steps. So we are trying to
balance both the culture and requirements of the Foreign
Service, with the great benefits we could get from others.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Isakson?
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and Senator Cardin for mentioning our foreign diplomats
overseas who really are the face of the United States.
We always brag about them, but we never have a chance to
point one out because they are always somewhere overseas. We
have one here today.
Julie Fisher, will you stand up? This is my neighbor.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. Julie's parents still live down the street
from me. She grew up down the street from me. She volunteered
to serve America overseas in Ukraine and many old Soviet bloc
countries.
And she is pretty doggone good, Madam Secretary, because I
read your brief and I had all these questions on Internet
security, information security, and FOIA requests, and you
covered every one of them in your opening statement, so you
have an awfully good person.
Julie, we are proud you are here today.
The Chairman. You see why Isakson is so popular in
Georgia. [Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. I do have one point to make.
Senator Cardin. Do we have any Marylanders out there?
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. The chairman and I went to Darfur 5 years
ago, if I am not mistaken. It may have been 6. We were the
second and third ever of elected Senators to go to Darfur and
got to see firsthand the environment in which many of these
refugees and people who are abused sexually and traumatized
reside. We learned that sexual trauma and sexual violence is a
military tactic in many African countries and other countries
around the world.
So I want to underscore the chairman's comments about
sexual violence and the predators that are in some of these
peacekeeping units. We need to make sure that the onsite court-
martials and of the type of discipline that take place, so that
is abolished and America never stands or looks the other way
when that goes on.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you so much, Senator, for your
comments. We wholeheartedly agree.
Both in the peacekeeping context as well as in our
engagements with several African countries, as we are doing
training and trying to support good governance and democracy,
being very clear on what is acceptable and what is not is
critically important. So we see it, as you point out, in many
different contexts, and it is appalling. We have to make it a
top priority wherever we see it, including, of course, in the
peacekeeping missions.
Senator Isakson. One last point on the reauthorization, we
waited 13 years to finally reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, and we did that last year, but public
education in America suffered greatly by the inaction of the
United States Congress. I want to underscore your comments and
those of the ranking member on the need for us to reauthorize
the State Department again, and modernize those rules and
regulations and empower them to do the job they need to do
overseas.
I would ask you a question, but with Julie there to give
you advice, I know you are going to have the right answers, so
I am going to excuse myself and give David Perdue the chance to
go ahead.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you so much, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much, and thanks for
your major contributions, and we are glad we violated the rules
to allow you both to be on the committee, two Senators from
Georgia. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Madam Secretary.
I want to ask a little bit about Latin America, a
particular interest of mine, and I know Senator Menendez, too,
is always very focused on this.
First, the President announced a new investment. In the
budget, he proposed to take to a second chapter Plan Colombia
as Paz Colombia, Peace Colombia. Talk a little bit about, from
the State Department's view, from a resource view, the kind of
return on investment that we had on the first 15 years of this
investment over three administrations and how we would propose
to assist Colombia in this new chapter, God willing, post-
ceasefire.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator, so much.
I had the chance to travel to Colombia about 3 weeks ago
with the purpose of the trip being to meet with government
officials to talk about the future, to talk about Paz Colombia
and understand how our resources can best be directed, assuming
there is a peace deal, and we hope soon, one that we can
support and continue the bipartisan support we have had across
administrations to help that country go into the areas that
have been governed by the FARC and really deal with the
narcotrafficking, with the coca production, and some of the
other issues there.
What I heard time and again is an impressive understanding
of what capacities the United States brings to the table that
they need to do that. There are excellent plans developed, but
implementing them and understanding what capacities we bring,
whether it is on the military training side, on the support for
civil society side, in the alternative development and, of
course, in some of the narcotrafficking.
So my takeaway from that experience, and I think it is
reflected in the administration's policy, is a continuation of
our engagement where we provide truly leveraging capabilities,
and working with a common vision of what success looks like. So
I am hopeful and came away from that trip both convinced that
there is a lot of work to do but that we are on the right path
and have good partners.
Senator Kaine. The story of Colombia is not just a U.S.-
consistent interest that helped Colombia transform but Colombia
has now become a security partner to help with security
assistance in the Northern Triangle. They have peacekeepers as
part of the multinational force of observers in the Sinai. They
are really becoming a global force for positive security in a
way that is a great alliance for us, but a real tribute also to
their commitment to peace and prosperity outside their own
borders.
Ms. Higginbottom. I agree. When I was in Central America at
the end of last year, especially in certain neighborhoods in
Honduras and El Salvador, every visit that we made to see how
USAID and State Department dollars were being used, there was a
Colombian police officer participating in the training, and it
was incredibly valuable to those countries.
When you look at the progress that Colombia has made over
the past many years and you look at the path that the Northern
Triangle countries have to traverse, there is a lot of good
learning and examples that we can draw from there.
Senator Kaine. Moving to the Northern Triangle, in the 2-
year budget deal and the appropriations deal we struck at
yearend, and really because of the Senate--the Senate had this
in the Senate-side appropriations; the House did not; and the
compromise followed the Senate version--$750 million investment
in the Northern Triangle with Plan Colombia as an indication
that, hey, we can have hope that this will work if we are
consistent with it.
The President has proposed an additional $1 billion for the
Northern Triangle countries. Talk a little bit about--we have
had testimony previously about the kind of pillars and in to
which the investments will fall, but what will our metrics be
for sort of measuring whether the progress is what we would
hope?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
The first metric we have a need to keep focused on are the
commitments that the Presidents of those three countries have
made and ensuring they live up to those commitments. One of the
critical elements of our strategy for Central America is
ensuring that we have learned from the things we have done
before, but we are also doing things differently.
That requires transparency and good governance. It requires
alignment of resources and shared priorities, so that these
governments are putting their own resources against our
commonly shared vision of what needs to happen.
We are working very carefully across our government within
different agencies to ensure we have developed tools to measure
success, to know what is working and what is not.
One of the areas that I spent a lot of time visiting when I
was in the region was on the partnership between the State
Department's INL Bureau and USAID, bringing the law enforcement
and the community-based programs together, both to establish
trust of law enforcement but also to ensure we are more
comprehensively addressing the needs in those communities.
We are scaling that up across the region in large part
based on an independent evaluation that showed that the
strategy would be successful.
So we are going to do different monitoring and evaluation
projects. We are going to hold ourselves accountable. And we
are going to put the resources against what we know works.
Senator Kaine. Staying in the region, obviously, there is a
huge concern about Zika. This is not a HELP hearing, but I am
curious, particularly with respect to State Department
personnel in the Americas. What steps you are taking from a
management standpoint to protect our people?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
So first of all, obviously, the greatest population at risk
are women who are pregnant or who want to become pregnant. So
just as the Pentagon has done, any personnel under chief of
mission authority have the opportunity to curtail their
assignments early, return to the United States, be medevaced
early.
We have had some employees who have availed themselves of
that. We will continue the messages as we have, so they
understand what opportunities they have.
We have also been very clear about how individuals in
affected areas can protect themselves.
This is, as I am sure you know, a difficult vector to
control, but there are measures that individuals can take to
protect themselves. We are ensuring they have sufficient insect
repellent and information, and so forth. So we will continue to
do that.
Senator Kaine. Good.
One last issue. Senator Cornyn and I took a trip about a
year ago to Mexico, Honduras, and Colombia. And it was
interesting. The purpose of the trip did not have anything to
do with Cuba but every head of state we met with said, you have
no idea how your path toward normalization with Cuba is going
to open up other opportunities in the Americas for you. They
kind of described it as, if there was a fight between Uncle Sam
and small Cuba, we kind of had to be on Cuba's side. And that
hobbled institutions like the OAS, for example, where the U.S.-
Cuba challenge was always sort of an ankle weight slowing them
down.
I just really think the path with Cuba--and we are going to
have to continue to challenge Cuba on human rights issues, just
like we challenge all kinds of other countries we have
diplomatic relations with on human rights issues. We are going
to have to continue to focus on that.
But the Americas, for our purposes these days--first, we
are all Americans. We all call ourselves Americans, North,
South, and Central. If there is that ceasefire in Colombia, it
will be the end of war in these two hemispheres. There will not
be a war, which is probably the first time in recorded history
that you could say that. And there are just enormous cultural
similarities that we share.
Recent electoral activities, especially in South America,
have had some really promising signs about pro-democracy, pro-
human rights.
There are just a lot of upside opportunities. I would hope
that we do not spend all of our time worrying about our
headaches and short shrift the upside opportunities that we
have in our own region. I would just really encourage the State
Department and my colleagues on that.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. I appreciate your comments about Zika. I
assume that the State Department is going to be sending out
notifications to travelers--the Olympics are taking place in
August--notifying them of concerns. Is that correct?
Ms. Higginbottom. The Centers for Disease Control issues
guidance of this kind, and we disseminate it broadly across our
platforms. So if anyone is interested in coming to the State
Department or the Embassy's Web site to gather information
about Brazil, they will find that information providing the
CDC's guidance.
The Chairman. We might want to be a little bit more
proactive than people looking at Web sites, but we will talk
about that.
Senator Perdue?
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Let me Echo Senator Cardin and the ranking member comments
this morning. I think that is at the center of one of our
problems, that we have to coordinate how we fund these
departments. And the people who really understand these
departments and have the responsibility of oversight need to be
involved in that process. I could not agree more. We are
working to try to see how we can change that.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. It is always a
pleasure. Thank you for your courtesies last week by sending
over Hari Sastry and Doug Pitkin. They did a great job talking
about budget requests in our subcommittee.
I just have three quick questions. One is, just to put a
little historical perspective on this, and let me give a little
context, the way I look at it, with the last 7 years, and this
is not a partisan comment, it is just a reality that we
borrowed over a third of what we spent as a Federal Government.
If you look at it, about two-thirds of our spending is
mandatory. Some if those dollars that we get in go to mandatory
first, that means that every dollar we spend on Defense and
State and USAID is fundamentally borrowed. So that means there
is a real crisis here, and we need to look at what we are doing
with what we are spending.
The perspective is, between 1992 and 2000, State in all of
its endeavors averaged about $20 billion a year in expense over
that 8-year period. Between 2000 to 2008, while we averaged $30
billion, it went from $20 billion to $40 billion, and a lot of
that was Iraq, Afghanistan, and other things. Since then, we
have fallen into this level of about $50 billion.
By the way, I have to call out that you are asking for less
money this year than you asked for last year. So I have to call
that out and thank you for that.
So I have that observation. The second observation is the
fact that while that level stayed at about $50 billion, the
enduring dropped from $50 billion to $40 billion over that
period of time and was filled with OCO.
So you have already answered the OCO part of that. But I
have the second piece of that, which is, help me understand the
responsibilities and what we are doing around the world. I
recognize we are the most philanthropic country in the world,
and we need to maintain that position as long as we can afford
it, but I am just not sure right now that we should not ask the
question, can we afford all this?
So it is incumbent on you as the budget process comes about
to justify how we have gone from $20 billion to $40 billion or
$30 billion and then now to $50 billion. Explain that to me
just a little bit. I know you did not take it from $20 million
to $50 billion. You have been given a challenge to use $50
billion and you have kept it flat, pretty much.
But help me with that historical perspective on how we are
spending that much.
Ms. Higginbottom. So, Senator, I think you have touched on
a few elements of it, which are Iraq and Afghanistan that
required increases in our budget, and require increases to
sustain our engagement there.
I would point to a couple other factors as being those that
we need to fund. That is that we are dealing with an
increasingly complex world. Just take the humanitarian side for
a moment. We have four Level 3 humanitarian disasters. I cannot
say that is unprecedented, but it is highly unusual. And we are
a very generous contributor to those crises.
We also have the rise of violent extremism and terrorism in
ways that are different than we saw during the periods of time
you are referencing.
I do not know whether those numbers include supplemental
funding appropriations. But we did as a regular course rely on
and utilize supplementals to address the emerging crises.
So I think each of those play a role in that. But, Senator,
we would be pleased to go through in more detail some of the--
--
Senator Perdue. I think it would be instructive, because I
think this is a function that every department over the next
couple years is going to have to go through, in terms of what
we really can afford to do. It is a question we do not ask much
up here.
I have a second question quickly on the IG. Last year, we
talked privately and you testified about this. I know you have
been very vocal about this. But as I look at it, I do not see a
lot of progress, honestly.
So can you address the progress that you are making with
that, with regard to specifically the request of the IG? I
think there was no disagreement last year about having the IG
be aware of all investigations. There are evidently three
pathways investigations going inside State. Can you speak to
that, just a minute?
Ms. Higginbottom. Sure. I would be pleased to.
We have been working with the IG to identify which of the
investigations, which types of cases, they are most interested
in having information about and having the ability to
investigate, should they choose. They can investigate anything,
but where we narrow their focus, so that the processes that we
have of an administrative nature--if someone wants to bring a
civil rights case to our Office of Civil Rights, it is clear
that the IG's office is not necessarily interested in that. And
we are engaged in those discussions right now.
Senator Perdue. Is the IG aware now of all the potential
investigations? So they are now aware?
Ms. Higginbottom. The conversation that we are having with
them right now is to look across all the different avenues
people have to bring, even approaching the ombudsman and say,
what cases are you interested in, defining that, and then
working through the process.
I will not speak for him, because that would not be
appropriate. But I do, as you know, meet regularly with him. I
think he is also pleased with the progress.
I think very soon we will have a policy that we have agreed
upon, and that we can explain and make easily understandable to
our employees.
Senator Perdue. I think that would be important.
Lastly, before my time is out, as we traveled the world, as
the chairman mentioned, it is one of the great benefits of this
responsibility, that you do see great Americans out there in
the field. I have to echo what everybody said. I just marvel at
the quality of people and their dedication around the world.
