[House Report 108-395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-395
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 227

EFFORTS TO RIGHTSIZE THE U.S. PRESENCE ABROAD LACK URGENCY AND MOMENTUM

                               __________

                             SECOND REPORT

                                 by the

                     COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM


                                     


                                     

  Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
                      http://www.house.gov/reform

 November 21, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                     COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California                 DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky                  DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia               JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida              STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia          CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, 
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                     Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania                 Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota                 ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 
                                         (Independent)

                       Peter Sirh, Staff Director
                 Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
                      Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
                       Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
              Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director

 Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International 
                               Relations

                CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
RON LEWIS, Kentucky                  STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida              LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia          C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, 
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee           Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota     JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

                               Ex Officio

TOM DAVIS, Virginia                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
            Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
               Thomas M. Costa, Professional Staff Member
                        Robert A. Briggs, Clerk
                    David Rapallo, Minority Counsel
  


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                  House of Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, November 21, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: By direction of the Committee on 
Government Reform, I submit herewith the committee's second 
report to the 108th Congress. The committee's report is based 
on a study conducted by its Subcommittee on National Security, 
Emerging Threats and International Relations.
                                                 Tom Davis,
                                                          Chairman.

                                 (iii)

                                     


                            C O N T E N T S

    _________________________________________________________________
                                                                   Page
  I. Executive Summary................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
        Administration Response..................................     4
        Congressional Response...................................     7
III. Discussion......................................................11
        Finding..................................................    11
        Recommendation...........................................    16

                                  (v)

  
                                                 Union Calendar No. 227
108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-395

======================================================================

 
EFFORTS TO RIGHTSIZE THE U.S. PRESENCE ABROAD LACK URGENCY AND MOMENTUM

                                _______
                                

 November 21, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, from the Committee on Government Reform 
                        submitted the following

                             SECOND REPORT

    On November 20, 2003, the Committee on Government Reform 
approved and adopted a report entitled, ``Efforts To Rightsize 
The U.S. Presence Abroad Lack Urgency and Momentum.'' The 
chairman was directed to transmit a copy to the Speaker of the 
House.

                          I. Executive Summary

    The breadth and diversity of the U.S. presence overseas has 
grown, eroding command and control by ambassadors. New threats 
have put U.S. personnel at greater risk. And the cost of doing 
business abroad has increased. It is clear a more strategic 
approach to placing U.S. personnel overseas is necessary.
    Following the recommendations of several commissions, the 
President has included rightsizing the U.S. presence overseas--
the process of placing the right people with the right skills 
in the right place at the right time--in his management agenda 
for the Executive Branch. As the lead agency overseas, the 
State Department, with the assistance of the Office of 
Management and Budget, has begun to organize this process. 
Congress responded by tasking the General Accounting Office to 
help devise a methodology for rightsizing, which has been 
adopted by both the State Department and Office of Management 
and Budget.
    Change is difficult, and the State Department and other 
Executive Branch agencies continue to struggle and sometimes 
resist rightsizing. In order to better achieve missions, 
improve the security of personnel, and reduce costs, the State 
Department and other agencies should recommit themselves to the 
process of rightsizing the U.S. presence overseas.

                             II. Background

    In November 1999, America's Overseas Presence in the 21st 
Century, The Report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel 
(OPAP) first recommended,

        the President, by Executive order and with the support 
        of Congress, create a process to right-size our 
        overseas presence, reduce the size of some posts, close 
        others, reallocate staff and resources, and establish 
        new posts where needed to enhance the American presence 
        where the bilateral relationship has become more 
        important. The proper size and functions of all posts 
        would be determined by the right-sizing process, which 
        would apply to all agencies, not just the Department of 
        State.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ America's Overseas Presence in the 21st Century, The Report of 
the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, November 1999, p. 42, http://
www.state.gov/www/publications/9911--opap/rpt-
9911--opap--instructions.html.

    In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) noted, 
``the U.S. overseas presence is costly, increasingly complex, 
and of growing security concern. U.S. national security 
interests are best served by deploying the right number of 
people at the right posts with the right expertise.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The President's Management Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002, Executive 
Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, p. 59, http:/
/www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The process of determining the number and type of personnel 
and facilities necessary to achieve U.S. goals is called 
``rightsizing.'' Rightsizing involves more than just State 
Department personnel, but includes all U.S. personnel under a 
chief of mission's authority. ``Rightsizing'' is not the same 
as ``downsizing.'' In its purest form, rightsizing first seeks 
to identify the true missions of the U.S. diplomatic corps--
both broadly from the U.S. national perspective and narrowly 
from the perspective of individual embassies, consulates, and 
mission posts. Before any cuts or additions are proposed or 
implemented that might alter the U.S. mission abroad, it is 
necessary to determine the goals of the United States and the 
resources needed to carry out those goals. True rightsizing 
seeks to create conditions in which U.S. officials stationed 
overseas can conduct their work effectively, efficiently, and 
safely.
    In reports from inside and outside government, rightsizing 
has been noted as a key challenge confronting the U.S. abroad. 
It is of growing concern in light of the expanded mission of 
the State Department and increased risks to U.S. personnel 
abroad. The end of the Cold War has brought to a close the 
simpler policies of a bipolar world, spawned new nations with 
which the U.S. must foster relationships, and exposed U.S. 
citizens to new threats and dangers. Moreover, the war on 
terrorism, increased AIDS funding in Africa and the Caribbean, 
the new Millennium Challenge Account program, changes to U.S. 
entry-exit rules, and a greater emphasis on foreign affairs all 
promise to increase the workload of overseas missions.
    As OMB has noted, rightsizing has proven difficult for a 
number of reasons:

         Currently, the principal mechanism to assess 
        the rational deployment of U.S. government personnel 
        overseas is the ambassador's authority to manage 
        staffing at each particular post. We need to have a 
        more systematic decision making process to create 
        proper incentives and procedures to manage U.S. 
        government staff operating overseas.
         No one U.S. government agency can determine 
        with any certainty the total number of U.S. government 
        Executive Branch personnel under the authority of each 
        ambassador and other chiefs of mission. Estimates run 
        as high as 60,000 with people representing over 30 
        agencies. There is no mechanism to assess the overall 
        rationale and effectiveness of where and how U.S. 
        employees are deployed.
         Moreover, as there is no common accounting 
        system that captures all costs, agencies do not know 
        the true costs of sending staff to overseas posts. 
        Agencies are not bearing the full costs of sending 
        their staffs abroad.
         While Chiefs of Mission have legal authority 
        to manage assignments of other agencies to their 
        embassies, in practice, this authority has not been 
        used to significantly alter patterns of deployment of 
        U.S. government staff overseas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Ibid, p. 60.

    In addition, the need for more physical security can 
constrain personnel options otherwise required by the embassy 
mission.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Ibid, pp. 60-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of OPAP's most significant findings was that the 
nation's overseas presence is severely undercapitalized. 
According to the report:

        The Panel noted the gap between our nation's goals and 
        the resources it provides its overseas operations. The 
        world's most powerful nation does not provide adequate 
        security to its overseas personnel. Despite its 
        leadership in developing and deploying technology, U.S. 
        overseas facilities lack a common Internet and e-mail 
        communications network. The overseas facilities of the 
        wealthiest nation in history are often overcrowded, 
        deteriorating, even shabby.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See supra note 1, p. 15.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Panel expanded on its findings in this area:

        We encountered shockingly shabby and antiquated 
        building conditions at some of the missions we visited. 
        Throughout the world we found worn, overcrowded, and 
        inefficient facilities. Many facilities need 
        significant capital improvements to ensure security, 
        improve working conditions, and equip personnel and 
        posts with efficient and secure information and 
        telecommunications technologies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See supra note 1, p. 19.

    In addition to capital deficiencies, the Panel also noted 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
insufficiencies in staffing:

        Staffing shortages are undermining the ability to 
        provide first-rate consular services. Morale has 
        suffered; understaffing forces many to work extensive 
        overtime hours. Junior Officers are often required to 
        do back-to-back consular tour on the visa line. 
        However, the Bureau is unable to hire additional people 
        to address workload problems because of funding 
        limitations and strict employment ceilings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See supra note 1, p. 60.

    The Panel made its conclusions in stark terms: ``The 
condition of U.S. posts and missions abroad is unacceptable. . 
. . The Panel fears that our overseas presence is perilously 
close to the point of system failure.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See supra note 1, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To address these undercapitalization problems, OPAP 
recommended increased resources:

        . . . new resources will be needed for security, 
        technology and training and to upgrade facilities. In 
        some countries where the bilateral relationship has 
        become more important, additional posts may be needed 
        to enhance the American presence or to meet new 
        challenges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See supra note 1, p. 18.

    While recognizing that some posts may need to be reduced, 
the Panel also warned against knee-jerk withdrawal or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reductions:

        Just as the U.S. military and defense posture depends 
        upon forward-deployed aircraft carriers and overseas 
        bases, so its foreign policy and diplomacy depend upon 
        forward-deployed professional officers and staff. 
        Closing U.S. embassies and consulates could have 
        serious consequences for the effectiveness of our 
        foreign policy and for the security and prosperity of 
        the American people.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See supra note 1, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE

    In response to the OPAP, the State Department in 2000, 
conducted a rightsizing pilot study at six posts: Amman 
(Jordan), Bangkok (Thailand), Mexico City (Mexico), New Delhi 
(India), Paris (France), and Tbilisi (Georgia). The aim of the 
study was to develop a staffing methodology and recommend 
staffing adjustments. The results of the study questioned the 
OPAP recommendations and produced few significant 
recommendations for change. The General Accounting Office (GAO) 
found the pilot study did not systematically assess staffing 
levels and did not achieve the stated purpose of developing a 
methodology for rightsizing across the globe.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Overseas Presence: More Work Needed on Embassy Rightsizing, 
General Accounting Office, November 2001, GAO-02-143, http://
www.gao.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, in the August 2001 Final Report on Implementing 
the Recommendations of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, 
the new administration at the State Department noted agreement 
with the recommendation:

        The Bush Administration will analyze and review overall 
        U.S. government presence and develop a credible and 
        comprehensive overseas staffing allocation process. 
        This process would provide the Administration with a 
        means to link overseas staff with U.S. Government 
        policy, funding, and agency construction planning.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Final Report on Implementing the Recommendations of the 
Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP), August 2001, Report Pursuant 
to the Conference Report Accompanying the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2001, as enacted in Public Law 106-553, p. 6.

