[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STREAMLINED AND RIGHTSIZED: CONSOLIDATING
STATE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH
AFRICA
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 25, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-427 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Ranking Member
JOE WILSON, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
ANDY BARR, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
RONNY JACKSON, Texas TED LIEU, California
YOUNG KIM, California SARA JACOBS, California
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan Florida
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, GREG STANTON, Arizona
American Samoa JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey JIM COSTA, California
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York GABE AMO, Rhode Island
CORY MILLS, Florida KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
KEITH SELF, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana GEORGE LATIMER, New York
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania
James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA
Michael Lawler, New York, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
DARRELL ISSA, California Florida, Ranking Member
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee BRAD SHERMAN, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
THOMAS KEAN, JR, New Jersey WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
RYAN ZINKE, Montana KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington GEORGE LATIMER, New York
Sarah Miller, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Michael Lawler........ 1
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila
Cherfilus-McCormick............................................ 2
WITNESSES
Statement of Hon. Carrie B. Cabelka, Former Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Administration, U.S. Department of State............. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Statement of Ambassador Michael C. Polt, Former U.S. Ambassador
of Estonia, Serbia, and Montenegro, U.S. Department of State... 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 28
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 29
Hearing Attendance............................................... 30
Questions for the Record
Questions submitted by Rep. Baumgartner to Carrie B. Cabelka..... 31
Questions submitted by Rep. Baumgartner to Michael C. Polt....... 32
STREAMLINED AND RIGHTSIZED: CONSOLIDATING STATE DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
----------
Tuesday, March 25, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Lawler
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Lawler. The Subcommittee on the Middle East and North
Africa will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to
explore opportunities for streamlining the State Department's
administrative services and understanding how it serves as a
backbone of U.S. foreign policy operations.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL LAWLER
Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for being here
today. The last time Congress passed a comprehensive
authorization of the State Department was in 2002, over 20
years ago. Since then it has become common practice to
reauthorize State Department programs within our legislative
vehicles resulting in a complete lack of transparency on the
process and a lack of oversight on what is really going on
within the department.
Well, we are trying something new this year. Over the next
few months this committee will be using a microscope to examine
the efficacy of the State Department and pass the first
authorization in over two decades. This will allow Congress to
exercise its constitutional oversight duties and ensure that
executive agencies are being good stewards of U.S. taxpayer
dollars, that every dollar and every diplomat is working in
alignment with American foreign policy and its interests.
My subcommittee has jurisdiction over the State
Department's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, the Counterterrorism
Bureau, and the State's--State Department's Bureau of
Management. This hearing, the first one of the subcommittee,
focuses on M Branch, and more specifically the Bureau of
Administration within M Branch. And I cannot think of a more
appropriate place to begin.
Simply put, the State Department would not be able to
execute U.S. foreign policy missions without this vital
administrative work. The Administrative side of M Branch is
responsible for State's entire acquisitions, procurement, and
logistics services. It oversees real property management for
the State Department and even the department's library and
knowledge management systems. Given the significance of these
responsibilities the Bureau of Administration should execute
its role with precision, prioritizing efficiency and
effectiveness in its service delivery. However, that standard
has not been upheld in its entirely.
The Bureau of Administration has faced significant
challenges from personnel attrition to long delays in standing
up systems to poor management. And when the State Department's
administrative services fail, so too does the State
Department's ability to carry out the critical work of securing
American interests and priorities abroad. And that is why we
are here today, to gather more information on these
shortcomings and explore how Congress can help.
I think it is also important to point out the role that A
Branch has in advancing efforts to improve cost-effectiveness
and bring accountability to government spending. This bureau
can be a force for good if we do the job right.
The State Department allocates approximately 11 billion to
13 billion annually on contracts for goods and services with
the majority of expenditures occurring at the Washington level.
As a nexus for the department's acquisitions and procurement
the Bureau of Administration is uniquely positioned to advance
new policies promoting cost-effectiveness and reform.
From reevaluating contracting procedures and policies to
ensuring we have the appropriate personnel in place to procure
and oversee the acquisition of goods and services for the
department, this subcommittee will examine every legislative
avenue to ensure sharp and streamlined State Department
spending procedures. I am confident this hearing will bring the
subcommittee more clarity on the challenges faced by the Bureau
of Administration's work and really where Congress can come in,
work together in a bipartisan way, and make government more
efficient for the American people.
With that, I again thank our witnesses for being here and
providing your testimony and I now recognize the ranking
member, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick for her opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Chairman Lawler. I
want to start by taking a moment to thank all of the State
Department Foreign Service, civil service contractors, and the
local staff at home and abroad for your hard work and service
to our country and the American people.
The goal of the State Department are to advance our
strategic interests abroad by countering adversaries like
China, Russia, and Iran; help Americans who are overseas; and
finally to protect and secure our Nation. When things go wrong
abroad, when an American traveler gets in trouble, when someone
needs a new passport, when top policymakers need information
from the ground, you are there. You are our eyes and our ears
and advocates abroad. Thank you for your hard work.
I want to set the scene for what we are discussing today:
streamlining and rightsizing the department and why is it so
important? The State Department is not a business. We cannot
afford to move fast and break things. This is not about
building a social media app. The stakes are much higher. This
is about protecting Americans' lives, keeping Americans who
live and travel abroad, making sure that when your child
decides to study abroad in Italy or Jordan or Vietnam, there is
someone who will help them, someone they can call on.
It is about ensuring our embassies and our consulates are
safe through hard work about Diplomatic Security staff. It is
about ensuring the next generation of Foreign Service officers
are taught to be experts in their field, not yes men. It is
about competing against our adversaries and coordinating with
our allies, not the other way around. And yes, it is about
ensuring the State Department has the management tools,
administrative capacities, and people it needs to get the job
done.