And I know we have to make them secure. I know, post-
Benghazi, there has been an uptick in that. There are some four
major embassies in construction. Can you talk about embassy
construction and the overruns on those, particularly Islamabad,
London, Singapore, places like that where I know these are $1
billion-plus installations now, and we have to have stronger
buffer zones or offsets. Can you speak to that just a minute,
please?
Ms. Higginbottom. Sure, Senator.
You touched on one of the issues that is most important
when we think about embassy construction, and that is building
facilities that are safe and secure for our personnel. Post the
bombings in the 1990s and more recent events, we continually
review and look at what our requirements are and make sure that
we can do that.
And in places where it is more dangerous to operate, those
costs can be more expensive. So Islamabad would be an example.
Where we have posts that house a lot of different agencies, we
have different requirements to meet.
Senator Perdue. That is another question I would like to
dial into at some point. I know in Singapore, there are some 19
different government agencies that have offices and personnel
over there. I would really love to know the purpose of those.
That may not be under your purview, but at some point over the
next few months, I would love to see what those areas of
responsibility are.
Ms. Higginbottom. We would be pleased to do that for you,
Senator, at any of our posts.
I think when you travel, as you have to our embassies and
our posts, and you have a chance to sit with the country team,
you get a flavor for which of the different opportunities
having our agencies there make.
But it is expensive, and we do have to work through what
those requirements are.
Senator Perdue. Are you experiencing serious overruns? That
is really what I was going for.
Ms. Higginbottom. I think it depends on a case-by-case
basis. I would not say in general, because in some cases, we
have a budget, we go out and we bid, and we come under budget.
In other cases, for various reasons, the costs are in excess of
what we projected.
So it depends, and it depends on some circumstances. But we
could provide you with our most recent set of construction
plans and budgets, and provide some additional----
Senator Perdue. I do not need to see the plans. I trust you
on that. But maybe the budget numbers.
Ms. Higginbottom. I meant budget plans.
Senator Perdue. Thank you very much.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome. Thank you for being here again.
I appreciate Senator Perdue's conversation about what we
can afford to do within the limited resources we have to spend.
Listen, I would pose the opposite question. I think we have
to ask the question of how we can afford not to make these
investments, especially when you put U.S. foreign aid and
international development funding in the context of what our
competitor nations are spending themselves.
Over the last 10 years alone, the Chinese have increased
their foreign aid by a factor of seven at a time when our
foreign aid has been largely flat. We are looking at a budget
that is, frankly, $2 billion less than the fiscal year 2010
enacted numbers. The Chinese have increased their spending by a
factor of seven.
In Egypt, there is a lot of commotion about turning back on
$1.3 billion in U.S. military aid. Just the beginning of this
year, the Saudis announced a $8 billion play with money both
from their public funds and their sovereign funds, a $20
billion oil investment in Egypt.
We sit here and wonder why we do not have as much influence
there as some other countries do. It is in part because other
nations in and around that region are spending numbers that
dwarf ours.
So I think we are at a moment in time where the United
States is kind of an apple in a bowl full of oranges. The rest
of the world has figured out that the sort of blunt, inflexible
power of brute military strength is not as effective as the
flexible and nimble nature of economic aid, energy aid,
political aid. And we are chasing our tail around the world in
part because other countries, from China to the Saudis to the
Russians, are lapping us when it comes to that kind of smart
money.
So we should just remember that as much money as we spend,
we are still in the bottom quartile of OECD nations when it
comes to the amount of money we spend on international aid as a
percentage of our GDP. So it is a big number, but we are a big
country. When you compare it to other nations, we are, at least
within our subset of first world nations, in the bottom fourth.
So with that being said, let me ask about one particular
line item that is significantly lower in this proposed budget.
You can probably explain to me why.
In the 2016 omnibus appropriations bill, we had a
significant increase for humanitarian assistance. This is
international disaster assistance, migration and refugee
assistance, and food aid. But this budget from you proposes
about a 17 percent cut. I know that humanitarian aid does not
matter any less to the administration than it did in the last
year, so just explain to me why we are looking at that cut and
where that money is going to be made up.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
We were very pleased that in the fiscal year 2016
appropriations bill, we did receive a generous increase in
humanitarian assistance. As we looked to build this fiscal year
2016 budget, cognizant of the Bipartisan Budget Act that set
parameters for discretionary spending, we looked across our
needs over a period of 2 years, and determined that with the
additional resources that were provided and with the request
that we made for 2017, we will be able to meet our expected and
anticipated expenditures.
I would note, though, that we are operating under the
discretionary topline constraints, and we have had to make
tradeoffs. While we think this is sufficient when we look
across these 2 years, I think, to your earlier point, there are
tradeoffs that we have made that are not exactly what we would
want to absent those constraints.
So we do feel confident about the funding level for
humanitarian assistance across 2016 and 2017, but there are
certainly certain needs we have had to make tradeoffs for.
Senator Murphy. Just as an example, one of those tradeoffs
is that the World Food Program in and around Syria is cutting
off aid to refugee families that do not live in the actual
refugee camps. So if you are living out in the streets of
Jordan or Lebanon, you are at risk of having your emergency
food assistance cut off. It is one of the choices that we have
all made. We do not have enough money to fully fund that
program.
That has dire consequences for those families, and pushes
many of them into the arms of the very groups that we are
trying to fight.
So I understand the difficult tradeoffs you have to make,
but we should all be cognizant of the consequences to U.S.
national security.
I want to drill down on one very specific issue, and that
is the issue of procurement within the State Department. You
are subject to the Buy America law, as well as other agencies.
But just in preparation for this hearing, I was just going
through the list of waivers that have been requested. It is a
pretty substantial list.
This sort of has been a cause and crusade of mine for
years, to put some teeth back into our Buy America
requirements.
I understand that you have sort of two strings pulling on
you here. One, you want to be a good guest in-country and do
business in-country, but you also do have a law that requires
you to buy equipment, if you can, from U.S. companies. But you
have submitted waiver requests for some pretty easy equipment
to get some to get from U.S. companies--vehicles, for instance,
which are regularly being shipped to the countries in which you
are operating, but you are often buying from in-country sources
rather than from American sources.
Can you talk a little bit about your commitment to the Buy
America law, and efforts that you may be able to take to reduce
the number of waivers that are being granted to the State
Department? We have a lot of great U.S. companies that would
like to supply the State Department and often do not seem to be
getting the chance.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
We take those responsibilities that we have seriously. It
gets back, to a certain extent, to the previous part of our
conversation about resources. Any waivers that we would
request, we would want to do so very judiciously.
Senator, we would look forward to following up with you or
your staff to talk a bit about how we think about this and how
we would approach it.
But we want to do things in a way that abides by those
requirements, but also takes into account our costs and how we
do business overseas. So we are not looking for anything of a
blanket nature. We want to do something very judiciously and
selectively, and would be pleased to follow up with you to
ensure that our request is understood and that we can answer
your specific questions.
Senator Murphy. I appreciate that. The reason that we have
that Buy America law is that for the individual agency, it is
often going to make sense financially, fiscally, to buy from a
cheaper, non-American source. But the damage to the overall
Federal Treasury, in the lost jobs, the lost tax revenue, the
increased Medicaid costs, the increased unemployment costs,
pretty quickly wipes out the savings to the agency.
So I would look forward to following up with you on this
issue. Thank you very much.
Ms. Higginbottom. Certainly, Senator. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thanks for being with us.
President Obama unilaterally pledged $3 billion for the
U.N. Green Climate Fund. Congress has not authorized, has not
appropriated any funding for the new international climate
change slush fund.
The most recent fiscal year appropriations bill provided no
funding for the U.N. Green Climate Fund, specifically
prohibited the transfer of funds to create new programs.
Now media is reporting this morning that the administration
deposited $500 million into the U.N. Green Climate Fund. It
appears to be the latest example of the administration going
around Congress because the American people do not really
support what the President is doing with this initiative.
So if the media reports are true, this is a blatant misuse
of taxpayer dollars.
So, first, did the administration deposit $500 million into
the United Nations Green Climate Fund?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
We have reviewed our authorities and made a determination
that we can make this payment to the Green Climate Fund.
Senator Barrasso. The question is, did the administration
today, as announced, deposit $500 million into the Green
Climate Fund?
Ms. Higginbottom. We signed an agreement with the World
Bank to do that.
Senator Barrasso. So when was that done?
Ms. Higginbottom. Yesterday.
Senator Barrasso. Okay. Tell me how the administration was
able to divert and reprogram funds in order to meet the
President's unilateral promise?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, we reviewed the authorities and
opportunities available to us to do that and believe we are
fully compliant with that. We would be happy to follow up with
you and your staff.
Senator Barrasso. That would be good, because the United
Nations Green Climate Fund is a new program. Given the
Congress' prohibition on funding new programs, the question is
what legal authority you at the State Department believe you
have to make this transfer.
Given the prohibition, do you agree that actions by the
State Department officials violated the Antideficiency Act,
which comes with criminal and civil penalties? I think you are
going to have to deal with that.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
We do not believe we are in violation of the Antideficiency
Act. Clearly, our lawyers and others have looked at our
authorities and our abilities to do this, and we are happy to
follow up with you.
Senator Barrasso. With regard to the U.N. Green Climate
Fund, Members of Congress are expected to be good stewards of
taxpayer funds, not be providing funding to agencies that is
not needed.
What raises serious concerns, then, is the U.S. Department
of State has at least $500 million sitting around in funding
that is no longer needed for the purposes for which it was
approved. Whether you have the legal authority or not to move
it, you have chosen to move $500 million from programs for
which it was approved.
So if funding is no longer needed for the original purpose,
then the money really should be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
It is clear this committee must take a closer look at the
State Department's entire budget and resource allocation if
millions--$500 million--of surplus funds intended for specific
programs are suddenly available to be spent on other
priorities.
So my question is, what specific accounts were so
overfunded, allowing you at the State Department to divert
these funds to the United Nations Green Climate Fund?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, you mentioned President Obama's
pledge. We also included in our fiscal year 2016 budget a
request for funding for the Green Climate Fund, as we have in
the fiscal year 2017 budget.
So as we do our budgeting process, we did not look around
and say where are excess funds we can put in this. We built it
into our budget request.
As we received the 2016 bill and made allocations to
programs, we have the authority and the ability to fund that
requirement.
Senator Barrasso. What exact accounts were overfunded to be
able to move the money out?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, nothing is overfunded. We looked
across the appropriations bills and made allocations based on
what our budget was and what resources were provided to us.
Senator Barrasso. I firmly oppose what the President is
doing here in this misuse, I believe, of taxpayer dollars, I
think completely in violation of the law. This will come to
additional concerns raised to you and those who work at the
State Department for this mismanagement.
The United States national debt is currently $19 trillion.
We have struggling communities across this country in need of
help.
There was a debate in Flint the other night. I just think
it is hard to explain to taxpayers in struggling communities
across our country, even places like Flint, that this President
and this administration is willing to give $500 million as a
handout to foreign bureaucrats instead of addressing real
problems here at home.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no additional questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I know that this is an issue that there are highly
divergent views on the committee. There could equally be
something that people on this side of the aisle thought was
semi-controversial.
I do think the questions asked about how money is
transferred like that would be good for all of us to know,
regardless of how we feel about this particular issue. I do
hope that something more forthcoming than what you just said
will be shared in the near future, so that we can better
understand that.
It really sort of breaks down trust in the process when
money like this can be transferred out, and yet they are not
appropriated and there is no program. So I look forward to
working with you on that.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you on that. We
should absolutely know that.
But my understanding is that came out of the appropriated
account. So I am not sure there is a problem here.
The Chairman. So we had an appropriation for a Green
Climate----
Ms. Higginbottom. We have authorities to make the payment
that we did to the Green Climate Fund.
Mr. Chairman, to your point, we would be pleased to engage
with the members of this committee and talk further about that.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That last line of questioning is probably one of the many
reasons why a State Department authorization is so important.
Let me just thank you and Senator Cardin for focusing on
this. This is something I wanted to do when I was chairman, and
we worked together to try to get there. I think it is one of
the most important things the committee can do.
In the absence of it, we basically allow the State
Department, with all their good intentions, to decide what is
the course without congressional direction and oversight.
I think about the world since 2002, which is the last time
this body successfully acted the on reauthorizing legislation
for the Department of State. We think about the 9/11 attacks
that claimed the lives of so many Americans on American soil.
We think about Afghanistan and Iraq.
But when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And the reality is that there is a lot more to our challenges
globally than looking at everything with a hammer. From
migration crises to global epidemics to, regardless of views,
global warming, to attacks on U.S. facilities and deaths of
Foreign Service Officers, there is an incredible array of
issues.
At least we should be equipping the State Department and
USAID to deal with these challenges, even better to prevent
them. But State and USAID, in my view, are not equipped. That
is one of the primary reasons we have witnessed the growing
militarization of American foreign policy, because DOD is
equipped and authorized to do much.
So we saw so much of what should be the foreign policy
elements and statecraft move from the State Department to the
Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is great to
defend the Nation, but not to promote our foreign policy.
I think we should credit our diplomats and development
professionals for their work, which continues whether or not
Congress passes authorizing legislation.
Certainly, those who work for you, Madam Secretary, for the
department and for the Nation, conduct the business of
diplomacy and development, despite the risks of life abroad,
out of patriotism and devotion and concern for future
generations that characterize the very best in American values.
So I want to thank all the men and women of the State
Department and USAID, in particular. I think our entire body
should recognize those outstanding services.
What better way than to provide the resources, the
guidance, and direction necessary to make this Nation speak
with one voice, albeit in the many different languages in which
our diplomats converse.
Now, I support the State Department budget. I would like to
have this committee create some structure for it. I am one of
those who believes that this is an importantly powerful use of
American resources in a way that can generate far more
successes than even the power of our bombs.