    President Bush voiced his support for rightsizing in his 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 9, 2001 guidance to all U.S. ambassadors overseas, noting,

        I ask that you review programs, personnel, and funding 
        levels regularly, and ensure that all agencies attached 
        to your Mission do likewise. Functions that can be 
        performed by personnel based in the United States or at 
        regional offices overseas should not be performed at 
        post. In your reviews, should you find staffing to be 
        either excessive or inadequate to the performance of 
        priority mission goals and objectives, I urge you to 
        initiate staffing changes in accordance with 
        established procedures.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ President George W. Bush's Letter of Instruction to Chiefs of 
Mission, May 9, 2001, p. 3.

    This support bolstered the authority and responsibility of 
chiefs of mission and ambassadors to direct, coordinate, and 
supervise all U.S. government personnel, regardless of 
department or agency, in that country (except for employees 
under a military commander) as directed by the June 1982 
National Security Decision Directive 38 (NSDD 38).\14\ The 
ambassador is, in effect, ``the leader of an overseas 
community, a mayor and manager responsible for the health, 
safety, living and working accommodations, and even schooling 
and recreation for the children, of all personnel in the 
mission.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ NSDD 38: Staffing at Diplomatic Missions and their Overseas 
Constituent Posts, June 2, 1982, http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/
nsdd38.htm.
    \15\ See supra note 1, pp. 64-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Every president since John F. Kennedy has issued a letter 
to U.S. ambassadors detailing their legal authority and 
responsibilities. In President Bush's May 9, 2001 guidance, he 
also noted:

        Every Executive Branch agency under your authority must 
        obtain your approval before changing the size, 
        composition, or mandate of its staff regardless of the 
        employment category [or where located in your country 
        of assignment].\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ See supra note 13.

    However, as Under Secretary of State for Management Grant 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Green, Jr. stated during a Subcommittee hearing,

        . . . I have consistently heard from chiefs of mission 
        in essence the difficulty that they have in really 
        getting a handle on not necessarily the people they 
        have, because they can count noses, but they have very 
        little insight into the other agencies' budgets for 
        their particular posts and have to some degree little 
        control over--while, as Mr. Gilman says, de jure they 
        have great authority. De facto they have considerably 
        less authority. There is a process by which agencies 
        request to send additional people to post. That is the 
        Ambassador's decision. It is appealable if it doesn't 
        comport with what a particular agency wants. But you 
        can imagine the difficulty that a chief of mission 
        would have in turning down a request because he doesn't 
        always know or hasn't always had a good sense for what 
        those other agencies' priorities may be at a particular 
        post.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Right Sizing the U.S. Presence Abroad, Hearing before the 
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International 
Relations of the Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, May 1, 
2002, Serial No. 107-189, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 
2003, pp. 40-41.

    At a subsequent Subcommittee hearing, Deputy Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget Nancy P. Dorn added, 
``several Chiefs of Mission noted overlap in agency functions 
at posts but were unsure who has the expertise to choose one 
agency over another to perform a given function.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Testimony of Nancy P. Dorn, Deputy Director, Office of 
Management and Budget on The President's Management Agenda: Rightsizing 
U.S. Presence Abroad before the Subcommittee on National Security, 
Emerging Threats and International Relations, House Committee on 
Government Reform, April 7, 2003, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With 30 federal agencies posting staff in embassies 
overseas, State Department personnel now constitute less than 
half the total U.S. presence abroad.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ See supra note 2, p. 60.

    
    

    U.S. agencies abroad have different statutory mandates, 
separate missions, and goals. These differences increase the 
management challenges faced by ambassadors.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See supra note 1, pp. 26-27, 64-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due in part to the cross-agency nature of rightsizing, OMB 
has been tasked with rightsizing the overseas presence, 
carrying out the Bush Administration's pledge to ``develop a 
credible and comprehensive overseas staffing allocation 
process.'' \21\ OMB expects to reconfigure U.S. staffing abroad 
``to the minimum necessary to meet U.S. foreign policy goals, 
develop government-wide, comprehensive accounting of overseas 
personnel costs and accurate mission, budget, and staffing 
information, [and] use staffing patterns to determine embassy 
construction needs.'' \22\ OMB has since developed a baseline 
database for overseas costs and staffing, begun an analysis 
(using the GAO framework described below) of all European 
missions as a rightsizing test case, added overseas staffing 
and cost data to the budget request process, and established a 
multi-agency working group.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See supra note 2, p. 62.
    \22\ See supra note 2, p. 62.
    \23\ See supra note 18, pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE

    The Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and 
International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform 
conducted regular oversight of the rightsizing process: \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Other committees including the House International Relations 
Committee and House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary have also followed the 
rightsizing initiative.

