[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 168 (Wednesday, November 19, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           REINTRODUCTION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVIEW BILL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MAC THORNBERRY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 18, 2003

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, for some time, I have believed that it 
is essential to transform our military so that the United States is 
better able to deal with the enormous security challenges of the 21st 
century. Since my first term in Congress, I have worked to develop a 
more flexible, adaptable military with a ``culture of innovation'' that 
will ensure that our security is protected as the threats against us, 
our allies, and our values grow in number and complexity. But at the 
same time, I recognize that American national security does not rest 
solely on the shoulders of the U.S. military.
  Based on my work in defense transformation, I became convinced that 
homeland security was a vital area requiring not just more money, but a 
major reorganization of the government agencies charged with protecting 
the American homeland. I introduced the first bill creating a new 
organization to better protect the homeland on March 21, 2001, and that 
new Department is now up and running.
  I also believe that a transformation is needed at the Department of 
State so that it is better able to formulate and implement American 
foreign policy in the coming years. On September 18, 1998, I introduced 
H.R. 4065 in the 105th Congress to require that an independent, non-
partisan panel review all the facets and functions of the Department of 
State and to provide Congress with its findings and with a plan for 
reorganizing the Department. The bill was reintroduced as H.R. 106 in 
the 106th Congress and as H.R. 304 in the 107th Congress.
  I believe that the events of the past two years only add a greater 
degree of urgency to the need for such a transformation. It is time for 
Congress to take action.
  The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Snyder, has also been working on 
these issues for some time. He has suggested a number of improvements 
in my previous proposals, and today we are introducing the revised 
version of the bill. It does not prescribe in legislative language 
exactly how the Department of State should be reorganized despite the 
many studies and reports which have recommended various actions. It 
does establish the framework for a serious study of all of the 
recommendations and requires that a proposal be submitted to Congress. 
We would then have to act upon the legislation in the normal order.
  There have been a number of outside studies which recommend reform in 
very strong terms. For example, in January 2001, a study cosponsored by 
the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies and chaired by former Secretary of Defense and 
career foreign service officer, Frank Carlucci, issued ``a scathing 
report,'' warning that ``the United States will soon face serious 
dangers and enormous costs because its foreign policy establishment has 
not come to terms with global changes a full decade after the Cold War 
ended.'' (Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2001). ``No government 
bureaucracy is in greater need of reform than the Department of 
State,'' the report found.
  In March 2001, the United States Commission on National Security/21st 
Century, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, found that ``The 
Department of State is a crippled institution that is starved for 
resources by Congress because of its inadequacies and is thereby 
weakened further. The department suffers in particular from an 
ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional 
goals compete, and in which sound management, accountability, and 
leadership are lacking (p. 47).'' Other studies and reports have 
reached similar conclusions.
  This bill requires a serious study of the organization of the 
Department of State and our diplomatic structure. The Commission 
created by the bill will examine all levels of the Department, from the 
organization chart of bureaus and offices to staffing at embassies 
around the world. It will also look at issues such as public 
diplomacy--whether we are organized to wage the battle over ideas, 
which is so critical to the ultimate success of the war on terrorism--
and use of foreign assistance--whether we are prepared to use 
effectively innovative new programs, such as the Millennium Challenge 
Account.
  There may be a variety of opinions on what the Department of State 
should be doing and on exactly what organizational and process changes 
should be made, but we should all be able to agree that how decisions 
are made, and especially how they are implemented, needs drastic 
improvement.
  Mr. Speaker, change is always difficult, and we should not impose 
change without a good reason for doing so. We also have an obligation, 
I think, to seek better, more effective ways to advance American 
interests, and no Department should be exempt from penetrating 
examination in pursuit of those larger interests.

                          ____________________