[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 127 (Monday, September 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8767-H8770]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RECOGNIZING THE FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE OCCASION OF 
                          ITS 75TH ANNIVERSARY

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 168) recognizing the Foreign Service of the 
United States on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 168

       Whereas the modern Foreign Service of the United States was 
     established 75 years ago on May 24, 1924, with the enactment 
     of the Rogers Act, Public Law 135 of the 68th Congress;
       Whereas today some 10,300 men and women serve in the 
     Foreign Service at home and abroad;
       Whereas the diplomatic, consular, communications, trade, 
     development, administrative, security, and other functions 
     the men and women of the Foreign Service of the United States 
     perform are crucial to the United States national interest;
       Whereas the men and women of the Foreign Service of the 
     United States, as well as their families, are constantly 
     exposed to danger, even in times of peace, and many have died 
     in the service of their country; and
       Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the dedication of 
     the men and women of the Foreign Service of the United States 
     and, in particular, to honor those who made the ultimate 
     sacrifice while protecting the interests of the United 
     States: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) recognizes the Foreign Service of the United States and 
     its achievements and contributions of the past 75 years;
       (2) honors those members of the Foreign Service of the 
     United States who have given their lives in the line of duty; 
     and
       (3) commends the generations of men and women who have 
     served or are presently serving in the Foreign Service for 
     their vital service to the Nation.
       Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 
     transmit a copy of this resolution to the President of the 
     United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 168.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to bring before the 
body House Resolution 168, recognizing the Foreign Service of the 
United States on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.
  Madam Speaker, only when unrest or tragedy strikes abroad do many 
Americans become aware of the outstanding work of the thousands of men 
and women who serve in the Foreign Service of our Nation. The Members 
of the Foreign Service take responsibility for helping Americans in 
danger. As we found just last summer in Kenya and Tanzania, Foreign 
Service members and their families sometimes also become the victims of 
violence, along with other Americans stationed abroad along with their 
families. We need to do more, and we will do more to protect all the 
Americans we have asked to work for us overseas.
  Indeed, six American ambassadors have been killed abroad over the 
past 31 years. And many in the rank and file of our Foreign Service and 
their families have tragically fallen victim to terror or to the more 
mundane hazards of life abroad in service to their Nation.
  Every day these dedicated individuals stand ready to promote the 
interests of our Nation. They do this by carrying out tasks such as 
protecting the property of an American who dies overseas, reporting on 
political developments, screening potential entrants to the United 
States, promoting the sale of American goods, or securing American 
personnel and facilities overseas. They and their families often live 
in dangerous environments and are often separated from their extended 
families and friends.
  At home, the men and women of the Foreign Service perform essential 
functions in the Departments of State, Commerce, and Agriculture, in 
the United States Information Agency, and in the Agency for 
International Development. Our modern Foreign Service was established 
by the Rogers Act of 1924. We are now celebrating its 75th anniversary 
year of its enactment. It is all together befitting at this time to 
congratulate the men and women of the Foreign Service and to 
commemorate the significant sacrifices they have made in the service of 
our Nation.
  Let me note that I appreciate the support of the cosponsors of this 
resolution, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking 
Democrat on our committee, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights.
  Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in 
voting for this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in support of this resolution.
  I would like to take this moment to personally thank the brave men 
and women who represent us on the front lines in our embassies and 
posts around the world and who, if particularly lucky and gifted, can 
climb their way to our most senior diplomatic posts in the State 
Department or in the White House.
  Additionally, we have seen that, increasingly, to join the Foreign 
Service means a willingness to put one's life on the line in service to 
our country, because of the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, individuals who disagree with our policy, or just plain 
madmen with a means to destroy. I commend all these individuals who 
care enough about the world and our place in it that they are willing 
to serve in posts from Australia to Zanzibar representing our country's 
interests.
  Unfortunately, though, while I intend to vote for this measure, I 
chose not to cosponsor it because I requested that language regarding 
the treatment of black and minority Foreign Service officers be 
included in the bill. It is important to recognize how far we have come 
and to celebrate the good things; however, we should never purposely 
omit critical information about challenges yet unmet.