         Hearings on May 1, 2002 and April 7, 2003;
         Meetings with management personnel from 
        State and other departments and agencies;
         Congressional and staff delegation travel to 
        Croatia, Germany, Austria, France, the United Kingdom, 
        Italy, and Turkey to examine rightsizing processes; and
         Requests for GAO investigations and 
        reports.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ The Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and 
International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform has 
requested the following GAO reports on rightsizing: Overseas Presence: 
Rightsizing is Key to Considering Relocation of Regional Staff to New 
Frankfurt Center, GAO-03-1061, September 2, 2003; Overseas Presence: 
Systematic Processes Needed to Rightsize Posts and Guide Embassy 
Construction, GAO-03-582T, April 7, 2003; Embassy Reconstruction: 
Process for Determining Staffing Requirements Needs Improvement, GAO-
03-411, April 7, 2003; Overseas Presence: Rightsizing Framework Can Be 
Applied at U.S. Diplomatic Post in Developing Countries, GAO-03-396, 
April 7, 2003; Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff 
Levels Can Support Rightsizing Initiatives, GAO-02-780, July 26, 2002; 
and Overseas Presence: Observations on a Rightsizing Framework, GAO-02-
659T, May 1, 2002.
    The U.S. Senate has requested one GAO report and one testimony 
focused on rightsizing: Overseas Presence: Conditions of Overseas 
Diplomatic Facilities, GAO-03-557T, March 20, 2003; and Overseas 
Presence: More Work Needed on Embassy Rightsizing, GAO-02-143, November 
27, 2001.

    To address how rightsizing can improve efficiency of 
staffing decisions overseas, while ensuring U.S. foreign policy 
goals are met, the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans 
Affairs and International Relations of the Committee on 
Government Reform first requested, in an October 10, 2001 
letter, that GAO work with OMB to develop a methodology to 
address rightsizing.\26\ The GAO methodology focused on ``three 
critical elements of overseas operations: (1) physical security 
and real estate, (2) mission priorities and requirements, and 
(3) operational costs.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ October 10, 2001 letter from Chairman Christopher Shays to 
Comptroller General David M. Walker (in Subcommittee files).
    \27\ Overseas Presence: Framework for Assessing Embassy Staff 
Levels Can Support Rightsizing Initiative, GAO-02-780, July 2002, pp. 
4-5, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02780.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Figure 1: Proposed Framework for Embassy Rightsizing




    GAO added:

        State and other agencies in Washington, D.C., including 
        OMB, could use this framework as a guide for making 
        overseas staffing decisions. For example, ambassadors 
        could use this framework to ensure that embassy 
        staffing is in line with security concerns, mission 
        priorities and requirements, and cost of operations. At 
        the governmentwide level, State and other agencies 
        could apply the framework to free up resources at 
        oversized posts, reallocate limited staffing resources 
        worldwide, and introduce greater accountability into 
        the staffing process.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Ibid, pp. 4-5.

    While acknowledging all three elements are important, State 
commented mission was more important than either security or 
costs.\29\ Nevertheless, State acknowledges the GAO framework 
offers a ``common sense approach'' and ``plans to incorporate 
additional elements of the GAO embassy rightsizing questions 
for the future planning processes.'' \30\ OMB has also embraced 
the GAO methodology, noting, ``the GAO framework is an 
effective rightsizing tool.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Testimony of Ambassador Ruth A. Davis, Director General of the 
Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, United States 
Department of State on The President's Management Agenda: Rightsizing 
U.S. Presence Abroad before the Subcommittee on National Security, 
Emerging Threats and International Relations, House Committee on 
Government Reform, April 7, 2003, p. 3.
    \30\ Ibid.
    \31\ See supra note 18, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the suggestion of the Subcommittee, language was 
inserted into H.R. 1950, Millennium Challenge Account, Peace 
Corps Expansion, and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 
2003, which has passed the House and is under consideration in 
the Senate:

          This section encourages executive branch agencies to 
        right-size overseas posts--the process of deploying the 
        right number people at the right posts with the right 
        expertise.
          Despite the process outlined in NSDD-38, Staffing at 
        Overseas Missions and Their Diplomatic Constituent 
        Posts (June 2, 1982), in practice chiefs of mission 
        lack practical authority to determine the appropriate 
        staffing requirements at posts. Moreover, the war on 
        terrorism, increased AIDS funding in Africa and the 
        Caribbean, the new Millennium Challenge Account 
        program, changes to the U.S. entry-exit rules, and a 
        greater emphasis on foreign affairs all promise to 
        increase the workloads of overseas missions, and place 
        greater pressure on chiefs of mission to right-size 
        staff compliments. This section gives chiefs of mission 
        another means to administer their posts effectively 
        without usurping the authority of the Secretary of 
        State or other executive branch agency heads.
          Under this section, chiefs of mission are required to 
        voice their views on the necessity of all executive 
        branch staff positions under their authority, whether 
        Department of State or other executive branch agencies. 
        This process should occur for each staff element at 
        least every five years, though reviews may be handled 
        individually, in small groups, or to include an entire 
        mission. The Department of State shall collect and 
        respond to the reviews received during the year in an 
        annual report, and subsequently share the report with 
        affected agencies and the Inspector General of the 
        Department of State, which includes rightsizing factors 
        in mission inspection reports.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Sec. 273 Staffing at Diplomatic Missions, H.R. 1950, 
Millennium Challenge Account, Peace Corps Expansion, and Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act of 2003.