But I also think that the State Department needs to
represent the diversity of the Nation. I am deeply
disappointed. I have been working at this for 24 years, from
the House of Representatives where I sat on the House Foreign
Affairs Committee and in the 10 years I have been here
privileged to serve on this committee in the Senate, and we
just really have not made progress. We really have not.
This has expanded over multiple administrations,
Republicans and Democrats alike. One of the most diverse
countries in the world, our potential is unlimited.
Unfortunately, minority communities have been historically
underrepresented in both the State Department and USAID.
Now, last year, I offered language that Chairman Corker
included in the State authorization bill that Congress,
unfortunately, failed to enact. Those provisions expanded
Pickering, Rangel, and Payne Fellowships to target State and
AID minority recruitment. It expanded mid- and senior-career
recruitment programs and initiatives, such as the International
Career Advancement Program and the Global Access Pipeline. It
strengthened oversight through additional reporting
requirements on employment promotion and attrition rates, in
addition to data on selection boards, mentorship, and retention
programs, all things I think are necessary to institutionalize
in order to have the diversity of America that is so important.
Just by way of example, it is not diversity for diversity's
sake, Mr. Chairman. When I was in China, it was incredibly
powerful to see one of our diplomatic core, an African-American
who had gone through the struggles of the civil rights
movement, talking to human rights activists and political
dissidents in China. That was a powerful opportunity to have
those who try to create change in China, change you and I and
Senator Cardin all of us would like to see, but that might not
have come through the same experience as someone else.
So at the same hearing last year, Madam Secretary, you
presented a picture of the State Department that was innovating
new programs for recruitment, retention, and advancement for
minority populations. When we dug in, however, it was difficult
to identify new initiatives, as opposed to expansion of
existing initiatives.
So I would like to dig in, in my final minute here. Are
there any really new programs? Not expansion--and I applaud
that you have included in your budget request some of what I
tried to do last year. I will acknowledge that.
But I just got, after insisting a lot, I got the State
Department's latest diversity statistics for full-time
employment employees as of December 31, 2015. Senior Foreign
Service Hispanic Officers, 4.58 percent. Senior Executive
Service, 2.6 percent. Foreign Service generalists, 5.49 percent
Hispanic, 5.44 percent African-American. Foreign Service
specialists, we do somewhat better there, 8.89 percent
Hispanic--of course, that is a smaller universe--and 8.9
percent African-Americans.
That is not progress. The Hispanic community in this
country is growing and already represents 13 percent of the
overall American population.
So can you speak to me about what we are doing--this is
something I raised with you when you were up for your
nomination and have raised since--to change this reality?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, first, thank you for the words
that you had for our department and for the Foreign Service
Officers. It means a lot to them to hear people like you
compliment their work.
Second, on the issue we have discussed before, and that you
have raised on the diversity of our work force, you are right.
We are expanding some of things that we are doing, because we
have identified the things that we think most effectively
enhance the diversity of our work force.
So like you and the bill last year, we are trying to expand
the Pickering and Rangel fellowships because we see that as a
particularly useful way of bringing in more diverse Foreign
Service Officers.
The year-over-year data and the trends are good and moving
in the right direction, but we can only hire to attrition in
the Foreign Service. We are only bringing in a couple hundred
officers a year. So it is going to take us a while to see the
impact of really bringing in a more diverse work force.
I feel confident that we are moving in the right direction.
We are not satisfied with it. We do not look at these numbers
and say that we have accomplished our mission.
So we are increasing our budget request by 50 percent to do
some of those things. We are expanding--again, because we think
it is effective, and we have seen the data--the paid internship
program that brings in underrepresented groups for two summers
of service in the State Department and hopefully brings them
into the process.
Secretary Kerry has asked all of his Assistant Secretary
level and above officers to do domestic recruiting trips
coordinated with our diplomats in residence, so we are hitting
the right places. And we are using the tools that we have to
make the progress that we need.
But we know we have a big challenge. That is bringing in
more people but then ensuring that they stay and that they are
in those senior leadership positions.
So we have just begun a partnership with the Cox Foundation
to evaluate our mentorship and retention programs, because,
again, we want to make sure we are using the limited resources
we do have in the most effective way.
So I am encouraged that there is progress. We are not
satisfied with the result, and we have made it a top priority
for the Secretary, for this administration, as reflected in the
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.
As always, Senator, we want to take your good
recommendations and advice as we try to do this work, because
we share the same objectives and share some of your frustration
as well.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, just a comment.
I appreciate your answer, but after 24 years, I have heard
much of the same. That is 2.5 decades almost.
This starts at the top. Like any organization, if at the
top you say to those below you, ``I will judge you in part by
how you create diversity within your bureaus and departments,''
believe me, people will follow.
We just have not had that commitment. So I look forward to
working with you and the committee to make it happen, not for
diversity's sake alone, but for what it brings to our foreign
diplomacy.
The Chairman. If I could, before turning to Senator
Gardner, I think, let us face it, when you come in as Secretary
of State, you want to be known for the diplomatic breakthroughs
that you make. It is rare that we end up having a Secretary of
State that actually focuses on building a department and the
caring and feeding of troops. I think we have had one or two in
recent times over short periods of time.
But that is why I think having a State Department
authorization that stresses those things, and by law forces
those kinds of things to be happening, with oversight, matters
a great deal.
I want to thank you again for leading that effort with
diplomatic security on the front end, and Senator Cardin and
the rest of the committee for caring about us seeing this
through.
Senator Gardner?
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here to testify today.
I just want to follow up a little bit on what Senator
Barrasso was talking about. Did Congress approved the Green
Climate Fund?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, as I said previously, we
reviewed with our lawyers the authorities we had and had
provided resources in accordance with authorities to meet
what----
Senator Gardner. Right. But the fund itself, I mean, it
went into an account. Did Congress approve that account that it
went into?
Ms. Higginbottom. We have the authorities that Congress
provided us to make that payment.
Senator Gardner. But did Congress approve it?
Ms. Higginbottom. Did Congress----
Senator Gardner. The account, the Green Climate Fund.
Ms. Higginbottom. They passed an appropriations bill that
we have reviewed the authorities of and have used to make this
payment.
Senator Gardner. If I understand how this works, money came
out of somewhere. Where did it come from?
Ms. Higginbottom. The funding is from the Economic Support
Fund accounts.
Senator Gardner. Which specific line items?
Ms. Higginbottom. The way the account works----
Senator Gardner. And the Economic Support Fund does what?
Ms. Higginbottom. It supports programming in lots of
different countries to address a lot of different issues
related to economic growth and opportunity.
Senator Gardner. So we took money out of there, $500
million. All that money came from that program?
Ms. Higginbottom. Correct. It is a very large account, some
of which----
Senator Gardner. And you put it into a----
Ms. Higginbottom. Excuse me. Some of which is directed
toward countries and programs, and others that the department
has the authority to allocate as it sees fit.
Senator Gardner. So the department sees that allocation as
it sees fit to put it into a Green Climate Fund that Congress
did not approve.
Ms. Higginbottom. Congress provided us with the authority
to make this payment.
Senator Gardner. But let us be clear, Congress never
approved a Green Climate Fund, correct?
Ms. Higginbottom. We proposed a budget that included
support for the Green Climate Fund. We have reviewed our
authorities----
Senator Gardner. Has that budget been approved?
Ms. Higginbottom. In fiscal year 2016, the----
Senator Gardner. Has the President's budget, though----
Ms. Higginbottom. We received an appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2016. And from those resources, and reviewing our
authorities, have determined we could make this contribution,
which we have done.
Senator Gardner. But the Green Climate Fund itself, just
yes or no, this is a pretty simple answer, was it approved by
Congress, yes or no?
Ms. Higginbottom. Did Congress authorize the Green Climate
Fund, no. It is not a----
Senator Gardner. Okay, so you did not authorize--so how
then----
Ms. Higginbottom. Because----
Senator Gardner. If Congress did not authorize the Green
Climate Fund, as you just said, how can $500 million go to--did
you notify Congress of this?
Ms. Higginbottom. The payment that we made did not require
congressional notification in the traditional way that you
would notify on funds through an appropriations process.
Notifications have been made----
Senator Gardner. Why would it not require----
Ms. Higginbottom. Because the authority did not require it.
Senator, we would be pleased to provide to you and other
members of the committee the legal analysis and rationale for
how we did this.
Senator Gardner. Of the $54 billion the State Department
has received fiscal year 2016, can all of that money be just
reprogrammed by lawyers at the department?
Ms. Higginbottom. The actual appropriation is $50 billion,
not $54 billion, but no, it cannot.
Senator Gardner. I am sorry, so it is--the actual is $54.59
billion the actual fiscal year 2016, according to the documents
we have from the committee.
Ms. Higginbottom. Okay. So, no, no. There are certain
accounts and provisions that have to be notified to Congress.
Senator Gardner. So the Green Climate Fund was not
authorized by Congress, no notification was given to Congress
of this. When were you planning on notifying Congress of this?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, as I said, we have reviewed the
authority and the process under which we can do it, and our
lawyers and we have determined that we had the ability to do
it.
I pledge to you and to other members, we will be happy to
provide that legal analysis and the additional details.
Senator Gardner. So nothing is overfunded, you stated in
your answer to Senator Barrasso. But now, you would then
testify I guess with $500 million gone, is the account that you
just mentioned now underfunded?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, I would not say it is
underfunded. We proposed a budget that reflected the
contribution to the Green Climate Fund, so as we allocated
resources and planned for fiscal year 2016, and we submitted a
budget that, actually, we received an appropriation above. So,
no, nothing is overfunded, and we----
Senator Gardner. So nothing is overfunded and nothing is
underfunded now. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Higginbottom. Of course, we have to make tradeoffs in
our budget all the time. Are we making $500 million worth----
Senator Gardner. So let me just ask you this, though,
because I think this is the heart of the distrust between the
executive branch and the legislative branch. I would say this
no matter who is in the administration. I do not care what
party they are in. The challenge is we have a Constitution that
makes it very clear, that says appropriations are carried out
by the legislative branch.
When you sit here before the American people and say that
the Green Climate Fund was never approved by Congress and yet
$500 million just went to it, I do not think that lawyers can
replace the Constitution. Lawyers do not replace the
constitutional requirements that Congress approve these funds
in this appropriation.
That money could have been--if there is money available, we
have had arguments on the floor of the Senate for the past
several weeks that, yes, this would take additional
appropriations language, there is no doubt about it, but that
$500 million could have been put toward Flint, Michigan, with
the appropriate language.
If this was money that was a tradeoff that could have gone
to other nations, what about putting that toward Flint,
Michigan? Sure, it would require appropriate language.
What about putting that money into an opiate bill that we
talked about on the floor? Yes, it would take language by
Congress to make that law happen.
But here we are, writing a $500 million check from an
account in the State Department to create a Green Climate Fund
that Congress did not approve when we have been having
arguments about where we are going to spend this money.
I think we wonder why the American people do not trust
Congress, why they do not trust the administration? Here is a
perfect example of why.
A couple other questions for you. I think in your testimony
you stated that there was a breach, I will quote, `` As the
breach of our own unclassified email system in 2014
demonstrated, our adversaries see information handled by the
Department--and many other U.S. Government departments and
agencies--as a desirable target. Protecting our information as
we face increasingly sophisticated, frequent, and well-
organized cyberattacks is one of the Department's top
priorities.''
How much money is the State Department requesting in 2017
for cybersecurity efforts?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, I will have to follow up and
provide the exact amount, but we did ask for an increase. And
we are undertaking several different lines of effort to improve
the security and safety of our systems.
We have already implemented several measures, and we are
working across the interagency with a team of experts to both
re-architect some of the aspects of our system to make our
information more secure, and also ensure we are learning across
the Federal Government the best tactics to provide security.
So we did ask for additional resources in our central IT
fund to make some of those upgrades that we are planning. We
have also looked across all of our systems, our consular
systems, our unclassified OpenNet system, to identify those
vulnerabilities. I will not speak in more detail about them,
but it is a very comprehensive----
Senator Gardner. How long did it take to completely root
out the 2014 breach?
Ms. Higginbottom. I am sorry?
Senator Gardner. How long did it take to completely root
out and figure out the 2014 breach?
Ms. Higginbottom. I do not have the exact amount of time,
but we can follow up with you. It may be appropriate to do it
in different setting.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen?
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here, Deputy Secretary
Higginbottom. I along with the rest of the committee look
forward to hearing the explanation for how you are able to
transfer funds into the Green Climate Fund. But I have to say
that I, for one, am very glad that the United States is taking
action to address climate change. I am very pleased that we
joined more than 180 other nations in Paris to come to an
agreement to address climate.
In my home State of New Hampshire, we are experiencing one
of the warmest winters with the least snow we have ever seen.
It is having an impact on our ski industry. It is having an
impact on our wildlife. It is having an impact on our energy
use.
For those people who do not think we should be taking
action to address climate change, I hope they would look at the
science and recognize that this is a very important issue, and
it is very important for us in the administration and Congress
to address it.
So thank you very much.
I want to ask about the strategy behind the new Global
Engagement Center, which has replaced the Counterterrorism
Strategic Communications Center. I sit on both the Armed
Services Committee and this committee, and one of the things
that has come up repeatedly has been the ability of our
enemies, whether it be ISIS or other foreign powers, to use
propaganda to promote their goals.
When I ask questions about what we are doing in response to
that, it is very hard to get an answer that acknowledges the
coordination that needs to go on and how various departments
and agencies are working together to address this concern.
So can you talk about that, and can you also talk about how
this engagement center is going to work with the Department of
Homeland Security, how you are going to work with efforts in
the Department of Defense to respond to both countering violent
extremism and the other propaganda efforts that are underway?
Ms. Higginbottom. Yes, thank you very much, Senator.