[[Page H8768]]

  First of all, I can understand why Madeleine Albright's State 
Department would not want any mention of how minorities are faring in 
her State Department. A description in one word would be, poorly. After 
choosing to use scarce resources to fight rather than settle a lawsuit 
filed by black Foreign Service officers, the State Department has still 
not admitted having discriminated against black Foreign Service 
officers. At least the Department of Agriculture admitted having 
discriminated against black and minority farmers. I am saddened that 
Madeleine Albright's State Department will not admit such behavior.
  Yet, after its reorganization, the State Department will have to 
contend with two additional lawsuits filed by African Americans against 
the United States Information Agency and the Voice of America. These 
two lawsuits, Brown versus Duffey/USIA and Dandridge versus USIA, are 
representative of the paucity of the presence of black men and, 
moreover, their treatment once employed by the Voice of America. 
Dandridge versus USIA is still pending before the EEOC and also 
addresses the disparity of treatment in hiring and appropriations by 
Voice of America toward African American male employees.
  Words cannot express how deeply saddened I am by this state of 
affairs. Everyone knows that women interested in international service 
had to file a lawsuit against the Government in order to get fair 
representation in the Foreign Service. After that lawsuit, the numbers 
of women rapidly improved, and we all worked hard to get Madeleine 
Albright into her historic position. Yet a woman, in charge of the 
State Department, is stalling on this important area of bringing 
minority representation up to where it should be.
  America's foreign policy apparatus is supposed to discriminate 
against no one. That is why women from across this country filed two 
lawsuits, the now famous original Hartman case and the appellate Palmer 
case. The State Department has responded to the Hartman lawsuit, and 
now it has really improved the numbers of white women represented at 
all levels.
  However, when one looks at the State Department's own numbers for 
their absorption of minorities into the Foreign Service, the shocking 
fact is that Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans are grossly 
underrepresented. And despite having filed a lawsuit, as white women 
did, black Foreign Service officers did not even get fair treatment 
with their lawsuit, with Madeleine Albright fighting it tooth and nail. 
Even as late as last year, yet another lawsuit has been filed against 
Madeleine Albright's Department of State. We have too few minorities 
serving right now as either ambassadors or deputy chiefs of mission.
  Additionally, the seventh floor of the State Department building, 
from which this country's foreign policy is run, has historically, 
never, itself, had more than token minority representation. We have had 
precious few minorities in deputy assistant or assistant secretary 
positions. We have never had a minority serve as an under secretary or 
even as the public affairs spokesperson for the Department.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I recently accompanied the President on his 
trip to the United Nations. On that plane, with dozens of foreign 
policy advisers, the State Department had not one minority accompanying 
the President. Is this the picture that we really want to paint to an 
increasingly shrinking world, that we are not willing to accept the 
best and brightest among our own citizens, even if they happen to be 
minorities?
  I join my colleagues in recognizing the Foreign Service for achieving 
75 years of service this year. However, I also recognize that the State 
Department has a long way to go before it sheds its nickname, ``the 
last plantation.'' And at the rate it is going, it will be a long time 
indeed. Madam Speaker, I continue to be ready to work with the State 
Department to improve the figures that are submitted for the Record as 
follows:

               Diversity Fact Sheet--Department of State

       Overall, African American men and women are 22.8% of the 
     Department of State's workforce. While on the surface, this 
     looks good, as always, the devil is in the details:
       46% of all African Americans employed at the Department of 
     State are concentrated in the lowest GS levels in the 
     Department of State. Of the 3,466 African American men and 
     women employed at the Department of State, 1,588 hold the 
     positions of GS 10 to GS 2. These are certainly not the 
     policy making positions within the Department of State.
       Hispanics, Native Americans and Asians are worse off: 
     Hispanics make up 3.9% of the overall Department of State 
     workforce; Native Americans make up \1/2\% of the workforce; 
     and, Asians are 3.4% of the workforce. Thus, the numbers are 
     even smaller when looking at the Foreign Service.
       African Americans only hold 5% of White Collar jobs--
     management, policy and leadership positions. Hispanics hold 
     6.3% of all DOS white collar jobs; Native Americans hold 1% 
     of DOS white collar jobs; and Asians hold 4.8% of all DOS 
     white collar jobs.
       The pattern is consistent: The higher up in DOS management 
     you go, the less likely you are to find minorities, including 
     women.
       As late as January 20, 1998, law suits have continued to be 
     filed against the Department of State. Michael T. Johnson v. 
     Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of 
     State was filed on behalf of African American males 
     complaining of employment discrimination.
       ``The Thomas Case'' was filed on behalf of African American 
     Foreign Service officers, and accused the Department of State 
     of racial bias in hiring and promotions. The law suit was 
     settled by a consent decree and DOS is currently implementing 
     the details of the consent decree. In settling in this 
     manner, DOS did not admit discriminating against black FSO 
     and admitted no wrongdoing of any type in their hiring and/or 
     promotional practice as related to African American DOS 
     employees.
       James A. Baker, III, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of 
     State, also known as ``The Hartman Case'' (Carolee Brady 
     Hartman v. U.S. Department of State) filed, on behalf of 
     women Foreign Service officers, has been in litigation and 
     various stages of settlement since 1977.
       ``The Palmer Case'' (Allison Palmer, et. al., v. James A. 
     Baker, III, Secretary of State), also fought by the 
     Department of State, noted that while women needed to prove 
     further allegations of discrimination in promotions, the 
     information provided to the court by the Department of State, 
     did not successfully rebut evidence of promotion 
     discrimination by DOS based on sex.
       Voice of America has 2 law suits alleging discrimination in 
     hiring and promotions. Brown v. Duffey/USIA, was filed on 
     behalf of U.S. born African Americans alleging discrimination 
     at VOA. This case is in the process of being settled.
       Dandridge v. USIA was filed on behalf of 9 African American 
     employees and has not been certified as a class action 
     lawsuit. It is currently pending before EEOC with no action 
     taken thus-far-to-date by EEOC.