    The bill also gives the Secretary of State authority to 
begin a capital cost-sharing program for overseas buildings in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
order to promote rightsizing abroad:

          The Secretary of State, as the single manager of all 
        buildings and grounds acquired under this Act or 
        otherwise acquired or authorized for the use of the 
        diplomatic and consular establishments in foreign 
        countries, is authorized to establish and implement a 
        Security Capital Cost-Sharing Program to collect funds 
        from each agency on the basis of its total overseas 
        presence in a manner that encourages rightsizing of its 
        overseas presence, and expend those funds to accelerate 
        the provision of safe, secure, functional buildings for 
        United States Government personnel overseas.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Sec. 227 Security Capital Cost Sharing, Committee Report 4 of 
4--House Rpt. 108-105, Part 1--Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/
T?&report=hr105p1&dbname=cp108&.

    Similarly, House Rpt. 108-221, Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2004, to H.R. 2799,\34\ notes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ H.R. 2799 has passed the House and is under consideration in 
the Senate.

          The Committee strongly supports interagency efforts 
        to right-size the overseas presence of the United 
        States Government. The Committee understands the 
        definition of right-sizing to be the systematic and 
        thorough review of all overseas missions and staffing 
        levels and the reallocation of resources to achieve a 
        leaner, streamlined, more agile, and more secure U.S. 
        Government presence abroad. The Committee expects 
        agencies funded in this bill to cooperate fully with 
        all interagency efforts to achieve effective right-
        sizing.
          The 1998 terrorist attacks on two U.S. Embassies in 
        Africa highlighted security deficiencies in diplomatic 
        facilities. The recent bombings in Saudi Arabia, the 
        assassination of a U.S. AID employee in Jordan, and the 
        recent closure of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya underscore 
        continued threats against U.S. personnel overseas. The 
        attacks on the American Embassies in Africa prompted 
        the creation of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, 
        which proposed significant recommendations regarding 
        right-sizing that have subsequently been embraced by 
        this Committee, and included in the President's 
        Management Agenda. In addition, the General Accounting 
        Office (GAO) has studied right-sizing the Nation's 
        overseas presence. The GAO reports found that U.S. 
        agencies' staffing projections for new embassy 
        compounds are developed without a systematic approach 
        or comprehensive right-sizing analysis. In response, 
        the GAO developed a framework of questions designed to 
        link staffing levels to three critical elements of 
        overseas diplomatic operations (1) physical/technical 
        security of facilities and employees; (2) mission 
        priorities and requirements; and (3) cost of 
        operations. In light of continuing security 
        vulnerability, the Committee intends to ensure that 
        such a framework is established and followed.
          The Committee expects that the fiscal year 2005 
        budget request will reflect the application of a right-
        sizing methodology. Increases or expansions should be 
        justified in terms of mission priorities both within 
        the agency, and within the specific diplomatic mission, 
        and should be, to the maximum extent possible, 
        accompanied by offsetting decreases to maximize the 
        allocation of scarce resources to emerging priorities. 
        A proper plan should include a systematic analysis to 
        bring about a reconfiguration of overseas staffing to 
        the minimum level necessary to meet critical U.S. 
        foreign policy goals. The Committee expects to receive 
        this additional analysis prior to the establishment or 
        expansion of any activities beyond those currently 
        approved.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ ``Right-sizing,'' House Rpt. 108-221--Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, Fiscal Year 2004, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/
T?&report=hr221&dbname=cp108&.

    The bill earmarks $3 million dollars to create an Office on 
Right-Sizing the United States Government Overseas Presence 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
within the Department of State, noting:

        The Committee expects this new Office, reporting 
        directly to the Undersecretary for Management, to lead 
        the effort to develop internal and interagency 
        mechanisms to better coordinate, rationalize and manage 
        the overall deployment of U.S. Government personnel 
        overseas. The Committee believes that the creation of 
        this Office will facilitate the Department's ability to 
        establish and enforce a uniform right-sizing 
        methodology to link overseas staffing levels to 
        physical security considerations, mission priorities, 
        and costs. The Committee also expects that this Office 
        will hold the responsibility and accountability for 
        ensuring that right-sizing standards are applied 
        systematically to final planning estimates for staffing 
        of new mission facilities.
          The Committee understands that the Department has 
        changed its annual Mission Performance Plan and Bureau 
        Performance Plan process to require that staffing be 
        related to performance goals and that the chief of 
        mission must confirm that each mission is right-sized. 
        The Department shall report to the Committee by 
        November 1, 2003, as to what actual impact those new 
        requirements have had on the operations, size and 
        performance of the missions and bureaus. In addition, 
        the Department is directed to undertake a review of the 
        size of the 20 largest overseas missions including all 
        staff, contractors, foreign service nationals, 
        temporary duty officers, and other temporary staff, 
        using the mission plan and the right-sizing criteria 
        developed by the General Accounting Office, and report 
        to the Committee by February 1, 2004, as to whether 
        those missions are right-sized.
          The Committee strongly supports the Department's 
        effort to initiate a consolidation, streamlining and 
        regionalization of country and multi-regional staffing 
        in Frankfurt, Germany. The success of this initiative 
        will be measured largely by the streamlining reductions 
        made possible at less secure locations throughout 
        Germany, Europe, Eurasia, Africa and the Near East.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs,'' House Rpt. 108-221--
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2004, http://thomas.loc.gov/
cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr221&dbname=cp108&.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            III. Discussion