My Republican colleagues would like you to believe that the
Trump Administration is the first to want to streamline or
rightsize the State Department and that it could be done--that
it can't be done without DOGE. This is just plain wrong, as is
the hallmark approach of DOGE use--which they use to break
things first and ask questions later. Former Secretary of State
Blinken began his tenure by laying out a modernization plan
informed by actual data and input from Department employees on
how to bring the department into the 21st Century and ensure it
remains the world's premiere diplomatic workforce.
Similarly, my Republican colleagues might paint the work of
DOGE to slash agencies like the State and its workforce as a
brave endeavor that Democrats have been unwilling to carry out,
however DOGE's actions have been reckless and have hurt many
innocent Americans.
Congressional Democrats have repeatedly shown that we are
ready and willing to engage in good faith, comprehensive,
bipartisan State Department reform. Bipartisan State
authorization efforts over the last few Congresses have yielded
some real victories for the department, its workforce, and its
ability to act in the best interest of the Adair Martinez. We
remain ready to build on those successes and continue our good-
faith bipartisan efforts on State Department and modernization
efforts to ensure our diplomats and missions abroad are well
poised to meet today's threats.
I want to join the chairman in welcoming our panel today.
Thank you for your service and your dedication to this country
and I look forward to our discussion.
But, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask why this isn't a
conversation that we are having with the administration itself?
If Secretary Rubio and the administration are so proud of their
work, where are they and why are they not here for questioning?
If we are serious about working with the administration on
their efforts to modernize the State Department including
proposals to streamline and rightsize it, then we have to hear
from them. I stand ready to have the conversation whenever they
are ready.
Let me be clear, I am not opposed to finding efficiencies
and increasing effectiveness where we can, but we cannot do it
recklessly in a way that cedes ground to our adversaries or
that leaves American citizens high and dry. U.S. national
security, American lives are on the line. We need to do this
the right way and not the DOGE way.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to our witnesses for being here
to have this conversation and in the administration's absence
and I look forward to the insight. I yield back.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you to the ranking member.
Other members of the committee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses
before us today on this important topic. The Honorable Carrie
B. Cabelka, Former Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Administration, U.S. Department of State; Ambassador Michael C.
Polt, Former U.S. Ambassador of Estonia, Serbia, and
Montenegro, U.S. Department of State.
This committee recognizes the importance of the issues
before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us
today. Your full statements will be made part of the record and
I will ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes
in order to allow time for member questions.
I now recognize Ms. Cabelka for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CARRIE B. CABELKA
Ms. Cabelka. Chairman Lawler, Ranking Member Cherfilus-
McCormick, members of the House----
Mr. Lawler. Just turn on your microphone, please.
Ms. Cabelka. Oh, is it not----
Mr. Lawler. Thank you.
Ms. Cabelka. Can you hear me better?
Mr. Lawler. Now.
Ms. Cabelka. Great. Chairman Lawler, Ranking Member
Cherfilus-McCormick, members of the House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, and my fellow
panelist Ambassador Polk, I am honored to be here speaking with
you as we explore ways to streamline administrative services at
the U.S. Department of State and I sincerely thank you for the
invitation to be part of this conversation.
I was fortunate to serve as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Administration from 2019 to early 2021 and in a role
that was established during the FDR Administration. Though the
responsibilities of the Bureau of Administration have certainly
evolved over the past 80 years, what has not changed is that
the bureau has always worked tirelessly to support the entire
department and U.S. diplomatic efforts around the globe.
As the administrative backbone of the department the Bureau
of Administration's portfolio covers everything from worldwide
logistics, transportation, travel, privacy and records
mandates, acquisition and procurement, domestic real property
management, emergency management readiness, language
interpretation and translation services, and support for
international schools. With a workforce comprised of a
combination of civil service, Foreign Service and contractors,
the bureau manages overseas mail and diplomatic pouch, support
for Presidential travel overseas, a global publishing shop, and
allowances policy for all those serving abroad.
In many ways the Bureau of Administration functions as a
customer service organization with its customers being the
other bureaus at the State Department, the 298 overseas posts,
and even in some cases the employees of the State Department
and other ICASS agencies themselves. The best known example of
course being shipping home goods when people are moving abroad.
And due to this customer service nature some of the
Administration Bureau's divisions and programs have been able
to run more as a business through the State Department's
Working Capital Fund.
One long-standing example of this is the Global Acquisition
Division. The highly skilled and technical procurement team
charges the other State Department bureaus a percentage fee of
the overall procurement or contract cost to handle their
acquisition work. In turn those fees are what pay for the
salaries of the employee in the division and the office spaces
in which they work.
Why is this a smart choice for taxpayer dollars and a good
business model? (1) It encourages bureaus to not--to seek out
only the contracting work that they need, not spend all that
they have in the bureau budgets as there is a fee attached; (2)
it ensure that the procurement shop remains flexible in size
and agile in how it assigns staff as it is based on demand and
use by the State Department; and (3) it encourages the Global
Acquisition Division to continue to look for ways to streamline
and ever increase productivity with its work to keep its fees
low as higher fees cause higher levels of customer
dissatisfaction.
The Acquisitions/Procurement Decision--Division has long
served under the Working Capital Fund system, as have other
parts of A, including logistics management and a new Working
Capital Fund Service Center is being developed as we speak.
While I was Assistant Secretary the real property
management team and I were keenly aware of the age and
deteriorating condition of several of our domestic facilities.
This is not a unique story to the State Department as many
government buildings are in similar situations. But we
increased our focus on lifecycle maintenance projections and
schedules for the work that needed to be done to ensure proper
upkeep and repair of our facilities going forward.
The team and I also pushed to complete long-standing
projects that mattered to the people at the State Department
and improved their quality and--and quality of their work
environment. One notable project we completed was the opening
of the D Street entrance at HST which has been closed for 12
years and was the access point closest to the Foggy Bottom
Metro. As you can guess, this matters quite a lot to the
employees of the State Department on rainy, snowy, and windy
days.