We took a hard look at the work that we were doing to
counter violent extremist messaging and propaganda, and in
partnership with the private sector and others determined that
we did not have the right approach. It was not as effective as
we wanted it to be.
So the Global Engagement Center, which is being led by a
former Assistant Secretary from the Department of Defense, is
really about building partnerships with both the private sector
and countries around the world, because we recognize that while
we have an important role to play in developing some content
and working with our partners, we are not always the best
deliverer of those messages, and we need to bring other people
into this effort. That is a big part of the approach.
As you point out, this is a government-wide effort, both
countering violent extremism but also in the messaging. So we
are ensuring that this model is really about building the
partnerships and communication coordination and getting the
appropriate messages out, delivered by the right people who are
the more effective messengers.
So we have really, really changed how we are doing this
work and, in making this shift, consulted with some experts in
Silicon Valley and other places who are very engaged in how you
reach people over social media and brought those lessons-
learned into this as well.
Senator Shaheen. So do we have any recent success stories
that we can speak to, or specifics about how this is actually
getting it done?
Ms. Higginbottom. Senator, I hope we will soon. We have a
lot of success stories about the sort of hub and spokes that we
are establishing in different parts of the world, Southeast
Asia, the Middle East, to be our partners. But we are just now
standing up with Assistant Secretary Lumpkin and his team the
real work.
But we have laid a lot of the groundwork, so I hope we can
update you soon with some more specific examples of the success
we are having and why this approach is the right one to take.
Senator Shaheen. I know that the Broadcasting Board of
Governors is designated as an independent agency, but clearly,
they are doing work that is very important to this effort. And
the more coordinated we can be, the more successful we will be.
So can you talk about how what this new center will be doing
will be working with BBG on their efforts?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Rick Stengel, is
on the BBG board and very engaged with their efforts and also
leading our effort with Michael Lumpkin on the Global
Engagement Center. So we have good coordination and means of
communication there.
It is an independent agency, but certainly, we should
understand all the tools at our disposal, and it is in all of
our interests to be engaged in this.
So there is a good way for us to communicate and to do it
in a way that is appropriate, given their independent nature.
Senator Shaheen. I want to go back and pick up on the issue
that Senator Murphy raised about the refugee situation, because
as we look at the increasing numbers of refugees, the threat
that that poses to Europe, to the EU, as we look at the
challenges that our allies Jordan and Lebanon and Turkey are
having with their refugee camps, I would urge that we should be
increasing those budgets, rather than decreasing them.
If one of our allies in the Middle East who has significant
numbers of refugees falls apart because of the numbers of
refugees in that country, it is going to be a whole lot more
expensive than increasing the funding that we can make in those
humanitarian efforts and providing the food and assistance that
they will need.
So can you speak to what more we ought to be doing to
address that?
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Senator.
The United States is the largest contributor of
humanitarian aid in the world. We do not see any scenario in
which that is likely to change in the short term. But what we
have recognized, from the President to the Secretary and on
down, is that to really deal with the scale of the crises we
are facing right now, we need more people, more countries to be
supporting the U.N. system, the humanitarian system, as well as
to accept refugees, even those countries that are doing a lot
already.
Certainly, some of those that you mentioned, Jordan,
Lebanon, others, are really on the frontlines. But a lot of
countries are doing a lot, and we need even those countries to
step up and do more.
The President will be working, as will the Secretary, to
engage their colleagues around the world to try to get those
commitments.
We see that as really the important step of making the
system more efficient, aligning ourselves so that the U.N.
system can be even more effective, but also trying to get
additional countries into the space in whatever way they can.
For some, it is providing education and training opportunities.
For others, it would be accepting refugees. Certainly,
humanitarian aid, as well.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly support that effort. But it is
hard to have conversations with some of the countries that we
are calling upon who come back and say, well, the United States
is accepting a very small number of refugees. The United States
has not been willing to support--Lebanon, 25 percent of its
population, for example, are refugees.
So to say to a country like that, ``You need to be doing
more,'' I think, given our size, given our budget, it is hard
to make that argument in a way that really is heard as being
serious.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Cardin I know had some additional comments and
questions.
Senator Cardin. Well, I have some comments, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again for this hearing. The bottom line is, we need
to pass an authorization bill.
Just in regard to the climate fund, I just really want to
make a couple statements. First, I agree with you on
transparency and information to our committee. I fully support
that. I think we need to be kept totally apprised.
Climate change is a huge issue for the security of America.
What happened in Paris with 190 nations coming together was a
major milestone.
As we move forward, we need to find a bipartisan path where
we support these efforts. Many of us who strongly support what
the administration is doing have reached out and will continue
to reach out, so that we can have bipartisan support for
America's leadership on this issue. It is important to our
national security, as our military has suggested. It is also
important for our environmental legacy and our economic future.
Having said that, the legal authority in regard to
supporting the climate fund was never in doubt. I would just
remind the committee of the discussions on the omnibus
appropriations bill. This was an issue that was in discussion,
the President's authorities. It was clear that his authority
would not be limited.
It is not unusual to use these funds to contribute to
international efforts. This is not a U.S. fund. This is an
international fund. This is not something that we created, that
the President created. It was international efforts.
We have contributed to international refugee efforts that
have been named, and we have not authorized specifically
appropriations to those funds. The administration uses its
legal authority that it has on appropriated funds.
So I do not think this is that unusual, except it is
controversial, I would agree with the chairman. And I would
urge the chairman's advice on transparency be adhered to,
because I agree with the chairman on that point.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cardin. I
appreciate that.
I appreciate you being here today. I know there is a lot of
work that we have to do together to craft something that we can
actually put into law. Your testimony today has been helpful
toward that end. We appreciate it. And we look forward to you
continually working with us until we get something across the
finish line.
I know there will be a number of questions by other
members. First of all, without objection, the record will be
open through the close of business Thursday. If you could get
back fairly quickly with responses, we would appreciate it.
The Chairman. Again, we thank you and the people who are
with you for your service to our country.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
Ms. Higginbottom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy
Secretary of State Heather Higginbottom by Senator Jeff Flake
Question 1. In making this request, has the administration
considered the potential impact that U.N. recognition of a Palestinian
state in the absence of direct negotiations with Israel would have on
U.S. national interests?
Answer. We continue to oppose Palestinian efforts to join
specialized agencies at the United Nations. We believe that Palestinian
efforts to pursue endorsements of statehood claims through the U.N.
system outside of a negotiated settlement are counterproductive.
However, it does not serve the U.S. national interest to respond to
Palestinian efforts or those of their allies by withholding our
contributions to U.N. specialized agencies. Withholding of U.S.
contributions could hinder the U.N. specialized agencies from carrying
out work we value highly, limit U.S. influence in these organizations,
and undermine our ability to pursue important U.S. objectives--such as
working against anti-Israeli resolutions and initiatives.
This request seeks Congressional support for legislation that would
provide the administration with the authority to waive restrictions
that currently prohibit paying U.S. contributions to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The U.S.
position and support for a two-state solution has not changed.
U.S. leadership in UNESCO is critical in combating anti-Israel
bias, promoting freedom of expression, and countering violent
extremism. U.S. leadership in UNESCO also supports implementation of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including in the areas of
education, gender equality, promoting the health of our oceans and
improving weather forecasting, leveraging traditional donor resources
by driving innovation and science and technology, and protecting
fundamental freedoms and promoting the rule of law. During the 39th
UNESCO General Conference in November 2015, the United States secured
the removal of inflammatory language in an Arab Group resolution on the
Western Wall, and we are consistently the only reliable ``no'' vote on
anti-Israel resolutions, while expanding the number of member states
who have supported our position in defense of Israel in key
resolutions. The United States has also consistently been the primary
supporter for UNESCO's unique Holocaust education program, which due to
budget shortfalls is at risk of ending.
Question 2. How are U.S. national interests served by contributing
to UNESCO?
Answer. U.S. leadership in the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is critical in combating
anti-Israel bias; promoting freedom of expression; countering and
preventing violent extremism; supporting implementation of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, including in the area of education;
gender equality; promoting the health of our oceans and improving
weather forecasting; leveraging traditional donor resources by driving
innovation and science and technology; and protecting fundamental
freedoms and promoting the rule of law.
The administration continues to oppose unilateral actions in
intergovernmental bodies that circumvent outcomes that can only be
negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, including Palestinian
statehood. However, it does not serve the U.S. national interest to
respond to Palestinian efforts or those of their allies by withholding
our contributions to U.N. specialized agencies. Withholding of U.S.
contributions could hinder the U.N. specialized agencies from carrying
out work we value highly, limit U.S. influence in these organizations,
and undermine our ability to pursue important U.S. objectives--such as
working against anti-Israeli resolutions and initiatives.
Over our objections, the member states of UNESCO voted to admit the
Palestinians as a member state in 2011. The United States has not paid
any part of the U.S. assessments to UNESCO for calendar years 2011
through 2016 as required by current law. As a result of our arrears,
the United States lost its vote in the UNESCO General Conference in
2013.
Because of specific benefits of full participation in UNESCO, the
Department seeks Congressional support for legislation that would
provide the administration with the authority to waive restrictions
that currently prohibit paying U.S. contributions to UNESCO. The FY
2017 request includes transfer authority to pay up to $160 million
(approximately two years' worth) of outstanding assessments to UNESCO,
should such a waiver be enacted.
Question 3. This year's request includes $806 million for ``base
budget'' funding and $1.58 billion for OCO-designated contributions to
international peacekeeping missions. FY 2017 ``OCO missions'' include
UNDOF, UNIFIL, ICTY, UNOCI, UNAMID, UNSOS, MONUSCO, MICT, UNISFA,
UNMISS, and MINUSMA. All of the ``OCO missions'' detailed in the budget
request have been in force for years, and some of them have been
ongoing since 1974, 1978, and 2003.
Does the Department intend to pay for all of these outlined
missions solely with OCO-designated funds?
Answer. The request for all the missions listed above with the
exception of the U.N. Organization Stabilization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) is to fund them through OCO
in FY 2017. The assessment for the U.N. Organization Stabilization
Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) will be
funded using both Enduring and OCO funds.
Question 4. What criteria does the Department use in determining
what missions will be ``OCO missions'' and which ones will not be?
Answer. The FY 2017 OCO request reflects the Bipartisan Budget
Agreement (BBA) increased allocation for OCO in both the CIO and CIPA
accounts.
The OCO allocation for CIO represents a slight expansion over past
congressional practice, adding the U.N. special political missions in
Libya and Somalia to the previously OCO-funded missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The FY 2017 CIPA OCO request aligns with intent of the
administration and the FY 2016 Statement of Managers which states that
OCO funds may be used to prevent, address, and help countries recover
from manmade-caused crises and natural disasters, particularly in
Africa and the Near East.
This informed the identification of nine ongoing peacekeeping
missions and three war crime tribunals to be funded with OCO in FY
2016. These were continued in FY 2017, with the following exceptions:
the deletion of one war crime tribunal, ICTR, and one mission, UNMIL,
which are both projected to close in FY 2017, as well as the addition
of one mission, UNSOA, which per the appropriations language is funded
by the Peacekeeping Operations account in FY 2016.
Question 5. The budget request states that the OCO funding
mechanism will allow ``the Department to deal with the extraordinary
activities critical to our immediate national security objectives.''
How are some of these missions--which have been around for so long they
practically are a part of our base budget--``critical to our immediate
national security objectives?''
Answer. The United States benefits from the work of United Nations
missions worldwide, whether shorter-lived political mediation efforts
or longer-term peacekeeping operations. The U.N.'s long-standing
missions play an important role in preserving international peace and
security, often in areas with asymmetric threats, supporting efforts to
find enduring political solutions to seemingly intractable or volatile
disputes, as we have seen in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East,
the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, and South Sudan, to name a few.
These situations are often in flux, and the political and security
environment can shift dramatically.
Most missions have a very difficult task that requires grit,
patience, and flexibility--to move a political peace forward even with
the threat of conflict. South Sudan's mission started as support to
state-building for a new nation, for example, but today it shelters
over 200,000 civilians fleeing a civil conflict. In Mali, efforts for a
political peace are bearing fruit even as extremists challenge peace
across the region. Thus, we look hard at these operations, but when we
support them it is because they are critical partners in support of
U.S. objectives. We continue to support missions and actions that can
help lead to the needed political solutions.
We also know that missions that are winding down face critical
transitions, such as in Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire, where force
reductions reflect the on-going transfer of responsibility to the
government and the people of those countries.
Thus, we remain focused both on how current missions can be
successful, and how they can be appropriately reduced or reshaped as
the situation requires. As you know, we review the mandates of each
peacekeeping mission constantly, and months before the Security Council
considers a mandate renewal we analyze a mission's alignment of tasks,
strategic objectives, and ability to deliver on the mandate. This
analysis is informed by visits to peacekeeping operations by State
Department officers.
The United States continues to support renewals of the mandate of
the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), created in 1978,
as an important element in promoting Lebanon's sovereignty and
stability and countering violent extremism in the region. UNIFIL's
presence in southern Lebanon, in support of the Lebanese government's
extension of state authority, also helps contain tensions along the
border with Israel. We also support this goal through our bilateral
efforts to train and equip the Lebanese Armed Forces, which work
alongside UNIFIL to maintain stability.
The U.N. Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), established in 2003, has been
a key part of the U.S. strategy to promote security and stability in
Liberia. The Liberian security agencies, including the Liberian
National Police, have now assumed responsibility for day-to-day
security and require little to no UNMIL support in response to riots or
other serious disturbances. Given these positive developments, the
United States supported the Security Council's decision in September
2015 to reduce UNMIL's military and police components, in anticipation
of the transition of full responsibility for security to the Government
of Liberia (GOL) on June 30, 2016. Based on the results of that
transition and the overall situation in Liberia, the Security Council
will consider in December 2016 whether to extend UNMIL's mandate or
transition to some other form of U.N. support.