                                FINDING

1. A culture of resistance to rightsizing still exists in the 
        Department of State and other Executive Branch agencies

    Despite some positive steps towards rightsizing the U.S. 
presence abroad, including the work of OMB, State and other 
agencies continue to create barriers to rightsizing. For 
example, a major component of rightsizing in Europe has been 
the renovation of the Creekbed regional center in Frankfurt, 
Germany. The facility was expected to provide secure office 
space for U.S. personnel currently housed in several locations 
in Frankfurt and certain other areas of Germany, space for 
ongoing operations in the soon-to-be-closed Rhein Main Air 
Force base outside Frankfurt, and space for upwards of 200 
staff performing regional functions but currently based in 
other less-secure locations in Europe or Africa. However, 
following a bureaucratic misunderstanding, the number of staff 
from outside Germany that were to be moved to Frankfurt dropped 
to almost zero. Following an investigation by GAO, State 
recognized the error.\37\ However, in responding to a GAO 
report on rightsizing at Creekbed, the State Department said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Overseas Presence: Rightsizing 
Is Key to Considering Relocation of Regional Staff to New Frankfurt 
Center, GAO-03-1061 (Washington, D.C.: September 2, 2003).

          GAO states that it visited four posts other than 
        Frankfurt (Paris, Rome, Budapest, and Vienna) ``to 
        determine the extent to which each has agencies and 
        personnel performing regional functions that could be 
        considered for relocation to Frankfurt based on the 
        nature of their mission and/or their security 
        vulnerability.'' We regret that the report does not 
        state whether GAO identified any agencies or personnel 
        that it believes should be considered for relocation to 
        Frankfurt. The report's silence on this point suggest 
        that GAO does not believe there are any suitable 
        candidates for such a move. This tends to support the 
        Department's judgment that the U.S. Government's 
        interagency overseas presence is already substantially 
        rightsized, based on the follow-up to the 1999 Overseas 
        Presence Advisory Panel report as noted in the 
        Department's report to Congress pursuant to Section 302 
        (b) (3) of the FY 2003 Department of State 
        Authorization Act (P.L. 107-671).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Ibid, p. 16.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO disagreed with the characterization, stating:

          State also noted that our report did not identify 
        specific agencies or staff that we believe should be 
        relocated to Frankfurt. State said this suggested that 
        we do not believe that there are suitable candidates 
        for relocation. This is not the case. As we noted in 
        this report, State's business plan for the purchase of 
        the facility indicated it has space to accommodate 
        regional staff from outside Germany who are assigned to 
        embassies with security vulnerabilities. Moreover, 
        State's plan identified 73 staff from five agencies at 
        posts outside Germany for potential relocation. As 
        further noted in this report, State's subsequent 
        efforts at its European and Eurasian posts identified 
        suitable candidates for relocation, but that exercise 
        was halted because State mistakenly believed that the 
        facility did not have sufficient space. Our work at the 
        four posts outside Germany validated the existence of 
        significant numbers of staff with regional 
        responsibilities, many of which were located in 
        buildings with substandard security. We did not 
        identify specific candidates for relocation in this 
        report because State said that it was conducting a full 
        assessment of staffing options for Frankfurt, and we 
        did not want to preempt that assessment. However, in 
        our briefings with State and OMB officials, we 
        discussed our fieldwork observations and told them that 
        there were many staff that could be considered for 
        relocation. For example, there were at least 87 staff 
        with regional responsibilities in Vienna and Budapest 
        that were assigned to space with substandard security. 
        Furthermore, we noted that in 2002, we had identified 
        regional positions in Paris that could be considered 
        for relocation to Frankfurt based on security, mission, 
        and/or cost factors.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ See supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          State also said that it believes, based on their 
        follow-up to the 1999 Overseas Presence Advisory Panel 
        report, that the U.S. government's overseas presence is 
        already rightsized. We have previously pointed out the 
        substantial weaknesses in the pilot studies, which 
        provided the basis of State's follow-up.\40\ State 
        subsequently indicated that it intended to reinvigorate 
        the rightsizing process consistent with the President's 
        Management Agenda, OMB's directives, and our 
        rightsizing framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In our view, State's comments are inconsistent with 
        its (1) stated expectations that the Frankfurt project 
        will achieve the department's key rightsizing and 
        regionalization goals and (2) plans to conduct a full 
        assessment of staffing options for the Frankfurt 
        regional center. In addition, State's comments lead us 
        to question whether the department seriously intends to 
        implement its business plan for the Frankfurt center 
        regarding relocating regional staff, as well as its 
        commitment to the overall rightsizing process [emphasis 
        added]. We believe that State's actions regarding 
        staffing of the facility warrant oversight.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ See supra note 37, pp. 11-12.