                        TABLE 2.--RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT BY PAYPLAN AND GRADE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996; MEN AND WOMEN COMBINED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Total minorities           Blacks               Hispanics         Asian or Pacific     American Indian or          Whites
                                                     Total   ------------------------------------------------------------------       Islander           Alaskan Native    ---------------------
 Agency--Department of State--pay plan and grade     number                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                Number    Percent     Number    Percent     Number    Percent     Number    Percent     Number    Percent     Number    Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, all pay plans.............................      15176       3466       22.8       2288       15.1        598        3.9        511        3.4         69         .5     1171.0       77.2
Total GS and related.............................      13617       3246       23.8       2163       15.9        543        4.0        477        3.5         63         .5     1037.1       76.2
    GS-02........................................         17          9       52.9          8       47.1          1        5.9  .........  .........  .........  .........          8       47.1
    GS-03........................................         61         26       42.6         21       34.4          3        4.9          2        3.3  .........  .........        3.5       57.4
    GS-04........................................        194        110       56.7         82       42.3         13        6.7         12        6.2          3        1.5        8.4       43.4
    GS-05........................................        224        114       50.9         99       44.2          8        3.6          7        3.1  .........  .........       11.0       49.1
    GS-06........................................        242        166       68.6        146       60.3          7        2.9         10        4.1          3        1.2        7.6       31.4
    GS-07........................................       1052        419       39.8        343       32.6         30        2.9         43        4.1          3         .3       63.3       60.2
    GS-08........................................        862        297       34.5        225       26.1         39        4.5         30        3.5          3         .3       56.5       65.5
    GS-09........................................       1385        414       29.9        283       20.4         59        4.3         63        4.5          9         .6       97.1       70.1
    GS-10........................................         56         33       58.9         28       50.0          5        8.9  .........  .........  .........  .........        2.3       41.1
    GS-11........................................       2415        463       19.2        259       10.7        103        4.3         92        3.8          9         .4      195.2       80.8
    GS-12........................................       2501        511       20.4        316       12.6         99        4.0         86        3.4         10         .4      199.0       79.6
    GS-13........................................        789        175       22.2        128       16.2         24        3.0         20        2.5          3         .4       61.4       77.8
    GS-14........................................       2294        333       14.5        148        8.5         84        3.7         86        3.7         15         .7      196.1       85.5
    GS-15........................................       1525        176       11.5         77        5.0         68        4.5         26        1.7          5         .3      134.9       88.5
      Average grade..............................       11.2        9.9  .........        8.4  .........       11.2  .........       10.8  .........       11.1  .........       11.6  .........
Senior pay levels................................        965         76        7.9         49        5.1         17        1.8          9         .9          1         .1       88.9       92.1

[[Page H8769]]

 
Other white collar...............................        522         89       17.0         26        5.0         33        6.3         25        4.8          5        1.0       43.3       83.0
Total wage systems...............................         72         55       76.4         50       69.4          5        6.9  .........  .........  .........  .........        1.1       23.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Less than 0.05 percent.


                       APPENDIX I.--TABLES SHOWING REPRESENTATION LEVELS AND PROGRESS MADE BY SPECIFIC EEO GROUPS AT FOUR AGENCIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Number                          Percent                      Relative number
                     Grade level                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          1984       1992      Change      1984       1992      Change      1984       1992      Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian men............................................         13         31         18       0.56       1.30       2.32       0.68       1.83       2.69
Asian women..........................................          8         19         11       0.35       0.80       2.29       0.42       1.12       2.67
Native American men..................................          4         11          7       0.17       0.46       2.71       0.21       0.65       3.10
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American women................................          0          2          2       0.00       0.08        (b)       0.00       0.12        (b)
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total (a)......................................      2,306      2,388         82     100.00      99.99  .........  .........  .........  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
b The amount of change (increase or decrease) cannot be computed because there was no one (0.00) in that EEO group at that grade level in the base year
  (1984).
 
