On Tuesday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing titled, ‘Streamlined and Rightsized: Consolidating State Department Administrative Services.’
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00authorization of the State Department was in 2002 over 20 years ago. Since then
00:06it has become common practice to reauthorize State Department programs
00:10within our legislative vehicles resulting in a complete lack of
00:13transparency on the process and a lack of oversight on what is really going on
00:18within the department. Well we're trying something new this year. Over the next
00:23few months this committee will be using a microscope to examine the efficacy of
00:28the State Department and pass the first authorization in over two decades. This
00:33will allow Congress to exercise its constitutional oversight duties and
00:37ensure that executive agencies are being good stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
00:42That every dollar and every diplomat is working in alignment with American
00:47foreign policy and its interests. My subcommittee has jurisdiction over the
00:53State Department's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, the Counterterrorism Bureau, and
00:57the State Department's Bureau of Management. This hearing, the first
01:03one of the subcommittee, focuses on Enbranch and more specifically the
01:08Bureau of Administration within Enbranch. And I cannot think of a more
01:12appropriate place to begin. Simply put, the State Department would not be able
01:17to execute U.S. foreign policy missions without this vital administrative work.
01:23The administrative side of Enbranch is responsible for state's
01:28entire acquisitions, procurement, and logistics services. It oversees real
01:34property management for the State Department and even the department's
01:37library and knowledge management systems. Given the significance of these
01:41responsibilities, the Bureau of Administration should execute its role
01:45with precision, prioritizing efficiency and effectiveness in its service
01:51delivery. However, that standard has not been upheld in its entirety. The
01:56Bureau of Administration has faced significant challenges from personnel
01:59attrition to long delays in standing systems to poor management. And when
02:05the State Department's administrative services fail, so too does the State
02:09Department's ability to carry out the critical work of securing American
02:12interests and priorities abroad. And that is why we are here today, to gather
02:17more information on these shortcomings and explore how Congress can help. I
02:22think it's also important to point out the role that a branch has in
02:26advancing efforts to improve cost effectiveness and bring accountability
02:31to government spending. This bureau can be a force for good if we do the job
02:37right. The State Department allocates approximately of $11 billion to $13
02:41billion annually on contracts for goods and services, with the majority of
02:46expenditures occurring at the Washington level. As the nexus for the
02:50Department's acquisitions and procurement, the Bureau of Administration
02:54is uniquely positioned to advance new policies promoting cost effectiveness
02:59and reform. From reevaluating contracting procedures and policies to
03:04ensuring we have the appropriate personnel in place to procure and
03:09oversee the acquisition of goods and services for the Department, this
03:13subcommittee will examine every legislative avenue to ensure sharp and
03:17streamlined State Department spending procedures. I am confident this hearing
03:21will bring the subcommittee more clarity on the challenges faced by the Bureau
03:26of Administration's work and really where Congress can come in, work
03:31together in a bipartisan way and make government more efficient for the
03:34American people. With that, I again thank our witnesses for being here and
03:39providing your testimony. And I now recognize the ranking member, Sheila
03:44Scherfelis McCormick, for her opening remarks. Thank you, Chairman Lawler. I
03:49want to start by taking a moment to thank all of the dedicated State
03:52Department foreign service, civil service contractors and the local staff
03:56at home and abroad for your hard work and service to our country and the
04:00American people. The goal of the State Department are to advance our
04:04strategic interests abroad by countering adversaries like China,
04:08Russia and Iran, help Americans who are overseas and finally to protect and
04:13secure our nation. When things go wrong abroad, when an American traveler gets in
04:18trouble, when someone needs a new passport, when top policymakers need
04:22information from the ground, you are there. You are our eyes and our ears and
04:27advocates abroad. Thank you for your hard work. I want to set the scene for what we
04:31are discussing today, streamlining and right-sizing the Department. And why is
04:37it so important? The State Department is not a business. We cannot afford to move
04:41fast and break things. This is not about building a social media app. The stakes
04:47are much higher. This is about protecting Americans' lives, keeping Americans who
04:52live and travel abroad, making sure that when your child decides to study abroad
04:56in Italy or Jordan or Vietnam, there is someone who will help them, someone they
05:01can call on. It's about ensuring our embassies and our consulates are safe
05:06through hard work of our diplomatic security staff. It's about ensuring the
05:11next generation of foreign services officers are taught to be experts in