Taking these efforts one step further, since I left the A
Bureau at the A Bureau they have--the real property program
developed with congressional approval a Working Capital Fund
Center for its domestic facilities. All State Department
bureaus are charged a fee for the square footage of the space
that they occupy. Those fees go into a fund that handle
operational and maintenance work, but also accrue funds for
general facility lifestyle maintenance and repair work across
fiscal years for things like roof replacement and updating
electrical systems.
This saves taxpayer dollars by: (1) ensuring routine
maintenance and upkeep is done on our government properties and
not letting issues go by the wayside until situations are so
dire and costs are astronomical to fix them, and then of course
potentially having to come to Congress to ask for additional
funds; and (2) better understanding all the square footage that
we have on hand, continually looking for ways to improve how
the spaces are used, and as other bureaus are not going to want
to spend more of their budget on fees for underutilized and
unused space, when possible the State Department will be able
to exit building leases that may no longer be needed therefore
decreasing cost.
Working Capital Funds have been a successful tool at the
Bureau of Administration as they provide flexibility, cost
saving, and responsiveness to the rest of the State Department,
but technology is clearly another tool that the Bureau of
Administration can further utilize to streamline its work.
Like so many other government agencies and bureaus, the
Administration Bureau is not alone in having aging IT systems.
One of the biggest technological challenges in the A Bureau is
the Integrated Logistics Management System, ILMS. ILMS is a
product that works in tracking items that move from the United
States to overseas and vice versa, following lifecycles of
State Department vehicles, armored and otherwise, and is
utilized in the audits of inventory at embassies of physical
property.
This work is vitally important. However, ILMS is costly.
Technologies have advanced since the original development of
ILMS many years ago and going forward it is important to
transition this work to new and improved platforms to continue
to provide the best logistical support for the department. I
can also envision ways that technology can be helpful at the
State Department including machine learning and AI to continue
to streamline work in things like declassification and FOIA and
helping overseas allowances and language services.
I am happy to discuss this and much more, but now I want to
turn the conversation over to you. There is so much good and
vital work being done at the State Department and the Bureau of
Administration. I know I have only scratched the surface this
morning. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cabelka follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Ms. Cabelka.
I know recognize Mr. Polk for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. POLT
Mr. Polt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Cherfilus-McCormick, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to testify before you today
regarding updating and strengthening Americas diplomatic
capabilities. I speak to you now as a private citizen, but one
who has had the great privilege to serve our great country and
the American people for 35 years in our diplomatic service. I
have served six presidents and 11 secretaries of State, both
Republican and Democrat, over the course of those 35 years.
I offer to you a set of American diplomacy modernization
ideas that a group of former colleagues and I published in
September 2022, entitled ``Blueprints Toward a More Modern
American Diplomacy.( Our proposals were supported by Arizona
State University's Leadership, Diplomacy and National Security
Lab, with the participation of the Una Chapman Cox Foundation
and the American Academy of Diplomacy.
Our efforts were guided by four firm commitments: First, to
work in full transparency with the State Department, Congress,
and the many communities interested in these issues. Second,
strict bipartisanship. Third, we remain convinced that because
the United States should have the world's most modern and able
diplomatic service, the State Department must change to earn
its place at the center of U.S. foreign policymaking and
execution. And finally, we offered our blueprints to those
currently serving our country's diplomacy at home and abroad.
We addressed what we consider to be four important sectors
of our Nation's diplomacy. Our recommendations are mainly
Foreign Service-specific. They do not claim to deal with the
full complexities of State Department operations or every
element of potential State Department reorganization. What we
have done is submit for consideration detailed descriptions of
how to implement our four blueprints, including specific
legislative and regulatory language. To the best of our
knowledge this is the first time this has ever been done at
this scale.
Our four blueprints address: first, the mission and mandate
of the Foreign Service in seeking enhanced authority,
responsibility, and accountability for U.S. Ambassadors
worldwide; holding U.S. diplomatic leadership, career or
appointed from outside the Foreign Service, to the same high
standard of foreign policy and international leadership
expertise; third, empowering the State Department and the
Foreign Service to play a more substantive role in the creation
and implementation of U.S. foreign policy; and finally,
fostering a stronger relationship between America's diplomats
and the American public they serve.
Second, we focused on professional education and training,
defining, implementing, and sustaining an education and
training complement for the Foreign Service that is about 8
percent of its total workforce. We focused on investing in
robust diplomatic education and training to secure a dedicated
career workforce with critical professional knowledge including
broad leadership and language skills. We focused on creating
broad institutional expertise within the Foreign Service, both
at home an through rotational opportunities abroad, to draw on
whole-of-government and private sector capabilities. Finally,
by prioritizing both mid-career continuing education and
extending training for higher-level positions we sought to
expand the pipeline of qualified leadership professionals.
Third, we focused on a modern and strategically focused
personnel system by creating and staffing nimble, multi-
functional teams and individuals positioned where they are
needed, placing the right people in the right places in the
right numbers with the right skills; developing a recruitment
strategy directly targeting young, multi-skilled workforce best
prepared to address rapidly progressing international
challenges. And finally in this area, and a growing greater
professional opportunities for family members who serve with
our Foreign Service officers abroad as a ready additional asset
pool for advancing U.S. interests.
Finally, we propose the creation of a Diplomatic Reserve
Corps. We seek to remedy the fact that the Department of State,
in many ways America's first line of defense, has no ready,
trained, and dedicated pool of reserves akin to the U.S. Armed
Forces. We propose the development of a 1,000-person-strong
reserve corps made up of retired State Department professionals
and other subject matter experts from outside the government
ready and able to move quickly in the event of natural
disasters, political turmoil, or any emergency need.
