[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 156 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Page S7826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            IMPLEMENTING BUDGETARY SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCIES

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, during this time of budget constraints, 
sequestration, and continuing resolutions, it is crucial that every 
Federal department and agency identify maximum cost savings and improve 
efficiencies to minimize the impact of reductions on critical programs 
and personnel. It is also the responsibility of Congress to encourage 
departments and agencies to consistently identify and implement such 
savings and efficiencies.
  We do not have the luxury of allowing the continuation of programs 
that are no longer relevant, are redundant with other Federal programs, 
can be done more cheaply, or that perpetuate past mistakes. 
Unfortunately it seems that the State Department and the U.S. Agency 
for International Development are not able to identify some potential 
savings. It takes outside watchdogs such as the inspectors general and 
the Government Accountability Office to review and independently 
evaluate department or agency programs and operations.
  As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the State 
Department and USAID, I and ranking member Lindsey Graham have taken 
steps to avoid wasteful and unnecessary spending. We have reduced costs 
based on inspector general findings, directed the State Department to 
eliminate unnecessary overseas support staff and administrative 
expenses, and directed the Department and USAID to improve financial 
and contract management. We will continue to look for opportunities to 
reduce waste, terminate programs that are poorly designed or not 
meeting their goals, and save taxpayer dollars.
  But this is not enough. The State Department, USAID, and other 
Federal agencies need to act proactively to identify efficiencies and 
reduce costs. Unfortunately, some of the inspector generals' findings 
are so obvious it is surprising, and troubling, that the State 
Department or USAID did not identify the savings on their own.
  Here are just a few examples from fiscal year 2013 reports of the 
State Department and USAID inspectors general.
  The State Department inspector general found that the Department has 
a team based in Frankfurt, Germany, that travels to posts in the former 
Yugoslavia and the countries of the former Soviet Union to train local 
staff and provide administrative support to posts. This might have made 
sense in the early 1990s, but it makes no sense 24 years after the fall 
of the Iron Curtain.
  The inspector general determined that 80 percent of the Regional 
Information Management Center staff in Frankfurt does not need to be 
assigned overseas. Their work could be done in Washington, saving 
millions of dollars each year. According to the inspector general, an 
employee assigned overseas costs $232,000 more each year than an 
employee based in the United States.
  In Iraq, at one of our most oversized and expensive Embassies, the 
inspector general found that the Department hired and paid for 513 
Baghdad security personnel when only 253 were actually used. The 
Department also paid $20.6 million for an unnecessary airport security 
program that added 84 personnel.
  The inspector general found that the Department had 955 expired 
grants with a total of $81.9 million in unspent funds. The inspector 
general also found that the Department had not closed out 1,421 expired 
grants each with a $0 balance, costing $97,069 each year in unnecessary 
administrative fees.
  The USAID inspector general found that USAID added five overseas food 
storage warehouses but had not determined whether delivery times of 
food prepositioned overseas justifies the additional cost when compared 
with prepositioning food domestically. In fact, a cost-benefit analysis 
conducted in response to a 2007 Government Accountability Office 
recommendation found that food prepositioned overseas is seven times 
more costly than food prepositioned domestically and recommended that 
USAID consider increasing the amount of domestic prepositioned food. 
USAID has now agreed to compare the timeliness and cost of 
prepositioning food overseas versus domestically. We cannot afford to 
make decisions that expand programs or increase costs without some 
evidence that there is a benefit worth the additional expense.
  The USAID inspector general found that in a 3-month period, September 
through November 2012, USAID paid $64,000 for more than 300 mobile 
devices that had not been used for at least 1 month during that time 
period and $48,000 for 267 devices that had not been used at all during 
those 3 months, and an average of 127 employees had excessive user 
charges of $118,000 which USAID could not verify had been reviewed and 
accepted. While these are relatively small amounts, they add up.
  And the list goes on.
  I know that the employees of the State Department and USAID are 
dedicated, hard-working people. Most Americans have little if any idea 
of what they do to protect the interests of the United States around 
the world. But it is because their work is so important that we cannot 
afford to waste the money they need to do their jobs. Top officials at 
the State Department and USAID must identify and eliminate outdated, 
redundant, and ineffective programs and unnecessary operating expenses. 
We cannot wait for the inspectors general to do their job for them.

                          ____________________