Question 6. The Bipartisan Budget Act from last year sets
``targets'' on OCO funding of $14.9 billion for each fiscal year 2016
and 2017 for the international affairs budget function. These targets
are not caps, and there is nothing that would prevent Congress from
appropriating additional OCO funds beyond these targets. The
administration's OCO request for international affairs for FY 2017 is
$14,894,989,000.
Do you see any reason why OCO funding for State and Foreign
Operations accounts should be increased beyond what you've
requested in this fiscal year?
What challenges does it present to the State Department from a
budgeting perspective when Congress appropriates more in OCO
funds than the administration requested?
Answer. The FY 2017 Request is in line with the OCO levels set in
the Bipartisan Budget Agreement (BBA) of 2015. This agreement provided
a higher percentage of the Department's resources in OCO than has been
the case in recent years. Consequently, the Department shifted a number
of programs into OCO that were traditionally funded from Enduring. In
the FY 2017 Request, OCO funds support programs that will allow the
Department of State and USAID to prevent, address, and recover from
man-made crises and natural disasters and secure State and USAID global
operations. While the Department acknowledges the current challenging
fiscal climate which necessitated this shift from base to OCO, an
appropriation that increases OCO above the FY 2017 request would prove
challenging to accommodate, given the number of programs remaining in
the Enduring request that could not fit an OCO definition.
The BBA infusion of OCO funding also complicates budget execution
because OCO funding must be managed separately from Enduring funds. OCO
and Enduring funds must be kept separate and therefore accounting
procedures must be employed to avoid comingling of funds. Additionally,
OCO funding is intended for use in specific situations. This reduces
the resources available to the Department of State and USAID when
unexpected contingencies arise in programs and regions that do not
generally program OCO funds.
Base funds are critically important to ensuring long term support
for critical Department of State and USAID programs. We look forward to
working with Congress to re-establish the Department's Enduring base
funding as we move toward the FY 2018 budget.
Question 7. The Department is requesting $150 million in OCO-
designated funding for a new account called the ``Mechanism for Peace
Operations Response,'' which will ``support critical requirements for
peace operations and activities that emerge outside of the regular
budget cycle.''
Can you provide examples of instances in which these funds might be
used?
Answer. In recent years, the Department has faced the recurring
challenge of addressing unanticipated requirements in support of
peacekeeping operations, including U.N. peacekeeping operations, and
activities that emerge outside of the regular budget cycle. An example
of an instance in which the Mechanism for Peace Operations Response
might be used includes providing support, if needed, for the United
Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). As of the submission of the FY 2017
President's Request UNMIL is projected to close, which is contingent
upon an assessment of the political and security situation in the
country. Should the U.N. Security Council decide to extend the mission,
the MPOR account could support the assessment. More broadly, the
Mechanism could provide support to missions involving the United
Nations, regional security partnerships, collation peacekeeping
efforts, or forces which promote the peaceful resolution of conflict.
Question 8. Between the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account and
the Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA)
account, why is this new account necessary, especially considering that
the administration is requesting $350 million in OCO funding for the
PKO account and $1.58 billion in the CIPA account?
Answer. The administration seeks the Mechanism for Peace Operations
Response (MPOR) in order to have the flexibility to respond to urgent
and unexpected peacekeeping requirements, both assessed (via the
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account)
and voluntary (via the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account). The
administration's request for the CIPA and PKO accounts are supporting
known, identified missions and efforts; the CIPA request supports on-
going missions and the PKO request supports critical bilateral and
regional peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and security sector reform
efforts.
MPOR will address the unpredictability continuously demonstrated in
the requirements of the CIPA and PKO accounts. The Mechanism will
provide the administration with the ability to respond expeditiously to
unforeseen requirements without the risk of endangering critical,
ongoing, budgeted peacekeeping efforts or other national security
priorities.
__________
Response to a Question for the Record Submitted to Deputy
Secretary of State Heather Higginbottom by Senator Cory Gardner
Question 1. On March 8, 2015, the administration announced that it
has contributed $500 million to the United Nations Green Climate Fund
(GCF). As you stated during the hearing before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, the GCF was not authorized by Congress, no funds
were ever appropriated for the GCF, and the $500 million was
reprogrammed from the Economic Support Fund (ESF). You also stated that
this action was based on a legal analysis performed by the State
Department prior to the release of these funds. By no later than March
17, 2016, will you provide a detailed legal justification to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee pertaining to the $500 million disbursal to
the GCF?
Answer. The Department issued a grant to support the activities and
programs of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) from resources provided in the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Div. K, P.L. 114-113) (SFOAA). Specifically,
Congress provided $4.3 billion in the SFOAA for the Economic Support
Fund (ESF), which is appropriated to carry out chapter 4 of part II of
the Foreign Assistance Act. These ESF authorities are used to fund a
variety of foreign assistance programs, including environmental
programs. The ESF account is a primary account through which the
administration requested funding to support the GCF in the President's
FY 2016 Budget Request. While over one-half of the ESF account is
earmarked for specific programs or activities, the remainder is
available for other programs to carry out the ESF authority in the
Foreign Assistance Act and is available to provide grants to support
environmental programs.
The Department used a portion of the unearmarked ESF funds for the
grant to support the GCF. This use of funds is consistent with the
authorities in the FAA and the SFOAA, and it is clearly within the
amounts appropriated for ESF in the SFOAA. Moreover, provision of ESF
funds to support environmental programs, including through grants to
multilateral trust funds, is consistent with longstanding practice.
__________
Response to Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy
Secretary of State Heather Higginbottom by Senator David Perdue
Question 1. What progress has been made on the notification of all
investigations? Is the IG notified of all appropriate investigations
(define what you consider appropriate)? If so, how soon is the IG
notified of the investigations? What progress is being made to ensure
that there's more transparency in investigations at State?
Answer. The Department recognizes and embraces the indispensable
role the Department's Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) fulfills
in providing oversight for diplomatic initiatives, programs, and
personnel around the world. The OIG's expansive responsibilities to
guard against fraud, waste, and mismanagement, inspect each of the
approximately 260 diplomatic facilities worldwide, and conduct
inspections evaluations, and audits in support of the Department's
mission help to strengthen public trust by ensuring taxpayer dollars
are spent in an effective, judicious manner.
The Department has a longtime practice of referring cases to the
OIG and working collaboratively with the OIG. Moreover, the Department
continues to engage OIG in discussions on how the various investigating
bodies within and outside the Department can coordinate and deconflict
their efforts so as to avoid inefficiencies.
In this regard, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)'s Office of
Special Investigations (OSI) passes all cases involving the Senior
Foreign Service, generally within one week of receiving an allegation,
otherwise as soon as possible after the facts of wrong-doing can be
established. The OIG frequently requests information on specific DS
investigations, which DS has continued to fulfill.
DS also coordinates closely with the Department of Justice in
investigating passport and visa fraud, mishandling of classified
information and other allegations of criminal misconduct.
In addition to DS, other entities are specifically entrusted with
investigating particular types of allegations that fall outside OIG's
traditional core competences. For example, Hatch Act violations and
whistleblower disclosure/protection are investigated and prosecuted by
the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Complaints of discrimination
and harassment are investigated by the Department's Office of Civil
Rights and adjudicated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and/or federal district courts.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) adjudicates grievances
and appeals of adverse personnel actions. Certain other matters may
technically fall under the broad jurisdiction of the OIG but, as a
practical matter, are more efficiently addressed at the administrative
or management level or by the Department's Office of the Ombudsman.
Examples include, but are not limited to, time and attendance
violations, non-fraudulent misuse of government credit cards, and
workplace conflict not involving violence or threats of violence.
Employees are encouraged to report alleged misconduct and should
feel free to bring their complaints to the attention of entities that
are best suited to investigate such allegations.
Question 2. Could you give me an update on where creating an
independent IT network for the State IG stands today? Have improvements
been made to ensure the security of the IG's networks?
Answer. OIG's Security and Modernization Project (Project) is
underway with migration scheduled for this summer. OIG's network and
systems will be independently managed by OIG and will be separate from
the Department's existing IT environment. The Project enhances OIG's
independence and overall IT security. To successfully complete the
Project on time, OIG continues to rely on the Department for its
cooperation. As an interim step to ensure the security of OIG's network
and systems, OIG and the Department executed an agreement requiring
notification to OIG whenever the Department accesses OIG information.
OIG is also working to establish an agreement with the Department to
leverage OIG's remote access system as the primary means for OIG end
users to access Department resources from the OIG IT environment.
Question 3. Recently, the Department had an interesting, unintended
experiment. Due to the federal pay freeze from 2011-2013, local staff
wages fell below the 50th percentile at some posts. Since then, State
has been steadily increasing wages since the freeze was lifted in 2014,
and now has adopted a policy that local staff wages at every post will
be at least the 60th percentile of the prevailing wage for employment
in that labor market. When some of these local wages fell below the
50th percentile, did you see a massive decrease in applications to work
at American embassies? Did local employees quit en masse?
Answer. The Department manages separate compensation plans at
almost 180 different Missions all around the world; therefore, it is
somewhat difficult to make generalizations.
However, during the 2011--2013 wage freeze, the Department did
experience an increase in attrition at almost all of our overseas
Missions. There was a significant increase in attrition at some
missions, especially for higher graded positions where more qualified
and experienced employees have more employment options outside of our
Missions. Many of our Missions also reported a higher number of
preferred candidates refusing our salary offers. Other Missions
reported a significant reduction in the number and/or quality of
applicants they received as compared to before the wage freeze.
No groups of employees quit en masse. However, many missions
reported threats of strikes, work slowdowns, ``sit-ins'' and ``sick-
outs.'' After discussing the consequences of these actions with Locally
Employed (LE) Staff, no serious actions actually occurred, but it was
clear that at many of our posts our LE Staff wanted to send an
unambiguous message to mission management of their intense
dissatisfaction with the lack of wage increases. Several missions
reported large numbers of LE Staff wearing black armbands or black tee-
shirts in protest. Universally, missions reported a steep decline in
morale among LE Staff and a lingering sense of unhappiness and
mistrust, which continues even now.
Disturbingly, in the world's poorest regions, mission management
reports genuine concerns about our LE Staff in lower graded positions
falling below the poverty level. In places like Port au Prince, Haiti,
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, and Managua, Nicaragua, for example,
mission management report that our LE Staff in lower graded positions
have difficulties feeding, clothing, and educating their families. The
Department reacts quickly to changes in minimum wage and as soon as the
wage freeze was lifted prioritized missions that had fallen furthest
below the 50th percentile as compared to their labor market targets and
made timely adjustments at these posts, when warranted.
Question 4. Could you explain why the Department set a policy to
pay local staff at posts at the 60th percentile or more of their local
labor markets? What is the justification for the 60th percentile?
Answer. The Department endeavors to compete with other progressive
local, multi-national and international employers in each of the labor
markets where we employ local staff in support of our Missions.
After the three-year wage freeze, the Department developed a policy
and strategy to adjust the compensation of local staff in their
respective local labor markets. In an effort to recalibrate the market
position of our employees in their local labor market, the Department
began moving employees from the 50th percentile of their local labor
market (an average position in the market) to the 60th percentile of
their local labor market when setting salary rates. As we continue to
calibrate labor market positions consistent with the policy, the
Department developed criteria to determine how competitive a Mission
needs to be in the local labor market based on a set of factors applied
globally. These factors are: a) attrition, b) recruitment, c) economic
and political uncertainty, d) unemployment, and e) unique labor market
conditions. A review of these factors at each Mission is used to
determine if placement should be at the 60th percentile or higher in
order to recruit and retain the caliber of local staff needed to ensure
our Missions advance our priority policy and programmatic objectives.
Question 5. I understand that not all Embassy Construction money
that was previously budgeted has been obligated. How much is
unobligated of prior-year funds? Why has that money not been spent yet?
Why is the State Department requesting a 6% increase in Embassy
Construction funds, when you still have significant carry-over from
prior years?
Answer. Due to the multi-year nature of the Department's overseas
construction projects, the Embassy Security, Construction, and
Maintenance (ESCM) account is a no-year appropriation that is available
until expended. The Department, with congressional encouragement,
budgets the full cost of each project up front, but those funds are
obligated over several years through the life of the project.
Typically, 60-70 percent of the budget is obligated in the first year
with the award of the construction contract. The remaining 30-40
percent is obligated in subsequent years for ongoing project costs such
as the Department's on site project supervision and construction
security, telephone systems and furniture, and construction
contingency.
There is currently $8.6 billion unobligated in the ESCM account, of
which $8.0 billion, or 93 percent, is dedicated to over 80 major
construction and renovation projects that are in various stages of
design or construction. Nearly $3 billion of this is for projects with
planned construction contract awards by the end of 2016.
All of the unobligated funding is associated with ongoing projects
and will be obligated as those projects are completed. Therefore, it is
not available for new projects to offset the amounts requested in the
FY 2017 budget. In the event that projects have remaining balances upon
completion, the Department will apply those funds to future projects
via the congressional reprogramming process.
The 6 percent increase requested in FY 2017 is associated with an
increase in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding to support
the final components of transition in Kabul. The FY 2017 ESCM request
for Kabul is $282 million, which is an increase of $158 million over
the FY 2016 appropriation. Excluding the increase for Kabul, the
remainder of the ESCM request is actually a $23 million decrease from
the FY 2016 level.
Question 6. Per your commitment in the hearing, could you supply
any information you have on these new embassy construction projects,
including location, projected timeline, projected cost, and
justification for each project? Is it possible to make this information
more easily accessible in a single location?
