[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 3 (Thursday, January 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S225-S226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           A MUST: REFORM OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1980

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, my purpose today is to discuss a highly 
disturbing pattern of abuse and professional misconduct by members of 
the U.S. Foreign Service and a grievance process that does not 
adequately penalize individuals who engage in such actions.
  This week, Mr. President, I wrote to our friend, the distinguished 
Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, regarding the investigation 
that I have instructed the Foreign Relations Committee staff to 
undertake during the coming months.
  It will be instructive to examine the serious allegations--all 
documented by the State Department's Inspector General--that have come 
to my attention during the Foreign Relation Committee's routine review 
of ambassadorial appointments and the Foreign Service promotion lists 
submitted to the Senate by the White House.
  Now, perhaps the most serious allegation that so far has been brought 
to my attention involves a United States Ambassador--a career Foreign 
Service officer, who was forced to resign his ambassadorial post for 
repeated episodes of sexually harassing female employees under his 
supervision.
  This case was documented by the State Department Inspector General in 
a 26 page report made available to the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  In response, the Secretary of State promptly and properly fired this 
Ambassador this past September. Yet to this day, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development--our Government's $6 billion foreign aid 
giveaway agency--continues to employ this former ambassador and, to 
date, has recommended no reprimand whatsoever for his actions.
  The abuses, Mr. President, do not end there. In another instance, a 
Foreign Service officer in India provided visas to foreign female 
applicants in return for sex. This reprehensible behavior led to the 
officer's being suspended without pay for five days. However, the 
suspension was in effect during the Christmas holiday; therefore his 
co-workers were unaware of his having been suspended.
  Incredibly, Mr. President, despite this gross misconduct and abuse of 
taxpayers' trust, the Foreign Service officer has been recommended for 
promotion by the President Clinton of the United States.
  In another case, four Foreign Service officers in Manila carried out 
an elaborate scheme to divert $94,200 in federal government funds to 
build a squash and racquetball court. For this fraud--which forced the 
U.S. embassy into violation of U.S. anti-deficiency laws--these Foreign 
Service officers each received mere seven day suspensions. (and at 
least one of them has been recommended for promotion!)
  In yet another case, a Foreign Service officer remains in the employ 
of the State Department even after having twice pleaded guilty to, and 
being convicted of, theft of State Department funds.
  The Director General of the Foreign Service recommended that the 
officer be fired but the Foreign Service Grievance Board (made up of 
colleagues of the guilty employee) overruled the Director General and 
overturned the officer's termination. The Secretary of State at the 
time rightly sought to overrule the Grievance Board, but the courts 
ruled that the Foreign Service Act of 1980 did not give the Secretary 
authority to overrule the Grievance Board.
  So something is amiss, and I for one propose to try to do something 
about it because the list goes on and on. A senior career USIA Foreign 
Service officer in Bangkok, Thailand, falsified an $18,000 grant and 
thereby violated agency guidelines by approving an expenditure of 
$19,000 to repair her personal residence. And what do you suppose the 
officer's penalty was? A one-day suspension! Moreover, after all of 
that, this FSO was recommended by the President for promotion to the 
highest ranking Foreign Service position within USIA, despite strong 
objections from the USIA Inspector General. And to add further insult 
to American taxpayers, this officer, to this day, has never even been 
required to repay the stolen $18,000.

  By this point, I suspect most Americans would be appalled by such 
outrageous misbehavior. So, my final example involves a senior career 
USIA Foreign Service officer nominated by the President to serve as a 
U.S. ambassador even though the officer received two letters of 
admonishment for violating USIA regulations.
  Despite these letters of admonishment--one for nepotism in 1990, and 
a second, in 1991, for engaging in extramarital affairs with two 
journalists while carrying out official U.S. government activities 
supported by the taxpayers--USIA did not suspend this officer for his 
actions.
  I informed the Secretary of State in my letter that I fear these 
cases may be merely the tip of a very corrupt iceberg. The fact is that 
the Department of State continues to employ, and the White House 
continues to recommend to the Senate for promotion, Foreign Service 
officers who not only have grossly abused the trust placed in them by 
American taxpayers, but who, when judged by their peers, have received 
only the lightest of punishment.
  While these abuses themselves are, to say the least, unacceptable, so 
too are the Foreign Service's responses to them. As I understand it, 
allowing

[[Page S226]]

these individuals--who have committed moral, ethical, and/or 
professional abuses, or who have defrauded the Federal Government--to 
remain unscathed in their jobs is being tolerated under the arcane, 
self-protecting Foreign Service employment laws. I propose to try to do 
something about that.
  More startling, perhaps, is that the Foreign Service and the 
President continue to recommend some of these individuals for 
promotion!
  I have recommended to Secretary Albright that we work together to 
address this issue in legislation. Specifically the Foreign Relations 
Committee will examine the numerous moral, ethical, and professional 
lapses of Foreign Service officers and the personnel grievance process 
to determine whether the cases I have referenced are symptomatic of 
more severe and pervasive behavior within the Foreign Service. I 
suspect that deeper investigation will, in fact, show just how 
widespread these abuses are.
  I assure you, Mr. President, that the Foreign Relations Committee 
will review the punishment given to those Foreign Service officers 
violating U.S. laws and regulations and how that punishment compares to 
the way in which similar cases are resolved involving military officers 
in the Department of Defense and other career officers in federal 
agencies. The Committee will study the Grievance Board process and 
recommend necessary amendments to the laws governing the Foreign 
Service and its grievance procedures.
  Mr. President, the point is this, and I shall conclude on this note.
  Americans deserve the finest diplomatic representation around the 
world. Our nation is ill-served when the U.S. career diplomatic corps 
tolerates moral, ethical, and professional abuses within its ranks and 
fails adequately to deal with those who are guilty of such abuses.
  I say again, Mr. President, that it is my intent to find out the full 
scope of all of this and to try to do something about it.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________