    In addition, the House International Relations Committee 
has noted concerns about the willingness of the State 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department to pursue rightsizing:

        Rightsizing the U.S. overseas presence is part of the 
        President's Management Agenda and a major objective of 
        the Congress, and we expect to see progress within the 
        Department on these issues. The State Department has 
        asked for more money to hire staff but it has not 
        clearly shown a willingness to reallocate its existing 
        staff from those posts that are relatively generously 
        staffed to those that have the greatest shortfalls. We 
        recognize that the Office of Management and Budget is 
        taking the lead on the rightsizing initiative. However, 
        because the State Department is the lead foreign 
        affairs agency, and faces its own resource allocation 
        issues, it should continue to advocate for government-
        wide direction on.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Sec. 111 Administration of Foreign Affairs, Committee Report 4 
of 4--House Rpt. 108-105, Part 1--Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/
T?&report=hr105p1&dbname=cp108&.

    Similarly, the House Appropriations Committee has also 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
expressed concerns about the progress of rightsizing.

        Right-Sizing the U.S. Government Overseas Presence--The 
        Committee continues to be disappointed at the lack of 
        discernable progress in the pursuit of an interagency 
        process of determining the right size and makeup of 
        overseas posts, including exorbitant staffing 
        projections at posts scheduled for new embassy or 
        consulate compounds. The Committee directs the Office 
        of Overseas Buildings Operation (OBO) to work closely 
        with the new Office on Right-Sizing the U.S. Government 
        Overseas Presence to ensure that projected staffing 
        levels for new embassy compounds are prepared in a 
        disciplined and realistic manner, and that these 
        estimates become a basis for determining the size, 
        configuration and budget of new embassy compound 
        construction projects. The justification for all 
        facilities projects funded under this account must 
        include a full explanation of regional efficiency and 
        security planning, and related staffing assumptions. 
        Such projects will not be approved for funding absent 
        evidence of the application of a uniform right-sizing 
        methodology.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ ``Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance,'' House 
Rpt. 108-221--Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2004, 
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr221&dbname=cp108&.

    As has the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice, State, and the Judiciary:

          Right-sizing.--The Department of State currently has 
        no comprehensive process in place for developing the 
        staffing projections that are essential to the right-
        sizing process. Right-sizing refers to the 
        reconfiguration of overseas U.S. Government personnel 
        to the minimum number necessary to support U.S. 
        national security interests. A key component of the 
        planning process for a new embassy compound is the 
        development of staffing projections. Staffing 
        projections present the number of staff likely to work 
        in the facility and the type of work they will perform. 
        These are the two primary drivers of the size and cost 
        of new facilities. Currently, individual embassies and 
        consulates, in consultation with bureaus and offices at 
        headquarters, are responsible for developing the 
        staffing projections, which the Bureau of Overseas 
        Buildings Operations [OBO] uses to design the new 
        compounds and prepare funding requests. To ensure that 
        new compounds are designed as accurately as possible, 
        OBO designed a system for collecting future staffing 
        requirements that invites the participation of embassy 
        personnel, officials in the regional bureaus, and 
        officials from other relevant Federal agencies. Embassy 
        management and the regional bureaus must review and 
        validate all projections before submitting them to OBO.
          As the real property manager for all U.S. properties 
        overseas, OBO has become the default arbiter of all 
        questions pertaining to right-sizing. However, OBO is 
        dependant on the regional bureaus at the State 
        Department and other U.S. agencies for staffing 
        projections and decisions. OBO is not in position to 
        validate or downscale these staffing projections, yet 
        is continually blamed for its tenants' ever-increasing 
        demand for space at overseas posts. OBO has urged 
        headquarters, the regional bureaus, and embassy 
        management to develop a framework for making staffing 
        projections. The fact that OBO has met with resistance 
        at every turn has not gone unnoticed by the Committee. 
        Worse, an April 2003, General Accounting Office [GAO] 
        report found that the embassies and regional bureaus 
        were not even consistently utilizing OBO's system in 
        developing their staffing projections. The GAO report 
        found that many embassies had not conducted a thorough 
        analysis of their future staffing needs. The GAO report 
        also found that the process of developing staffing 
        projections had been managed poorly both in the field 
        and at Department headquarters. GAO noted that 
        officials at post did not appear to appreciate the 
        importance of the staffing projection process as it 
        relates to the size and cost of new diplomatic 
        facilities. Finally, the GAO report found that none of 
        the embassies surveyed had received formal, detailed 
        guidance on how to develop their projections from the 
        regional bureaus. Based on this, the Committee must 
        assume that the regional bureaus received no guidance 
        from headquarters on how they should assist posts in 
        developing their projections or on how the bureaus 
        themselves should evaluate posts' submissions. This GAO 
        report raises serious concerns about the validity of 
        the Department's past and current staffing projections. 
        The Committee directs the Department to develop a 
        framework for conducting right-sizing analyses, 
        including staffing projections, that will ensure that 
        projected needs are the minimum necessary to support 
        U.S. national security interests. The Committee further 
        directs that the framework include the ``tiger team'' 
        concept used by the Department to deploy OpenNet Plus. 
        During the deployment of this global information 
        technology network, tiger teams were sent around the 
        world to all of the embassies to install the software 
        and hardware and conduct the training necessary for the 
        deployment of OpenNet Plus. The tiger teams were 
        critical because the embassies had neither the time nor 
        the expertise to do this work themselves. The same can 
        be said of the embassies' ability to conduct thorough 
        and objective evaluations of their past staffing needs 
        and projections of their future staffing needs. The 
        Committee will not entertain any reprogramming requests 
        for the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account before 
        the Department has reported on its plans for meeting 
        this directive.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Senate Report 108-144, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2004 
Report to accompany S. 1585, 108th Congress, September 5, 2003, pp. 
127-128, http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/
R?cp108:FLD010:@1(sr144):.