Answer. The FY 2017 request includes funding for the following
projects:
Guatemala City, Guatemala
Prior Year Funding: $37.5 million
FY 2017 Request: $462.0 million
Total: $499.5 million
Anticipated Contract Award: July 2017
Anticipated construction completion: Summer 2021
The existing U.S. Embassy in Guatemala City, Guatemala, is one of
the Department's most vulnerable facilities. It does not conform to
current Department security, co-location, and operational requirements.
The construction of a New Embassy Compound (NEC) is the only feasible
alternative to provide a consolidated, secure, safe, and functional
embassy.
The NEC will include a new chancery, Marine security guard
residence (MSGR), support and warehouse facilities, a utility building,
perimeter security, parking, and community facilities.
Kampala, Uganda
Prior Year Funding: $16 million
FY 2017 Request: $473.0 million
Total: $489 million
Anticipated Contract Award: September 2017
Anticipated construction completion: Fall 2021
Some of the facilities in Kampala, Uganda, do not conform to
current Department security, co-location, and operational requirements.
Embassy facilities are also plagued with severe space shortages and
overcrowding. This project is the only feasible alternative to provide
a consolidated, secure, safe, and functional embassy in Kampala.
This proposed project includes a new office annex building (NOX)
with controlled access area (CAA) space, the renovation of the existing
chancery and USAID annex, new support and community facilities, a new
utility building, parking, and perimeter security.
Nairobi, Kenya Phase I
Prior Year Funding: $8.4 million
FY 2017 Request: $122.4 million
Total: $130.8 million
Anticipated Contract Award: September 2017
Anticipated construction completion: Fall 2019
Some of the facilities in Nairobi, Kenya, do not conform to current
Department security, co-location, and operational requirements. The
maintenance shops and support facilities are currently located off-
compound or in temporary structures and there are tenant desk positions
located off-compound. In addition, the number of desk positions has
nearly doubled since original occupancy, and the most recent
rightsizing report projects further growth. This project is the only
feasible alternative to provide a consolidated, secure, safe, and
functional embassy in Nairobi.
The Department will construct the Nairobi project in two phases.
Phase 1 is in the FY 2017 request and includes a new support annex,
maintenance shops, official parking, utility upgrades, and perimeter
security facilities. Phase 2 is currently planned for FY2019 and will
include an office annex building, a staff parking garage, renovation of
existing offices, additional utility upgrades and additional perimeter
security facilities.
New Delhi, India Phase 1
Prior Year Funding: $47.3 million
FY 2017 Request: $793.7 million
Total: $841 million
Anticipated Contract Award: September 2017
Anticipated construction completion: 2024
The existing U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India is one of the
Department's most vulnerable facilities. It does not conform to current
Department security, co-location, and operational requirements.
Redevelopment of the existing compound is the most cost-effective
alternative to provide a consolidated, secure, safe, and functional
embassy in New Delhi.
The Department will redevelop the existing compound in two phases.
Phase 1 is planned for FY 2017 and includes a new office building,
MSGR, support annex and warehouse, a utility building, and perimeter
security. Phase 2 will include the renovation of the existing chancery.
This phase will take place after the completion of Phase 1, which is in
2024.
Paris, France MSGR/Parking Garage
Prior Year Funding: $5 million
FY 2017 Request: $54.1 million
Total: $59.1 million
Anticipated Contract Award: September 2017
Anticipated construction completion: October 2019
The Department is in the process of replacing MSGRs with react
times over thirty minutes. The current MSGR in Paris is approximately
40 minutes away from the embassy. To improve reaction time, the
Department will construct a new MSGR, an underground parking garage for
official vehicles, and perimeter security on government-owned property,
proximate to the chancery.
Question 7. How many ongoing embassy construction projects are
included in this year's request? Please specifically outline each
continuing construction project, along with the projected timeline,
cost, and justification for construction or upgrades. How often are you
able to add a construction project that was not in your annual spend
plan? How often are contractors' bids less than what you budgeted for
the project?
Answer. The FY 2017 request includes funding for the construction
of several major projects that are currently under design. They include
new embassy compounds in Guatemala City; new annexes and security
upgrades in Kampala, Nairobi, and New Delhi; a Marine security guard
residence and official parking structure in Paris; and the major
rehabilitation of embassy facilities in Athens and Moscow. The request
also includes construction funding for security and renovation projects
in Kabul. These are the only construction projects for which funding is
requested in FY 2017.
In addition to the projects included in the FY 2017 request, the
Department has 75 ongoing major projects that were funded in prior
years. All of these projects are at locations that are among the
Department's most vulnerable, with facilities that do not conform to
security standards and/or do not meet co-location or operational
requirements. The construction of new facilities is the only feasible
option to provide a consolidated, secure, safe, and functional embassy
or consulate. The complete list of projects in design or under
construction, as of March 15, 2016, is detailed below.
Ongoing Embassy Construction Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Planned
Post Type of Project Budget Completion
(1,000's) Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amman...................... NOX and 224,600 Oct-18
chancery rehab.
Ankara..................... NEC............ 528,100 Sep-19
Ashgabat................... NEC............ 271,670 Jul-18
Asuncion................... NEC............ 234,682 Aug-20
Athens..................... Compound rehab. 317,000 Feb-21
Beijing.................... Annex.......... 135,100 Mar-16
Beirut..................... NEC............ 1,167,100 2022
Belmopan................... MSGR........... 21,700 Apr-17
Belo Horizonte............. COB............ 42,292 Oct-17
Berlin..................... Annex rehab.... 91,300 May-18
Bishkek.................... Annex.......... 170,800 Oct-16
Brasilia................... Housing rehab.. 2,300 Jan-17
Brazzaville................ Warehouse/shops 21,900 Feb-17
Brussels................... NATO HQ fitout. 132,508 Sep-16
Colombo.................... NEC............ 342,100 Jan-20
Dhahran.................... NCC............ 339,300 Sep-19
Dhaka...................... Housing 9,460 Jul-17
redevelopment.
Dushanbe................... Warehouse...... 21,500 May-17
Erbil...................... NCC............ 655,871 TBD
Georgetown................. Chancery/ 50,800 Oct-16
Warehouse
rehab.
Guatemala City............. NEC............ 499,500 Aug-21
Guayaquil.................. MSGR........... 30,600 May-17
Harare..................... NEC............ 293,485 Jun-18
Hong Kong.................. Housing rehab.. 32,000 TBD
Hyderabad.................. NCC............ 364,896 Nov-20
Islamabad.................. NEC............ 1,088,840 Mar-18
Jakarta.................... NEC............ 497,800 Jun-18
Jeddah..................... NCC............ 287,600 Sep-16
Kabul...................... Annex/Housing.. 967,900 Nov-17
Kampala.................... Annex.......... 488,700 Oct-21
Karachi.................... Housing........ 67,100 May-17
London..................... New Embassy.... 1,030,000 Dec-16
Manila..................... Chancery rehab. 173,366 Apr-20
Maputo..................... NEC............ 284,117 TBD
Matamoros.................. NCC............ 192,500 May-19
Mbabane.................... NEC............ 141,000 Apr-16
Mexico City................ NEC............ 943,065 Oct-21
Montevideo................. Chancery 112,800 Mar-20
renovation.
Montreal................... COB............ 44,343 Oct-16
Moscow..................... Annex.......... 280,700 Aug-17
Moscow..................... Compound rehab. 231,676 Oct-21
Moscow..................... Housing rehab.. 4,800 Sep-16
Moscow..................... Compound 76,255 Oct-21
housing rehab.
Nairobi.................... Annex (Phase I) 130,823 Nov-19
N'Djamena.................. NEC............ 230,032 Oct-16
New Delhi.................. NEC............ 841,000 2024
Niamey..................... NEC............ 287,811 Apr-20
Nouakchott................. NEC............ 213,892 Oct-16
Nuevo Laredo............... NCC............ 156,000 Sep-17
Oslo....................... NEC............ 243,500 May-16
Paramaribo................. NEC............ 165,900 Aug-16
Paris...................... MSGQ/parking 59,042 Oct-19
garage.
Port au Prince............. Housing/support 123,631 Apr-16
facilities.
Port Moresby............... NEC............ 212,300 TBD
Porto Allegre.............. COB............ 59,245 Sep-16
Pristina................... NEC............ 261,500 Oct-17
Rangoon.................... American Center 26,277 Mar-17
rehab.
Recife..................... Consulate 52,513 Nov-18
Office
Building.
Reyjavik................... NAB fitout..... 62,404 Jul-18
Sanaa...................... Annex/housing.. 278,000 TBD
Sanaa...................... DTFS........... 86,900 TBD
Sarajevo................... Warehouse/shops 12,100 Aug-16
Shanghai................... Consular 19,500 Dec-17
expansion.
Shenyang................... COB............ 17,421 Jan-18
Taipei..................... NOB............ 236,468 Dec-16
Tel Aviv................... Chancery rehab. 55,100 Aug-18
The Hague.................. NEC............ 220,000 Jun-17
Tijuana.................... MSGR........... 19,000 Sep-17
Tokyo...................... CMR rehab...... 7,500 Feb-17
Tokyo...................... Housing rehab.. 3,000 TBD
Vienna..................... OSCE lease 39,570 Mar-16
fitout.
Vilnius.................... Phase II....... 42,200 Jul-16
Wellington................. Chancery rehab. 65,750 Feb-17
Wellington................. CMR rehab...... 4,500 Dec-17
Wuhan...................... COB............ 26,636 Nov-17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not uncommon for contractors' bids to be less than the
government estimate from which the project budget was based. Such
``savings'' on an individual project would not be enough to add a new
project that was not in the annual spend plan, but an accumulation of
several of those lower-than-expected bids, combined with savings from
completed projects (final cost of a project was below the budget), may
allow the Department to advance a project that was planned for a later
year. Any such realignment of savings from one project to another
requires Congressional notification.
Question 8. What is the agency participation rate for the foreign
assistance dashboard?
What agencies lag behind in sharing their data, and what is the
reason for the delay in sharing this information with U.S.
taxpayers? What is the status of the State Department's own
data on this site?
Answer. ForeignAssistance.gov contains data from 10 agencies
representing 98 percent of the U.S. foreign assistance portfolio. These
10 agencies are the Department of State; USAID; the Millennium
Challenge Corporation; the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health
and Human Services, and the Treasury; the African Development
Foundation; the Inter-American Foundation; and the Peace Corps.
The Department is engaged with non-reporting agencies and working
to improve the quantity and quality of data reported by agencies.
Progress is being made incrementally; however, there are a number of
challenges to reporting including that agencies are often compiling and
reconciling data from multiple systems that were not designed to
collect or report on the detailed level of reporting currently
requested.
The Department of State chartered a Foreign Assistance Data Review
(FADR) working group to understand and document issues related to
managing and tracking foreign assistance within the Department and
recommend a path forward. The first phase of the FADR produced a report
that examines the current foreign assistance data environment and
recommends improvements. The full report is available online at http://
www.state.gov/documents/organization/250931.pdf.
Question . I was disappointed that the State Department did not
meet its international commitment to post its own foreign assistance
data online by December 2015.
Do you have a plan for the State Department to comply with this
commitment? And would you please share it with the committee?
Answer. The Department of State has been reporting core data fields
to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standard since
2012. While we are not reporting every one of the IATI fields, the
Department has made great progress in opening up and publishing its
foreign assistance financial records, performance data, evaluations,
and budget planning data over the last few years.
To improve its IATI data reporting, the Department chartered a
Foreign Assistance Data Review (FADR) working group to understand and
document issues related to managing and tracking foreign assistance
within the Department and recommend a path forward. The Office of
Management Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation (M/PRI) and the
Application and Data Coordination Working Group (ADCWG) established the
FADR in partnership with the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance
Resources (F), Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services
(CGFS), and Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM), and my
office, as well as functional and regional Bureaus and Offices. A
representative from office participates in the ongoing review process,
and I am receiving regular updates from F and M on progress.
The first phase of the FADR produced a report that examines the
current foreign assistance data environment and recommends
improvements. The full report is available online (http://
www.state.gov/documents/organization/250931.pdf). The FADR group is
continuing its work to carry out these recommendations.
Question 10. In the 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review (QDDR), the State Department pledged to enhance the use of data
and diagnostics in decision-making. Can you tell us where these efforts
stand, and what is included in the FY 2017 budget request to improve
data collection and analysis?
Answer. The Department remains committed to enhancing its data and
its data analytics capacity. We recognize the importance that data and
its analysis should play in policy and decision-making as well as in
operations, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. The Department has
recently chartered a small group of qualified data science officers and
researchers, led by a senior Foreign Service Officer (FSO) who has been
assigned as the Director of Data Analytics. This group aims to serve as
a hub for data analytics by creating a community of practice dashboard
that connects analytical offices.
It is also performing limited data analytics functions for the
Department and supporting other bureaus and offices that do not have
analytical capability. Furthermore, per the 2015 QDDR, the Department
continues to expand on the foundation of its Enterprise Data Quality
Initiative and build a common data platform for Department use.
On a broader scale, over $12 million was requested in the 2017
budget to further build the Department's broader data analytics
capacity. This funding would support: 1) the Global Engagement Center's
efforts to counter extremist groups' messaging; 2) the Department's
focus on rightsizing overseas staffing; 3) ensuring data is accurate
and up-to-date, particularly in Post Personnel, eCC, Active Directory,
and the Real Property Application; 4) analyzing public diplomacy data
to advance our US foreign policy priorities and American interests,
and; 5) streamlining the budget and planning processes at the
Department.
Question 11. The QDDR called for a broad discussion on physical
risk with Congress and the American people, as well as adapting to a
culture that supports programmatic risk to encourage innovation. Where
do you believe we stand today in the discussion on these two sets of
issues?