Finally, we offer these blueprints in support of an
American diplomacy that is nimble, does not see creativity
encumbered by perfunctory tradition, and that is deeply
connected to the needs of the people it serves.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Polk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Polk.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Cabelka, in your own words can you describe the role
and function of the Bureau of Administration? What is its
mission? And during your tenure there what did you see as the
biggest weakness within the bureau?
Ms. Cabelka. Thank you for the question, Chairman Lawler.
Like I said in my opening remarks, I really do feel like the
Bureau of Administration is the administrative backbone of the
State Department. Focuses on lots of operations that the State
Department, both domestically and overseas, really needs to
support the work that they are doing abroad. So everything from
again moving people's home goods, to overseas school support,
to language services. Also procurement, which we talked about
already, both of us, in our opening remarks. That is obviously
a vital part of providing services and additional support for
the State Department. So I would say again it is the
administrative backbone of the department.
Again, as we--I mentioned, it has been around for 80 years
and though it doesn't have typing pools any longer or call
centers in the same way that it did, technology has certainly
evolved and opportunities have certainly evolved for the State
Department.
I would say one of the biggest challenges that I had when I
was at the State Department was the ILMS system that I
mentioned in my opening remarks. It is a significant platform
that really does track all of the logistical support for the
State Department. Unfortunately, it is a pretty big platform
that has been overly specialized over time and is very
integrated. And I would say that the contract that it was
originally placed on were very long contracts that have existed
for a long time. And I think that as technology has improved
that the ILMS project should move onto new technological
platforms that can support that effort going further.
Mr. Lawler. I appreciate that. In the work that we are
doing now, especially considering that Congress has not
undertaken this responsibility in two decades, what do you see
as some of the considerations that we should make in assessing
the efficiency and effectiveness of the current organization of
the bureau?
Ms. Cabelka. Sure. So like I mentioned, a lot of the
State--a lot of the Bureau of Administration actually does
already operate under an efficiency-type model. And the fact
that when you work in a revolving fund space or in a Working
Capital Fund, you always want to make sure that you do not go
into the red. And there are several lines of effort at the
State Department, not just in the Bureau of Administration,
that work in a Working Capital Fund, like the Consular Affairs
work that you see.
I think something that is very smart about it is that it
allows the staff to be agile, going where the demand is, the
demand from within the State Department, which is what the
A's--which is what A's focus is most certainly. But places like
Consular Affairs can look to the outside and see what the
demand is for their needs of staffing and their needs of
effort.
So I think one thing that people should certainly look at
is are there Working Capital Fund opportunities within the
State Department that they can look to to make sure that they
really are rightsized already. And again, making sure that your
program doesn't go into the red versus asking Congress for more
money is certainly a way that people can do that.
Mr. Lawler. So A Bureau is responsible for domestic
operations and emergency services at the department. Can you
explain to us what that encompasses and how it differs from the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security's role?
Ms. Cabelka. Sure. The----
Mr. Lawler. For instance, why is Emergency Services
planning and operations for domestic and foreign incidences
split into two different bureaus?
Ms. Cabelka. Sure. So Emergency Management Services and the
Bureau of Administration is actually more focused on COOP and
COG, so continuing operations, both of government and of
operations at the State Department. So it is more of a domestic
focus. So thinking of things like active shooter unfortunately
and other topics like that. But also obviously emerging health
crises. Obviously emergency management was used a lot during
COVID. Obviously there was also a lot of efforts that were done
internationally on COVID as well. But the focus is more
domestic.
I cannot speak to why Emergency Management Services was
originally put into the A bureau, but it has been there a long
time. I can certainly do that. And again, it is a slightly
different focus than Diplomatic Security, however they do work
very closely together.
Mr. Lawler. That was my next question. They are
coordinating between emergency planning with Diplomatic
Security officials?
Ms. Cabelka. Most certainly.
Mr. Lawler. Okay. Are there gaps in funding personnel or
technology that hinder effective emergency coordination between
A Bureau and Diplomatic Security?
Ms. Cabelka. I can't speak to Diplomatic Security as I
never worked in that bureau, but I can say Emergency Management
Services, we never had a shortfall.
We actually did update the notification system when I was
in the A Bureau from and outdated system. And that is basically
so people--employees can call in if there is an active shooter
situation, checking in, making sure people know where they are
during a weather emergency, or those sorts of things for the
State Department to be able to head counts. So that is a system
that was updated when I was at the State Department, but I
don't remember there being any financial problems when I was
there.
Mr. Lawler. Okay. I now recognize the ranking member,
Representative Cherfilus-McCormick from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again for all your service to our country. My
question is for Ambassador Polk, and for your continued
service.
I wanted to know about some of the cuts that we are seeing.
Can you talk about some ways to reform the department and
better position this workforce: Foreign Service, civil service,
contractors, and local staff to advance America's interests?
And do you feel that these policies of this administration so
far have strengthened or--our workforce or have weakened it?
Mr. Polk. Thank you, Ranking Member Cherfilus-McCormick. I
want to be very careful in reasserting one of the key
principles of the work that my colleagues and I did in this
Blueprints for a Modern--More Modern U.S. Diplomatic Service in
our commitment to strict bipartisanship.
I do not wish to criticize or praise the administration in
the current form or a past administration or criticize it, but
I want to emphasize the important principles of--that our
diplomacy serves and how one can approach the important aspects
of modernizing it for 21st Century demands of international
affairs. And in that context I think it is very important, and
I am grateful to this committee for looking at the Foreign
Service, looking at the State Department and its functions to
see if they are still the most effective way to deliver the
services to the American people whom they serve.