Source: OPM's CPDF.

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I 
urge the State Department to change its ways.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I join the gentlewoman and the chairman of 
the committee in urging Members to support this legislation recognizing 
the Foreign Service of the United States on the occasion of its 75th 
anniversary.
  As one who benefits from the foreign service by rather extensive 
travel, pursuant to duties on the Committee on International Relations 
and now the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I, for one, am 
grateful to the employees around the world.
  I would like to associate myself, however, with the remarks of the 
gentlewoman with reference to the need for increased minority hiring. 
That is a must and it simply must be done; and 75 years will not 
account for how long it should take.
  Expediting businesspersons, expediting Congress people, expediting 
the military, all of these are some of the duties that Foreign Service 
officers in this country and for this country perform. I, for one, 
rather than just stand here and compliment them, I would like to see to 
it that their pay, their pensions, and the facilities they work in meet 
the requirements of a Nation that has the standing that we do in the 
world.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, diplomacy is an instrument 
of power, essential for maintaining effective international 
relationships. It is a principal means through which the United States 
defends its interests, responds to crises, and achieves its 
international goals. The Department of State is the lead institution 
for the conduct of American diplomacy; a mission based on the role of 
the Secretary of State as the President's principal foreign policy 
adviser. The oil, which makes this machine run so well, is the Foreign 
Service.
  Madam Speaker I rise in support of H. Res. 168. This resolution 
expresses the sense of the House of Representatives recognizing the 
Foreign Service of the United States and its achievements and 
contributions of the past 75 years. Without these foot soldiers of 
diplomacy the United States' interests around the world would certainly 
not be advanced.
  This resolution is fitting because it honors those members of the 
foreign service who have given their lives in service of this nation. 
We cannot afford to forget those men and women who have died in the 
line of duty in places like Kenya and Tanzania. Since its 
establishment, the Secretary of State has commemorated 186 American 
diplomats who have died in the line of duty. Likewise we cannot afford 
to forget the generations of men and women who have served or are 
presently serving this nation with vital contributions to the nation.
  Among the services provided by the Foreign Service are the following:
  Leads representation of the United States overseas and advocates U.S. 
policies for foreign governments and international organizations.
  Coordinates and provides support for the international activities of 
U.S. agencies, official visits, and other diplomatic missions.
  Conducts negotiations, concludes agreements, and supports U.S. 
participation in international negotiations of all types.
  Coordinates and manages U.S. Government response to international 
crises of all types.
  Assists U.S. business and protects and aids American citizens living 
or traveling abroad.
  This resolution marks and commends the 75 years of service, which the 
Foreign Service has given to our nation. To the men and women of the 
Foreign Service, I commend you for your hard work, dedication, and 
distinguished service to the nation and I thank you and your family for 
all of the sacrifices you have made in the name of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this House Resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of 
H. Res. 168, a resolution honoring the United States Foreign Service on 
the occasion of its 75th anniversary. The significance of the 
contribution of the Foreign Service to the security and well-being of 
the United States cannot be overstated. Foreign Service Officers are 
literally on the front line of the struggle to protect our country's 
values, ideals, prosperity, and security. Scores of American diplomats 
have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country as was tragically 
demonstrated most recently in the terrible toll taken by the terrorist 
bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. American diplomats today are 
every bit as vulnerable as members of the Armed Forces, and they are 
far more vulnerable to directed acts of terrorism. They deserve all the 
protection we can possibly provide.
  In this context, this Member has been disturbed by the 
Administration's rather tepid response to the Crowe Commission report 
on embassy security. The Crowe Commission, this Member will remind his 
colleagues, called for $1.4 billion in embassy security assistance each 
year for 10 years. Clearly, the United States has been remiss for many 
years in not taking stronger action to protect its diplomats and 
facilities abroad from terrorist attack. This body must do everything 
possible to rectify this problem as soon as possible, and adhering to 
the Crowe Commission guidelines is an important first step.
  Madam Speaker, this Member would like to offer my warm 
congratulations to each and every Foreign Service Officer. This Member 
would note that the Pearson Fellowship program, which provides 
outstanding young Foreign Service Officers will temporary assignment to 
the legislative branch, has been a particularly effective tool to help 
this body better understand U.S. foreign policy.
  Madam Speaker, this Member urges strong support for H. Res. 168.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 168.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page H8770]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________