Answer. Secretary Kerry has raised the issue of the risks and
dangers inherent in conducting diplomacy in many parts of the world
today. The Secretary has highlighted this issue in remarks to public
audiences--including his October 2015 speech at Indiana University--and
in conversations with Congress. In line with the QDDR recommendation,
we are currently planning to intensify our engagement with Congress,
the private sector, NGOs partners and others about the realities of our
work and the way we manage risk.
In March of last year, the Department published a formal Risk
Management Policy , which emphasizes that advancing U.S. foreign policy
objectives involves diverse types of risk and requires employees to
engage in risk management for the decisions and activities within the
scope of their duties. A central goal of the new risk management policy
is to guide employees as they identify, manage, and mitigate risks in
developing policy and implementing programs. Since the guidance was
published, the Department has worked to institutionalize the new
policy, and implement a standard approach for managing and mitigating
risk across our work.
Question 12. Can you help me understand the drivers of the increase
in the State and USAID budget from FY2006 to today? Are there areas
where we could find some cost savings?
Answer. Increases in spending by the Department of State and USAID
since 2008 are primarily due to a greater scale and amount of conflicts
and natural disasters in the world. This has requited increased
investments in humanitarian aid, new large U.S. government
interventions in countries where we previously did not have
opportunities, and additional interventions to maintain the safety of
our employees stationed overseas.
While in 2006 these increases were driven largely by opportunities
for diplomacy and development in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, we
have seen continued turmoil and change around the world, including the
earthquake in Haiti; global food security crisis; the Arab Spring,
including the tragic events of Benghazi; outbreaks of Ebola and Zika;
the rise of Da'esh and other extremist groups. Many of these
extraordinary needs have historically been addressed through
supplemental appropriations.
The Department and USAID have expanded foreign assistance programs
in recent years to address increasing global challenges, including
addressing conflict and insecurity in Syria, Iraq, South Sudan, Central
African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere. As
part of this effort, humanitarian assistance needs have greatly
increased, and we have responded robustly. In recent years, we have
also expanded resources to address global health needs, the underlying
causes of the migration crisis in Central America and to invest in
Asia, as part of the administration's Asia Rebalance effort.
The increase in the Diplomatic Engagement portion of the State
Department budget from FY 2008 to the FY 2017 request is largely
attributable to an increase in funding for security projects over this
timeframe. Authority for non-security spending has remained essentially
flat, while security related spending has more than doubled.
There are three major factors which have contributed to the
increase in security related authority:
The Department's priority on maintaining a presence in conflict
areas has required funding to protect our persons and assets in
those areas.
The military draw-down in Iraq and Afghanistan has required that
security of American persons and assets be provided by State
resources.
Internal reorganizations have moved security related spending to a
handful of accounts, increasing these security accounts and
reducing the administrative accounts from which the funds were
moved.
Question 13. Are all agencies fulfilling their commitments under
the CSCS program? Please provide details and discuss any obstacles that
may exist to meeting the full $2.2 billion CSCS level called for by the
post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board. Has a failure of others to
pay for this expense led to an increased cost to State for maintenance?
What is being done to improve the effectiveness of this cost sharing
mechanism?
Answer. While the vast majority of agencies are fulfilling their
commitments under the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS)/Maintenance
Cost Sharing (MCS) programs, a few agencies are not.
Some agencies choose to fund improvements to their spaces in
overseas facilities to meet their own unique requirements outside of
the CSCS/MCS program. As spelled out in OBO's annual program guidance,
these are treated as agency-specific projects, and do not qualify as
credits to MCS. Yet one agency unilaterally claimed $68M of
unauthorized ``maintenance credits'' against its FY 2014 and FY 2015
CSCS/MCS bills for work they performed in their spaces in a number of
State facilities.
In addition to the unauthorized maintenance credits, the same
agency's FY2015 congressional budget request under-funded its FY 2015
contribution by $62 million, and subsequent Congressional action
reduced their FY 2015 funding by an additional $25 million. This
resulted in a combined FY15 deficit of $87 million. Their FY 2016
appropriation reduced the request by $50 million. As a result, that
agency will have underfunded the program by $205 million over FY 2014-
2016.
A second agency had its appropriations for CSCS/MCS reduced by $7.5
million in both FY 2015 and FY 2016, for a total of $15 million over
the two-year period.
The FY 2014 shortfall did result in State paying $38 million more
than its fair share of the costs for the MCS program. In FY 2015, the
shortfall resulted in the deferral of a critical rehabilitation project
in Manila, Philippines.
The Department believes that the cost sharing program is effective
as currently structured, as long as agencies pay their fair share as
required by legislation. Since its inception in FY 2005, the program
has allowed the Department to fund more projects and relocate many more
people to safe, secure, and functional facilities than would have been
otherwise possible; as of March 2016, 35,322 people have been moved. In
addition to delivering a robust funding source for embassy construction
and maintenance, the cost sharing mechanism provides an incentive for
agencies to rightsize their overseas presence.
Fully achieving the goals of the program is impeded by the failure
of some agencies to pay their fair share--due either to internal
decisions by the agency to pay less than the amount due, or to Congress
failing to appropriate the amount requested by the agency to pay their
bill. Congress has provided a remedy for such actions in Section
7004(a) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act,2016 (Div. K, P.L. 114-113), which states
that:
. . . a project to construct a diplomatic facility of the
United States may not include office space or other
accommodations for an employee of a Federal agency or
department if the Secretary of State determines that such
department or agency has not provided to the Department of
State the full amount of funding required . . .
To date, the Department has not taken such action, as we have been
working with the tenants to resolve their delinquent balances. However,
the Department is strongly considering invoking Section 7004(a) this
fiscal year should tenant agencies fail to provide their full share of
the program.
Question 14. A June 2011 GAO Report on Overseas Comparability Pay
found that allowances and differentials when FSOs are abroad result in
higher compensation, on average, for overseas staff. In light of this
finding, please explain the justification for providing additional
compensation to overseas staff. Advocates of full OCP argue that its
absence could affect diplomatic readiness by increased attrition and
recruitment challenges, and that it is ``critical for the Department's
Foreign Service competitiveness in the workplace.'' What evidence can
you provide to support this claim, particularly given that applications
to the Foreign Service far exceed the number accepted each year?
Answer. As noted in the 2011 GAO report, overseas allowances and
differentials are not intended to compensate for the lack of
comparability pay for Foreign Service Officers serving overseas.
However, the GAO report still makes this link, a characterization the
Department has never agreed with. We raised our disagreement directly
with the GAO multiple times, including in writing, when they were
finalizing the 2011 report.
Excluding positions outside the continental United States from
locality pay had several unintended consequences for the Foreign
Service, essentially penalizing employees financially for service
overseas. This pay disparity has been partially addressed with the
implementation of the first two tranches of Overseas Comparability Pay
(OCP). However, as we wrote to the GAO, their report did ``not make any
effort to discuss the grave reasons for the `range of allowances and
differentials' overseas. The uninformed reader may have no idea that we
are not simply paying for the sake of pay.''
Members of the Foreign Service serving overseas are entitled to
certain allowances and differentials that are calculated based on their
base pay. Each of these allowances and differentials serve a distinct
purpose established by Congress. One example is the cost of living
allowance (COLA), which ensures that employees retain the same buying
power they would have if they were assigned to Washington, DC.
The pay disparity for members of the Foreign Service serving
overseas undermines the utility of the COLA. COLA is meant to normalize
the ability of a member of the Foreign Service to buy a basket of
consumer goods and services at his or her post of assignment compared
to Washington, DC. The COLA does not compensate for the loss of
locality pay overseas, in that it is fully consumed by the higher
prices for consumer goods and services at that post. In addition, the
COLA is calculated based on non-locality adjusted basic pay rates.
Thus, a comparably situated member of the Foreign Service in
Washington, DC, has more disposable income than his or her counterpart
at a post abroad who receives a COLA.
In addition to retaining the employee's buying power through the
COLA, other allowances and differentials are used to reimburse
employees for specific conditions and situations they encounter due to
the particular nature of certain Foreign Service assignments. (e.g.,
poor access to quality medical care, exposure to illnesses and
diseases, and severe climate).
If OCP were eliminated, employees serving overseas would
immediately take a pay cut of just over 16 percent of their base pay
and a similar amount on all allowances calculated on base pay. It is
true that the Foreign Service attracts thousands of applicants yearly.
However, we still compete with other U.S. agencies, international
business and finance, international organizations, and non-government
organizations for 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.
That competition can be intense. Especially when non-USG entities,
particularly international business and finance, can quickly adjust pay
and benefits to attract and retain top talent. Some elements of DoD as
well as other agencies' personnel have received full overseas
comparability pay (currently 24 percent) since 2003, which raises
issues of equity.
We are extremely proud of our current ability to recruit and retain
a highly-qualified workforce at the Department of State. However, we
have two recent surveys that 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, 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.
Question 15. The growing dependence on OCO to fund America's
development and diplomacy programs means that a broad range of programs
and accounts that are designed to meet long-term commitments, and
historically were funded in the base budget, now receive a significant
share of their funding through a temporary funding mechanism. Given the
strain on discretionary resources, this flexibility is important in the
short-term but has led to a significant shift in funding from base to
OCO for certain programs. For example, nearly 100 percent of U.S.
assistance to Jordan is funded through the OCO account in this year's
budget request. In another example, the line item for ``Contributions
for International Peacekeeping'' went from being fully base-budget
funded in FY15 to now 66 percent of the amount has been shifted to OCO
in FY17. Could you expand on the administration's thinking behind these
major shifts in funding for long-term programs specifically?
Answer. The OCO portion of the FY 2017 Request for the Department
and USAID is $14.9 billion, consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2015. The Department is also concerned about the shift in balance
between base and OCO funding, particularly the substantial increase in
OCO funds as compared to base. The Department looks forward to working
with Congress to restoring enduring funding levels as we move toward
the FY 2018 budget. The President's Budget actually anticipates this by
planning for the restoration of $8.7 billion to the International
Affairs base budget in FY 2018.
Question 16a. How does the current allocation of foreign
assistance, both regionally and by sector, reflect larger U.S. foreign
policy priorities?
Answer 16a. The President's FY 2017 Request for the Department and
USAID includes $34.0 billion for foreign assistance programs. This
request supports key national security, foreign policy, and development
mission objectives. Regionally, the request includes $4.0 billion to
counter Da'esh, respond to the crisis in Syria, and support
humanitarian needs in the region. It requests $750.6 million to bolster
the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America and $873.0 million
to support economic development and security efforts as part of the
Asia Rebalance effort. It also requests $7.1 billion to support our
goals in Africa, including advancing democracy, health, education,
economic growth and security throughout the region.
As part of these regional efforts, the Department and USAID are
also requesting funds to support important investments in critical
sectors across the globe. The request includes $2.7 billion for
democracy, human rights and governance programming, one of the core
strategic goals of this administration. It also includes $983.9 million
to support the Global Climate Change Initiative and $561.8 million for
basic education. These are just examples of the important cross-cutting
programs requested as part of the FY 2017 Request. All of these
investments, plus many others, are critical to ensuring the success of
our broader foreign policy and development goals.
Question 16b. How could aid, as a tool for foreign policy, be
allocated to more effectively address strategic priorities?
Answer 16b. The Department of State and USAID always work to ensure
the funds are allocated to address strategic priorities. The
development of the President's annual budget request for the Department
of State and USAID begins at embassies and USAID missions around the
world. These requests are based on country-specific priorities and
strategies and are organized by mission objectives when they are
submitted to the Department of State and USAID in Washington, DC.
Department and USAID leadership then review the submissions from the
embassies and missions overseas, and make tough decisions to ensure the
request supports the most critical regional and global strategic
priorities. In coordination with the Office of Management and Budget
this results in a final budget request that advances the U.S.
government's most important foreign policy, national security, and
development objectives. The President's request reflects these
priorities when it is submitted to Congress each year.
Once an appropriation bill is passed, the allocation of funds must
abide by funding directives included in the bill as well as the
Statement of Managers, as required. Within these guidelines, the
Department and USAID work to ensure the best allocation of resources in
support of strategic foreign policy priorities.
Along with other outcomes, the Foreign Assistance Data Review
(FADR), currently underway, will allow the Department and its
constituent offices to respond to demands for more and better data to
manage activities, coordinate more effectively with others, make data-
driven decisions, and meet transparency commitments.
Question 16c. How will you manage foreign assistance programs
differently, if at all, in the absence of congressional directives?
Answer 16c. The Department of State and USAID have many shared
priorities with Congress. While many congressional funding directives
support these shared goals, including advancing democracy or education
across the globe, we must be able to respond to changing circumstances
and adapt as needed. Often times the world looks different from the
time we submit our request until the time we receive our final
appropriation. We need to remain nimble.
In the absence of congressional directives, we would allocate
funding according to the President's request, which sustains projects,
programs, and activities supported by Congress, taking into account
changing circumstances, prior year funding availability, and any new
needs that have emerged since the request was submitted. This would
reduce our dependence on transfer authorities, which, while incredible
valuable, can be time consuming to execute and thus hinder our ability
to move funds and respond quickly.
Question 17. Roughly 10 percent, or $310 million, of State's
Development Assistance program budget is going to support the Global
Climate Change initiative (GCCI). With all of the development
challenges in the world today, do you think it is appropriate to be
spending 10 percent of the overall on climate change?
Answer. Climate change represents a substantial threat to U.S.
national security interests and development objectives. The 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) completed by the Department of Defense
states that:
Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United
States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase,
sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and
severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with
other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent
populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil,
and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure.
Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp
increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will
influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on
economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.
These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors
abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political
instability, and social tensions--conditions that can enable terrorist
activity and other forms of violence.