So the one thing that I would advocate is something that
you mentioned in your opening statements, and that is to go
ahead and look at the functions, as are you are doing, of the
Department of State, both civil and Foreign Service and our
workforce abroad, to see where they meet the mission of the
administration's foreign policy. And the administration's
foreign policy that we are so--that we right now focused on is
this administration's foreign policy, not previous ones; not
here to criticize or to praise, but simply to follow the
President's instructions to make his foreign policy the most
effective for America and for the American people. That is my
opinion as a 35-year non-partisan Foreign Service officer is--
it should not be a political issue, nor a partisan issue, but
simply one that supports America in the achievement of its
goals.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Specifically my concern has been
with our global diplomatic footprint. We have seen that we have
actually lost ground as compared to China. And so I want to
make sure that we are keeping our priorities and our goals
front and center as we are making decisions and that these
decisions are actually strengthening us or bringing us into a
place where we are actually gaining ground when it comes to
that diplomatic footprint.
So in that context do you believe that the suggested cuts
right now would actually lead us toward the goal of expanding
our diplomatic footprint or do you believe that it actually is
having us in this continued regression?
Mr. Polk. Thank you for the question. I will give you my
opinion and hope that it finds some resonance in your concerns.
I firmly believe that the United States can afford roughly 1
percent of the Federal budget on its diplomatic workforce to
go--to present a universally present American diplomacy in
every part of the world. I do not think that it is something
that is too expensive for the American people to support in
terms of all the functions you mentioned in your opening
statement and all the concerns that the chairman mentioned in
terms of the efficient operation of our foreign affairs
bureaucracy.
I would not cut back on our presence around the world no
matter how--in our consulates nor in our embassies simply
because there are other competitors out there who are perfectly
willing to fill the vacuum that we leave when we depart. And I
can assure that I have served in huge embassies abroad from
Mexico City to Berlin, Germany to very small embassies in
Estonia and in other places around the world where the presence
of the United States was always the central point of focus for
both the host country and other diplomatic representations from
other countries to see the American Embassy as the most
effective and the most efficient diplomatic service there.
Whenever they had questions about how to deal with the
diplomatic challenges of that region and of that country, they
would first come to the U.S. Embassy. I think this is something
that we would want to preserve.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So I want to shift toward
solutions before my time runs out. Are there any things you
would recommend that would help us actually gain ground on our
diplomatic footprint?
Mr. Polk. The one thing that I really think would be really
important, I would hope that you would take a very close look
at, is our proposal for a Diplomatic Reserve Corps. When we
deal with emergencies around the world, be they in Afghanistan,
be they in Europe, be they in any part of the world, in Africa,
be they in--whatever places would it be, we do not have a ready
surge capacity in the State Department to meet those
contingencies. And what happens is you have to take people from
existing positions around the world, take them out of those
positions and send them to the area of greatest need.
Fair enough, we do what we have to do, but that is not an
efficient way to handle crises when a surge capacity is
desperately needed. So creating this 1,000-person reserve
corps, ready, trained and cleared, and able to be deployed
whenever we need them, wherever we need them is something that
we strongly urge the committee consider.
Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you. I believe.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you to the ranking member and thank you,
Mr. Polk, for your testimony.
I now recognize the Chairman Emeritus of the Middle East
and North Africa Subcommittee, the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Indeed, Ambassador Polk, thank you for your service. It is
really inspiring to have known that--your service in Estonia,
in Serbia, Montenegro. Then find out Mexico City and Berlin. It
just never ends. Thank you very much.
With that in mind, I am so grateful for your association
with McCain Institute. I had the wonderful opportunity to
campaign--it was hard--at Hilton Head Island for Senator McCain
when he was running for President. And then I was grateful to
be with him and Senator Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman
campaigning in New York City. Mike Lawler gave me a visa to be
there briefly. And so then over and over again Senator McCain--
what an inspiration. Each year at the Munich Security
Conference, he played such a role. And indeed he was referenced
at the conference again this year as to his role that he has
made. And so I wish you well in our service.
With that in mind, in 2012 the GAO reported that State had
made limited progress in containing costs to providing
administrative costs. It did not reduce the need for American
administrative costs overseas which cost more than local staff.
Do you have any suggestions on how to reengineer the
administrative processes and seek innovative managerial
approaches to improve cost-effectiveness?
Mr. Polk. Mr. Wilson, thank you very much for your
question. I will--please, I will give you my answer, but of
course I will defer to my colleague here who is got much more
expertise in those specifics. But I will give you my response
from my experience of 35 years of being the beneficiary of the
administrative services that the A Bureau and other colleagues
at the State Department provided.
I must say that the overall support that the State
Department provides both to its foreign and civil service and
its locally employed staff is excellent. People try very, very
hard to go ahead and make us capable to provide the services
that we are to provide for the American people in whatever
function we serve: political, economic, public affairs work,
consular work, or the management staff of the embassy.
So overall I think we all deserve to give gratitude and
applause to our colleagues who provide the services.
Now that said, I must say that I have been over my time in
the State Department involved in a few efforts previous to the
current undertaking that I did with some of my former
colleagues to try and streamline our overall bureaucratic
processes. And I will give you one example that I think is--I
once was proposed and I was quickly shot down, but one that I
would like to offer here for your consideration.
For instance, our travel management system. To travel for--
as you probably learned from your own experience, to travel for
the U.S. Government can be a very complex enterprise. It
becomes very, very difficult to arrange, very complex to do,
and I would argue costly to maintain and to then cross-check
once you have accomplished it.
I once proposed something totally revolutionary which I
think would save the government a lot of money and make it much
simpler to go ahead and undertake the vast amount of travel
that the State Department particularly has to engage in. And
that is a totally no-fault travel system where the U.S.
Government simply says, Mike Polt, you are being sent to U.S.
Embassy Berlin. You are to report to your supervisor on date X
and you are serving there for 3 years. The State Department has
figured out that that costs so much money for you to go ahead
and afford to make that travel coach class, American carrier,
all those rules. We have deposited this amount of money in your
bank account. Report to your supervisor. Have a safe trip. End.