    Challenges to rightsizing do not lie solely within the 
State Department, however. As former OMB Deputy Director Dorn 
pointed out in submitted testimony for a Subcommittee hearing, 
``many non-State agencies at several larger posts did not want 
to be included in the Mission Performance Planning (MPP) 
process, saw no utility in their involvement and in several 
cases non-State agencies noted that the MPP document and 
process are inflexible.'' \45\ At one embassy in Europe, 
Subcommittee staff heard this view expressed first hand by 
agency representatives who referred to the MPP as a ``send and 
forget'' exercise. The MPP is a key document that determines 
each mission's goals and forms the basis for many staffing 
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ See supra note 18, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This was confirmed by GAO, which

        found that agencies at the posts we examined did not 
        conduct comprehensive rightsizing analyses when 
        determining future staffing requirements [emphasis 
        added]. Decision makers did not analyze existing 
        positions before projecting future requirements and did 
        not consider rightsizing options, such as competitive 
        sourcing or relocating certain positions to the United 
        States or regional centers. In addition we found that 
        most agencies with staff overseas did not consistently 
        consider operational costs when developing staffing 
        projections.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Overseas Presence: Systematic 
Processes Needed to Rightsize Posts and Guide Embassy Construction, 
GAO-03-582T (Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2003), p. 13.

    The lack of participation by outside agencies, which now 
make up a majority of the U.S. presence overseas, is indicative 
of a continued culture of ``business as usual'' and likely only 
to change with the implementation of a capital cost sharing 
initiative that will force all departments and agencies to pay 
a fair share of the costs they accrue overseas.
    Based on extensive oversight work and two hearings, the 
Committee on Government Reform shares the concerns of GAO and 
the other committees of jurisdiction in concluding that 
rightsizing lacks urgency and momentum.

                             RECOMMENDATION

1. The State Department should begin a formalized, systematic, and 
        global review of all staff requirements and positions under 
        chief of mission authority

    Given the concerns expressed by the finding, the Committee 
on Government Reform recommends the Department of State 
reinvigorate the agency commitment to rightsizing by beginning 
a systematic review of all staff elements.
    As the lead U.S. agency overseas, the State Department with 
the continued support of the OMB, must advocate for rightsizing 
at all missions and with all agencies.\47\ No government 
program is sustainable without the commitment of the agency or 
agencies involved. Rightsizing is not only in the best interest 
of the U.S. government, but as it is stretched thinly, of the 
Department of State as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ OMB has the lead in implementation of the President's 
Management Agenda. The State Department notes interagency efforts, such 
as the six-post, rightsizing pilot study, often fail to find consensus 
and achieve expected results. State may need greater legal authorities, 
or OMB to play a more effective leadership role, to drive the 
rightsizing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The current administration has rightly embraced the concept 
of rightsizing in the President's Management Agenda. However, 
for the State Department to put forward a flawed study as a 
basis of suggesting personnel are already ``substantially 
rightsized,'' is both a challenge to the President's agenda and 
detrimental to the goals of good management and the 
Department's own best interests.
    Consequently, the Committee recommends State embrace the 
tools being presented by GAO and in legislation to push the 
President's Management Agenda. In particular, the Department 
should begin planning for the new Office on Right-Sizing the 
United States Government Overseas Presence and new 
responsibilities to evaluate overseas staff under the authority 
of chiefs of mission. Combined these proposals, which are 
included in bills under consideration before the Congress, give 
the Department new tools to continue moving the rightsizing 
initiative forward. However, while these tools are included in 
legislation, the goals of both are within the capability of 
State now.
    State must incorporate the GAO framework of mission, 
security, and costs into all aspects of management. State must 
begin a systematic review of all staff requirements and 
positions overseas that incorporates appropriate mission goals, 
a systematic approach to the number of staff needed to meet 
mission goals, and realistic assessment of the limits placed on 
those missions and requirements dictated by security and cost 
considerations. This process should be formalized by the end of 
this year and approved by OMB.
    Furthermore, just as the ongoing analysis of European 
missions does not look at individual missions in a vacuum, so 
too must future analyses look at other missions in their 
regional context. Rightsizing must begin with a zero-based 
analysis of mission, security, and costs at each embassy and 
consulate and not proceed only from the status quo. However, 
rightsizing cannot be simply a top-down exercise directed from 
a Washington office. Rightsizing must be an ongoing process 
that incorporates the bottom-up concerns and comments of each 
mission and the personnel in those missions, particularly 
chiefs of mission.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ In July 2003, the State Department issued guidance on how to 
carry out staffing projections in connection with new embassy 
construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted by GAO and the House and Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 
above, the Committee also recognizes that the lack of an 
effective cost-sharing mechanism amongst agencies for new 
overseas facilities is a substantial obstacle to gaining agency 
involvement in the rightsizing process and supports giving the 
State Department authority to develop more realistic cost-
sharing mechanisms.