In late 2015, CIA Director John Brennan said the following while
addressing the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Global
Security Forum:
Mankind's relationship with the natural world is aggravating these
problems and is a potential source of crisis itself. Last year was the
warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer. Extreme
weather, along with public policies affecting food and water supplies,
can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of the most immediate
concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously
could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect,
especially in already-fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East
and South Asia. Compromised access to food and water greatly increases
the prospect for famine and deadly epidemics.
U.S. leadership is essential to addressing these broad and wide-
reaching challenges. The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) is the
principal U.S. tool for providing technical assistance to developing
countries confronting those challenges, and it serves a compelling U.S.
national security interest. GCCI programs not only benefit our efforts
to protect our climate system, they promote our broader development
objectives. Virtually all GCCI programs have important benefits for
food security, health, sustainability, economic development, poverty
reduction, and regional stability, all of which benefit the U.S. and
global economy.
Question 18. Do you intend to come to Congress for a specific
authorization of the Green Climate Fund? Do you believe it is
appropriate for Congress to have oversight over U.S. participation in
the Green Climate Fund?
Answer. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has been established as a
multilateral trust fund--much like other multilateral funds, such as
the Climate Investment Funds--and has approved its first round of
projects. The Department issued a grant to support the GCF from
resources provided in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016 (Div. K, P.L. 114-113)
(SFOAA). Specifically, in the SFOAA, Congress provided $4.3 billion in
funding for the Economic Support Fund (ESF), an account that is used to
fund environmental programs and many other foreign assistance programs.
The ESF account is a primary account through which the
administration requested funding to support the Green Climate Fund
(GCF) in the President's FY 2016 budget request. While over one-half of
the account is earmarked for specific programs or activities, the
remainder is available for other programs to carry out the ESF
authority in the Foreign Assistance Act.
The administration is using a portion of those unallocated funds
for the GCF under the ESF authority and section 7060(c) of the SFOAA.
While the SFOAA did not earmark funds specifically for the GCF, it also
did not contain any restrictions on the use of FY 2016 funds for the
GCF. Provision of ESF for environmental programs, including through
grants to multilateral trust funds, is consistent with long standing
practice.
This administration takes its GCF oversight role seriously and we
are working hard to ensure that GCF funding is used responsibly through
our role on the GCF Board and our participation on two committees which
oversee matters pertaining to oversight, the Ethics and Audit Committee
and the Accreditation Committee. To that end, the GCF requires
fiduciary standards and social and environmental safeguards that are
among the strongest of all multilateral funds today. The Fund will have
independent evaluation and integrity units, and Board proceedings and
documents are among the most transparent of any multilateral mechanism.
We would be pleased to brief your staff on transparency and good
governance efforts at the GCF.
Question 19. I understand that USAID is often tasked with on-the-
ground implementation of certain State Department plans and
initiatives, and in order for USAID to carry out these implementation
efforts, State grants USAID a portion of its programmatic funding.
However, these specific proportions transferred from State to USAID
are not reflected in State's Congressional Budget
Justification. As a matter of fact, in preparing for this
hearing, I had to rely on ``guess-timates'' from the
Congressional Research Service on how much funding State
transfers to USAID for different line items in the budget. In
the interest of broader monitoring and evaluation, as well as
public transparency, why are these funds not clearly delineated
in either State or USAID's budget? Would it be feasible for
State and USAID to begin disclosing these amounts?
Answer. The joint Department of State (State) and USAID budget
includes the resources needed by both agencies to advance national
security priorities related to diplomacy and development. State and
USAID work closely both in developing budget requests, and in
implementing programs in the year of appropriation. Decisions about
implementing mechanisms and implementing partners are made in the year
of appropriation, based on assessed needs on the ground, evolving
circumstances (which USAID and State monitor), priorities,
implementation capacity, and available implementation mechanisms. There
are times in the field where State Department often relies on USAID to
program and assist in planning the programming of resources, so the
distinction of ownership over funding can play a relatively small role
in how projects are designed and implemented.
While there can be differences from year to year, historically
USAID generally administers all of the Development Assistance, Global
Health Programs-USAID, Food for Peace Title II, International Disaster
Assistance, and Transition Initiatives accounts. In most years, USAID
has fully administered funding in the Complex Crisis fund account as
well.
In addition, USAID fully implements the USAID Administrative
Expense accounts: USAID Capital Investment Fund, USAID Development
Credit Authority Admin Expenses, USAID Inspector General Operating
Expenses, and USAID Operating Expenses accounts. USAID has historically
administered 93 percent of the Economic Support Fund, 70 percent of
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, Central America, and 60 percent of the
Global Health Program-State accounts.
__________
Responses to Questions for the Record Submitted to Deputy
Secretary of State Heather Higginbottom by Senator John Barrasso
Question 1. Is the administration committed to eliminating
duplication and redundancies within the Department of State?
Answer. The Department has launched efforts to streamline several
internal operational processes--everything from service requests to
travel. We expect these efforts to save staff time and result in cost-
savings. For example, last year, the Department embarked on an
ambitious initiative to develop and deploy a cloud-based solution to
deliver an integrated service management platform to maximize employee
productivity and increase service efficiency. This consolidated system
will replace over 400 stand-alone servers and numerous homegrown, one-
off solutions to more efficiently deliver, track, and measure
enterprise services for over 150,000 State Department and other
government agency employees at embassies and consulates worldwide. We
are expanding the success of this approach overseas to our domestic
operations to have a single, unified system worldwide.
Throughout this administration, the Department of State has been
committed to eliminating duplication and redundancies between the
Department and other U.S. government departments and agencies. In this
budget-constrained environment, the Department has continued strategic
efforts to eliminate redundant services and operations at diplomatic
facilities abroad with other U.S. government agencies.
In order to reduce overall costs to the federal government, State
and USAID jointly worked to consolidate administrative support services
overseas carried out under the single administrative platform of the
International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS)
system. We first consolidated 15 administrative services to include
services under General Services, Financial Management, and Human
Resources. By selecting the most obvious redundant services and those
most feasible to consolidate, we have successfully consolidated 97
percent of these services. More recently, we have added other services
to the list of those to be consolidated, including furniture,
furnishings, appliances and equipment; travel management centers;
administrative and travel voucher processing; and some aspects of human
resource management of locally employed staff.
To further illustrate the Department's commitment, in fiscal year
2015 we continued to work with the interagency partners to calibrate
consistent service standards for the provision of administrative
services for all agencies at diplomatic facilities. Several service
areas were assessed for efficiency and quality: Motor pool, HR
Inquiries, Property Pick-up/Deliver, Printing, Travel Request, IT
Helpdesk, IT/Telephone Devices, and Visitor Access Request.
In addition, on September 21, 2015, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) acknowledged the Department's long standing and worldwide
efforts to streamline administrative services worldwide by closing ``
as implemented'' the third and final recommendation for Executive
Action in GAO-12-317--Embassy Management: State Department and Other
Agencies Should Further Explore Opportunities to Save Administrative
Costs Overseas.
Question 2. Does your budget eliminate any program? Please provide
a complete list of programs eliminated in the administration's FY 2017
budget for State and USAID.
Answer. The Department does not propose the elimination of any
Diplomatic Engagement programs in the FY 2017 Request.
In the five-year period between FY 2012 and FY 2016 the non-OCO
portion of the non-security D&CP operations account has been reduced by
19 percent. The Department's FY 2017 Request includes a recommendation
to increase funding in this account for the first time in five years.
This request would still remain 11 percent below the FY 2012 level.
The D&CP account is the primary source of funding for all of the
administrative functions, excluding buildings and security, performed
by State. The Department considers all of these functions to be
essential to the security and diplomatic presence of the United States.
At the same time the Department looks for every opportunity to reduce
the cost to the taxpayer through rightsizing, identifying greater
operational efficiencies, and having no tolerance for waste.
Question 3. What are your recommendations to create efficiencies
and streamline operations in the current organizational structure of
the U.S. Department of State?
Answer. We continue to look for opportunities to create
efficiencies and streamline operations.
The Department of State needs to build on the gains that have been
made under the International Cooperative Administrative Support
Services (ICASS) platform. Redundancies in 15 administrative services
overseas through the ICASS system have been consolidated. These include
General Services, Financial Management, and Human Resources. We have
successfully consolidated 97 percent of services. The ICASS platform is
the principal means by which the U.S. government provides and shares
the cost of common administrative support services at overseas posts
and by which we can build a strong, streamlined platform that supports
our increasingly complex and financially constrained missions.
The Department of State can create efficiencies and streamline
operations by exploring additional potential alignments of other areas,
such as Human Resources, Real Property, and the Foreign Affairs
Technology Network, which will allow U.S. government personnel to
collaborate effectively as we meet our foreign policy goals.
Streamlined Human Resource operations for Locally Employed (LE)
staff would promote more standardized personnel management across U.S.
government agencies at our overseas missions. LE Staff human resource
services that could be reviewed for alignment include position
classification, pay grade assignment, recruitment, and performance
evaluations.
Aligning the ownership and management of real property overseas
could eliminate duplicate systems, standardize the management of U.S.
government assets worldwide, and increase the return-on-investment made
for the infrastructure that is supporting the needs of the U.S.
government overseas.
Advances in technology allow for the possible alignment and
coordination of email, and other IT services on the Department of State
Foreign Affairs Network.
Question 4. Please provide a comprehensive list of bureaus and
offices at the U.S. Department of State that have not been authorized
by Congress and the current number of personnel on staff in each of
those bureaus and offices.
Answer. As a general matter, the Secretary of State has the
authority to direct and manage the Department of State in a manner
conducive to carrying out the functions of the Secretary of State and
the Department of State. Although Congress has on occasion established
by statute certain positions within the Department, the majority of
bureaus and other offices of the Department are not statutorily
mandated, but are established by the Secretary and organized in a
manner to promote the efficiency of the Department. Statutory mandates
concerning the organization of the Department can raise practical
difficulties in organizing the Department to effectively respond to
evolving foreign affairs and national security challenges.
Question 5. Please provide a comprehensive list of Special Envoys,
Representatives and Coordinators at the U.S. Department of State and
identify those positions created under Congressional authorization.
Answer. Approximately twice a year, the website which lists Special
Envoys, Special Representatives, Ambassadors at Large, Coordinators,
Special Advisors, and other Senior Officials, http://www.state.gov/r/
pa/ei/rls/dos/1718.htm, is examined comprehensively for completeness
and accuracy.
Currently, the Department of State has the following listing of
Special Envoys, Special Representatives, Ambassadors at Large,
Coordinators, Special Advisors, and Other Senior Officials:
Special Envoys
Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL
Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs
Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs
Special Envoy for Climate Change
Special Envoy for Closure of the Guantanamo Detention Facility
Special Envoy for Global Food Security
Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Africa and the
Democratic Republic of Congo
Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues
Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons
Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations
Special Envoy for Libya
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues
Special Envoy for Six-Party Talks U.S.
Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan U.S. Special Envoy for Syria
Special Representatives
Special Representative of the President for Nuclear
Nonproliferation
Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma
Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Special Representative for the Arctic Region
Special Representative for Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
Issues
Special Representative for Commercial and Business Affairs
Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy
Special Representative for Global Partnerships
Special Representative for International Labor Affairs
Special Representative to Muslim Communities
Special Representative of North Korea Policy
Special Representative to the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
U.S. Special Representative for the Central African Republic
U.S. Special Representative to the Organization of Eastern
Caribbean States (OECS)
U.S. Special Representative for Religion and Global Affairs
U.S. Special Representative to Somalia
Ambassadors at Large
Ambassador at Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Ambassador at Large and Coordinator of United States Government
Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally
Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice
Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom
Ambassador at Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
Coordinators
U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information
Policy, with the rank of Ambassador
Lead Coordinator for Iran Nuclear Implementation
Coordinator and Special Envoy for the Center for Strategic
Counterterrorism Communications
Coordinator for Cyber Issues
Coordinator for Sanctions Policy
Coordinator for Threat Reduction Programs
Coordinator for U.S. Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia
Fissile Material Negotiator and Senior Cutoff Coordinator
International Information Programs Coordinator
Israel and the Palestinian Authority, U.S. Security Coordinator
Senior Coordinator for International Information Technology
Diplomacy
Senior Coordinator for Knowledge Management
Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues Transparency Coordinator
Special Advisors
Science and Technology Adviser
Special Adviser for Global Youth Issues
Special Adviser for Holocaust Issues
Special Advisor for International Disabilities Rights
Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control
Special Advisor for Religious Minorities in the Near East and
South/Central Asia
Special Advisor for Secretary Initiatives
Senior Advisor
Senior Advisor
Senior Official
U.S. Senior Official to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC)
Personal Representative
Personal Representative for Northern Ireland Issues
Senior Representative
Senior Representative to Minsk
Question 6. How could aid, as a tool for foreign policy, be
allocated to more effectively address strategic priorities?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID always work to ensure the
funds are allocated to address strategic priorities. The development of
the President's annual Budget Request for the Department of State and
USAID begins at embassies and USAID missions around the world. These
requests are based on country-specific priorities and strategies and
are organized by mission objectives when they are submitted to the
Department of State and USAID in Washington, DC. Department and USAID
leadership then review the submissions from the embassies and missions
overseas, and make tough decisions to ensure the request supports the
most critical regional and global strategic priorities. In coordination
with the Office of Management and Budget this results in a final budget
request that advances the U.S. government's most important foreign
policy, national security, and development objectives. The President's
request reflects these priorities when it is submitted to Congress each
year.
Once an appropriation bill is passed, the allocation of funds must
abide by funding directives included in the bill as well as the
Statement of Managers, as required. Within these guidelines, the
Department and USAID work to ensure the best allocation of resources in
support of strategic foreign policy priorities.
Along with other outcomes, the Foreign Assistance Data Review
(FADR), currently underway, will allow the Department and its
constituent offices to respond to demands for more and better data to
manage activities, coordinate more effectively with others, make data-
driven decisions, and meet transparency commitments.
__________
[all]