Over. Out.
There is nothing further that needs to be checked, nothing
further that needs to--no additional bureaucracy that needs to
be deployed. You can just go ahead and do that. We could save
ourselves a number of positions and expenses if we did away
with some of those people who----
Mr. Wilson. Thank you for that suggestion. I saw Chairman
Lawler write that done to forward it ahead.
Madam Secretary, as a former real eState attorney it is
always intriguing to me, real eState owned particularly by the
U.S. Government. And there are some properties that are
underutilized. What is being done to determine the ability to
divest properties that are not needed worldwide?
Ms. Cabelka. Sure. So I can certainly speak to domestic
facilities because Overseas Building Operations is the bureau
that is responsible for the properties that are overseas that
are owned by the State Department.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, one of the things
that the Real Property group is doing in the Bureau of
Administration is working under a Working Capital Fund in the
idea that if you charge other bureaus at the State Department
for the space that they occupy, whether they use it well or if
it is underutilized or potentially not used at all, that they
will not want to incur those fees charged to them by the Real
Property Management team, and therefore find ways to use the
space more efficiently going forward. And if the space is
unused, be willing to give up that space and give it back to
GSA, who we all know is the landlord of the majority of the
domestic facilities that the State Department operates out of.
So I think that is really a good way to really make sure
you know what square footage you actually have. It is
surprising how many government agencies don't even know the
footprint that they necessarily possess.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you for your efforts.
Ms. Cabelka. No problem.
Ms. Wilson. I yield back.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
I now recognize for 5 minutes the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. You don't have to adjust your
mics. This is the way we talk in East Tennessee. It is the only
place in America where people don't speak with an accent. So
thank you all. I never know what Lawler is saying. I just look
at him. If our eyes meet, I figure he is talking to me, but I
can't never figure out what the heck he is saying.
Mr. Lawler. What did you just say?
Mr. Burchett. Yes. See, there you go. Hey, leave the comedy
to me, Lawler.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, could you give me the--I am sorry,
not Mr. Chairman, but--now you got me all confused. Could one
of you all tell me the role and the function of the Bureau of
Administration and what services does it specifically provide
to the State Department? Just give it to me from the heart. You
don't have to read something, ma'am. Just tell me what you
think. How about that?
Ms. Cabelka. Sure. So I would say the A Bureau is certainly
a collection of interesting operational functions that work at
the--that are the backbone of the State Department and the
operational services there.
So again, as mentioned, travel services is certainly one of
those, but logistics management is a big category. Records
management and privacy mandates and FOIA is another one that
people obviously think of. Contracting and procurement is a
huge part of what the A Bureau does. And then real property is
certainly
[inaudible]. But we also oversee the Overseas School
Program, which--making sure that those that serve overseas with
their families, that their children can be--can attend schools
that are up to U.S. standards and give them the support that
they need for the education of their children.
We also do things like language interpretation and
translation. It is far and wide. I kind of always make the
joke--there was this old Life cereal commercial, like, ``Give
it to Mikey; he'll eat it.''
Mr. Burchett. ``He'll eat it,'' yes.
Ms. Cabelka. The A Bureau is kind of that model, quite
frankly. It is the place that lots of little programs that
maybe a lot of people don't think about go that support the
State Department at as whole.
Mr. Burchett. All right. Sir, would you add or detract
anything from that?
Mr. Polt. Well, the first thing I would like to add, Mr.
Burchett, is that I appreciate the way you talk because I am a
graduate of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville despite my
accent which is obviously not from Tennessee.
Mr. Burchett. Go Vols. What year was that?
Mr. Polt. 1977.
Mr. Burchett. Okay.
Mr. Polt. The year I joined the Foreign Service.
Mr. Burchett. Let's see, I was--wait. Yes, 1997. No, my dad
was dean of student conduct back then. I doubt he saw you then
either. You were probably one of those overachievers. But he
also had the Freshman Honor Society, so I don't know if that--
he saw you there either.
Let me skip around a little bit. Do you think that the
State Department is maintaining facilities that provide little
or no benefit to its diplomatic mission? Because I know we are
looking into a lot now at waste and things. And I don't want
you to be critical, but I would like to know if you could see
some efficiencies there.
Mr. Polt. I will speak from my perspective. Of course I am
happy to have my colleague be much more specific because she
was in charge of the real eState of the department.
I know that there is a plan or at least some consideration
being given right now to streamlining our overseas presence in
terms of do we need to have consulates in various parts of
various countries? Can we close smaller posts? Can we go ahead
and create more efficiencies by not being everywhere?
First of all, I would certainly recommend and advocate that
we maintain the principle of universality in terms of being
present in every country in which the United States has
diplomatic relations. That does not mean that we have to have a
gigantic presence or that we have to have multiple consulates
in the same country, but the embassy can be the focal point of
the U.S. diplomatic presence and representing U.S. interests.
So in that context, taking a close look at the multiple
consulate posts we might have in certain countries particularly
in the more advanced countries or the more modern parts of the
world, and also whether every agency that is represented
overseas needs to be overseas to go ahead and perform the
function on behalf of the American people. In other words, does
every agency right now that has a perch in certain places--can
it be done from either regional offices or can it be done from
back in the United States versus having it done in overseas
locations?
So in that sense I think it is very worthwhile to look at
efficiencies, not to sort of say no, we have to have everything
just the way it is. But I would always do it with the
consideration of let's not move the United States out of
countries altogether in which we know that Chinese and other
interests will very quickly fill the vacuum that we leave
behind.
Mr. Burchett. Real quick. You mentioned Chinese. Something
I have a real passion for, and I am not sure if it is with you
all or not, is reclaiming desert areas. All across the
continent of Africa--everybody thinks Africa is a country; it
is a continent. But they are reclaiming the desert through a
process or several processes. Don't need to go into it. And I
am wondering is that a function that you all would help
facilitate through grants or something like that?
Mr. Polt. In other words, the question being would we----
Mr. Burchett. If we don't do it, the Chinese are going to
do it.
Mr. Polt. In other words, should we be competing everywhere
in the world including on the area that you just mentioned
right now? My strong recommendation is categorically so. We
should not let Belt and Road be the effort that sort of----
Mr. Burchett. Okay.
Mr. Polt [continuing]. rules the roost around the world
without the United States being present particularly----
Mr. Burchett. I am way over my time, but if you all know
somebody who is involved with that, if you all could get with
me I would really love to be involved in that.
Mr. Polt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burchett. It is not worth a vote for me, but I could
sleep well at night knowing that we did something.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am way over, but thank you,
brother.
Mr. Lawler. Just a wee bit. Thank you, Mr. Burchett.
I now recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Kean.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. As the
administration considers ways to improve the efficiency of U.S.
Government overseas operations we must determine the best
approach for providing support services to the various agencies
stationed at embassies and consulates.
GAO has found increasing participation in the International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services System can lead to
economies of scale and cost savings. It also noted that
Congress should consider requiring agency participation in
ICASS unless a valid business case justifies an exemption.
Can you explain the benefits and the challenges that might
require the State Department to participate in ICASS? Thank
you.
Mr. Cabelka. Hi. Thank you for the question. Right, the
ICASS system is something that is well known to people that
serve overseas. And obviously it is a voluntary participation
by not only the State Department, but also the other
departments that potentially have people that are serving
overseas and it provides an administrative backbone of the
services that are provided overseas at embassies. I think the
big question that kind of is outstanding is should it be
voluntary by the agencies that don't participate in it or do
participate in it? And I think that that is a good question.
I do think that generally consolidating services, which the
A Bureau does not only for the State Department but for a lot
of other agencies, like in delivering mail to people at their
posts overseas and moving all of their home goods and their
office supplies and making sure that those are done in a
consolidated manner--I think ICASS participation being
voluntary is tricky, but it is a way to split costs also
between different agencies that participate in it.
So if you do work at the Peace Corps and you have got some
folks that are at the embassy in a particular country, then
they also participate in paying for the postal work that is
done there and not having their own Peace Corps agency pay for
that independently. So obviously there are some cost savings
there. I do think it is a good idea for Congress to look into
it. I know that there was a GAO report I think back in 2012
that talked about this, so this is obviously even a topic that
has been around.
The ICASS system actually is run primarily out of MSS, so
kind of the think tank part of the State--the Bureau under the
management family, so--but obviously the Bureau of
Administration has great involve with--involvement with it
specifically in the logistics management space.
Mr. Kean. So you prefer a voluntary or a mandatory?
Ms. Cabelka. It is currently voluntary.
Mr. Kean. I know that.
Ms. Cabelka. I think the recommendation----
Mr. Kean. I know that. I am asking----
Ms. Cabelka [continuing]. by the GAO was to have it not be
voluntary.
Mr. Kean. And what is your response to that?
Ms. Cabelka. Again, it is a percentage of number of people
that participate in it for other agencies, so having other
people pay into that system makes sense because it is based on
the size of how you participate at the embassy. Obviously the
State Department is usually the largest member of that team, so
we obviously pay the largest share, but obviously there are
other organizations. Again, Peace Corps is just one. There is
quite a few that have people overseas. Did is also one that
participates.
Mr. Kean. Thank you. Ambassador?
Mr. Polt. I would vote for making it mandatory simply
because if we are all over there for the same team working for
the same American people, the most efficient way to do it is
for one agency to go ahead and provide these services that my
colleague is proposing. So I think if you are going to be
overseas officially for the U.S. Government, I think you should
participate in this system.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, both. If U.S. agencies including the
State Department reduce their presence overseas, it may be even
more difficult to gain economy of scale in providing
administrative services at the post level. What are some
options to help contain the administrative costs for a reduced
footprint?
Ms. Cabelka. I think I understand the question. Are you
asking if there are some places that maybe consulates no longer
exist how do you still provide economies of scale for
administrative services? Is that correct?
Mr. Kean. [No response.]
Ms. Cabelka. Yes, I think regionalization, which is
something that my colleague here on the panel mentioned as
well--I think that is a good idea. There are examples of
regionalization of lots of services. For example, in Bangkok it
is a service where there is a lot of financial processing that
is handled out of the embassy there. For logistics management
and shipping we--the A Bureau has a pretty big presence at some
ports in Europe as well.
So I still think there is some regionalization that is
possible.
So in the area of procurement I know the A Bureau has an
operation in Germany. I don't know that it is always the most
cost-effective because German labor laws are a little
challenging and sometimes cause things to be a little more
expensive. But I think there are some regional ways that you
can do certain administrative aspects in regional parts of the
[inaudible].
Mr. Kean. Without compromising effectiveness?
Ms. Cabelka. I don't think so. With technology the way that
it is now, I don't tend to think so. I mean, you can have a
procurement officer in Germany doing work for a country in
Africa and I don't see there being any down side. I think also
if COVID taught us anything, that there are some things that
can be done remotely and done in other places and people can be
responsive that way.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Representative Kean.
I now recognize for 5 minutes the distinguished gentleman
and former Secretary of the Interior, the gentle from Montana,
Mr. Zinke, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just a couple
comments as we go through. I would think that if you use the
services, you ought to pay the freight. Whether it is mandated
or not, there might be more efficient--let those guys figure it
out. But if they use the services, certainly I think they
should pay the freight. I think that is fair.
Mr. Ambassador, looking through and listening to your
testimony I am interested when you say enhanced authority. That
seems to be a theme throughout. No doubt individuals traveling
around. As my experience as a commander I think that everyone
works for somebody. So they give carte blanche I think probably
to the Ambassador, or the RSO is probably the guy that would
approve such things.
But explain to me when you say enhanced authority. What do
you mean by that?
Mr. Polt. Thank you, Mr. Zinke. Since the Ambassadors--our
Ambassadors serve as representatives of the President of the
United States around the world. And they are charged by the
President in these--what we call the chief of mission letters
by every President in every administration that give the
Ambassador the instruction you are in charge of all U.S.
official government activities in your country of assignment
and you have all these responsibilities and accountability for
their safety and for the performance of their duties.
I found that over the years in my experience and also my
experience as Ambassador that more and more there has been this
effort to have to refer back to Washington for permission to go
ahead and do your job that has been very clearly outlined for
you already by the President in the President's letter and
[inaudible].
Mr. Zinke. Well, and to your point, we are talking about
regionalization, right? In my experience you have to be very,
very careful when you regionalize. Because oftentimes rather
than you regionalize a service, you regionalize authority. And
that line is probably--because it does create a bureaucracy. So
when you say authority, do you have specific authorities that
you think that we can push the State Department to give to
Ambassadors?
Mr. Polt. I think we should go ahead and let the
Ambassadors perform the function that the President and through
his(through the Secretary of State from the President have been
given to the Ambassador in very clear format and not ask for
our chiefs of mission to have to refer back to Washington for
the functions which they have already been authorized and to
make sure that they have the authority to not only perform
their mission, but also to be the risk managers and the risk
absorbers for functions abroad.
The example I would like to give you is you know that many
of our embassies nowadays are very heavily secured and
fortified to make sure that our staff stay safe. That is a
smart and prudent idea. At the same time you can't do diplomacy
from behind a fortified wall. You have to come out and meet the
people to go ahead and engage with host country to go ahead and
take a certain amount of prudent risk in performance of your
duty.
Our Ambassadors need to be authorized to go ahead and
absorb that risk prudently, to hold themselves accountable for
taking those risks, but to go ahead and get their staffs to be
able to accomplish their mission and not to be so risk-averse
that we can't get the job done.
Mr. Zinke. In your experience do you find it frustrating on
our procurement process? It seems that you have the operator
that knows what he wants, the vendor who basically knows how to
manufacture it, but we put a third entity called the
contracting officer in charge. Is there frustration in the
State Department like there is within the Department of Defense
on timeliness of procurement?
Mr. Polt. Certainly there is. Let me be honest. Of course
there is. At the same time we realize that everybody cannot be
his or her own procurement officer. You have to have a process
that is fair, that is clearly delineated, and that can--that is
accountable to the money being wisely spent.
At the same time you know that sometimes it takes much too
long to procure things. Often we work on budgets where there
are restrictions all the way through the end--to the end of the
fiscal year. And suddenly at the end of the Fiscal Year you
said, my God, you better go out there and buy some
refrigerators and some various other things because very
quickly the money needs to be spent. It would be better if we
had a more logical and more predictable procurement process
throughout the entire fiscal year.
Mr. Zinke. You seem very articulate for a Sun Devil. I
played for the Ducks, just for the matter of record.
Mr. Polt. Two best teams.
Mr. Zinke. All right. And let me ask you, if this
committee--if you could say we are going to focus on one thing,
to fix one thing within the span and the authority of this
committee, what would you pick?
Mr. Polt. The one I already picked, sir, and that is--the
one is--I really think you should give serious consideration
for creating this Diplomatic Reserve Corps. Create that body of
surge capacity for the United States, not just for the State
Department, for the United States, to meet overseas
contingencies on a diplomatic basis that we currently do not
have. With the State Department positions already being vastly
understaffed by current projections of about 13 percent of
positions around the world not being filled, in order for us to
go ahead and meet emergencies it becomes a really dire
situation to be able to meet those.
Mr. Zinke. Thank you. And thank you both for your service.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Polt. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Representative Zinke.
Mr. Polt, I just wanted to go back and drill down a little
bit on the Diplomatic Reserve Corps concept that you have put
forth. I certainly think there is great value in it. Obviously
when then are flare-ups around the world, being able to have
some type of surge capacity, if you will, and get a Diplomatic
Reserve Corps there on the ground who has experience,
especially in specific geographic areas--I certainly see the
value in it.
How would you see that functioning within M Branch or A
Branch? Within the State Department how would you see that set
up and what is it that you think Congress should do to help get
that on track?
Mr. Polt. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, the--we have
proposed a 4-year ramp-up period of basically recruiting 250
individuals for over a 4-year period until you reach the 1,000-
person mark. Where it would be situated in the department, I
suppose the right place would be in the M family simply because
M provides the overall umbrella for all of the platform
services for our functioning both at home and abroad.
At the same time I think it would have to have the kind of
rigor that our Military Reserve Services has in terms of once
you sign up for this and once you are trained for this and
cleared for this--in other words, the U.S.--the American people
have invested in you to go ahead and be ready--you have to also
sign up to a commitment that when you are called, you go,
meaning that the next time we have to have a surge of let's say
a consular function in Doha from the--after the departure from
Afghanistan, that you--that--and you are now a trained consular
officer and you said we need 100 of you to go ahead and go to
Doha and you need to leave this weekend, you get on the plane
and you go.
In other words, it has to have the kind of rigor that is
not traditionally used in the State Department parlance. We
need to have the kind of discipline and the kind of requirement
that once we invest in this that it actually does happen when
we need you. That is the most important part.
One of the concerns that I have heard in the past is we
can't enforce that kind of rigor in the State Department. We
are not military. I would beg to differ. I think we can.
Mr. Lawler. Appreciate that.
Okay. Well, I appreciate you all coming here today and
providing your testimony. I thank the witnesses for their
valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The
members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions
for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to these in
writing.
Pursuant to committee rules all members may have 5 days to
submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the
record subject to the length limitations.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]