05:15their field, not yes-men. It's about competing against our adversaries and
05:20coordinating with our allies, not the other way around. And yes, it's about
05:25ensuring the State Department has the management tools, administrative
05:29capacities, and people it needs to get the job done. My Republican colleagues
05:34would like you to believe that the Trump administration is the
05:38first to want to streamline or right-size the State Department, and that
05:43it could be done, that it can't be done, without DOJ. This just is plain wrong, as
05:48is the hallmark approach of DOJ, which they use to break things first and
05:53ask questions later. Former Secretary of State Blinken began his tenure by laying
05:58out a modernization plan informed by actual data and input from department
06:03employees on how to bring the department into the 21st century and ensure it
06:08remains the world's premier diplomatic workforce. Similarly, my Republican
06:14colleagues might paint the work of DOJ to slash agencies like the state and its
06:19workforce as a brave endeavor that Democrats have been unwilling to carry
06:23out. However, those actions have been reckless and have hurt many innocent
06:28Americans. Congressional Democrats have repeatedly shown that we're ready and
06:33willing to engage in good-faith, comprehensive, bipartisan State
06:37Department reform. Bipartisan state authorization efforts over the last few
06:41Congresses have yielded some real victories for the department, its
06:46workforce, and its ability to act in the best interest of the American people. We
06:51remain ready to build on those successes and continue our good-faith,
06:55bipartisan efforts on State Department and modernization efforts to ensure our
07:00diplomats and missions abroad are well-poised to meet today's threats. I
07:05want to join the chairman in welcoming our panel today. Thank you for your
07:09service and your dedication to this country and I look forward to our
07:12discussion. But Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask why this isn't a
07:16conversation that we're having with the administration itself. If Secretary Rubio
07:20and the administration are so proud of their work, where are they and why are
07:24they not here for questioning? If we are serious about working with the
07:27administration on the efforts to modernize the State Department, including
07:31proposals to streamline and right-size it, then we have to hear from them. I
07:35stand ready to have the conversation whenever they are ready. Let me be clear,
07:41I'm not opposed to finding efficiencies and increasing effectiveness where we
07:46can, but we cannot do it recklessly in a way that cedes ground to our adversaries
07:51or that leaves American citizens high and dry. U.S. national security, American
07:58lives are on the line. We need to do this the right way and not the doge way.
08:04Nevertheless, I'm grateful to our witnesses for being here to have this
08:07conversation and in the administration's absence and I look forward to the
08:12insight. I yield back. Thank you to the ranking member. Other members of the
08:20committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the
08:23record. We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before
08:27us today on this important topic. The Honorable Carrie B. Shabaka, former
08:33Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Administration, U.S. Department of State.
08:37Ambassador Michael C. Polt, former U.S. Ambassador of Estonia, Serbia and
08:42Montenegro, U.S. Department of State. This committee recognizes the importance of
08:47the issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us today.
08:51Your full statements will be made part of the record and I'll ask each of you
08:56to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for
09:00member questions. I now recognize Ms. Shabaka for her opening statement.
09:07Chairman Lawler, Ranking Member Scherfelis McCormick, Members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and my fellow
09:24panelists, Ambassador Polk, I'm honored to be here speaking with you as we explore
09:29ways to streamline administrative services at the U.S. Department of State
09:33and I sincerely thank you for the invitation to be part of this
09:36conversation. I was fortunate to serve as the Assistant Secretary of State for
09:40Administration from 2019 to early 2021 and in a role that was established
09:45during the FDR administration. Though the responsibilities of the Bureau of
09:49Administration have certainly evolved over the past 80 years, what has not
09:53changed is that the Bureau has always worked tirelessly to support the entire
09:57Department and U.S. diplomatic efforts around the globe. As the administrative
10:02backbone of the Department, the Bureau of Administration's portfolio covers
10:05everything from worldwide logistics, transportation, travel, privacy and
10:11records mandates, acquisition and procurement, domestic real property
10:15management, emergency management readiness, language interpretation and
10:19translation services, and support for international schools. With a workforce
10:24comprised of a combination of civil service, foreign service and contractors,
10:27the Bureau manages overseas mail and diplomatic pouch, support for
10:31presidential travel overseas, a global publishing shop, and allowances policy
10:36for all those serving abroad. In many ways, the Bureau of Administration
10:40functions as a customer service organization with its customers being
10:43the other bureaus at the State Department, the 298 overseas posts, and
10:48even in some cases, the employees of the State Department and other ICAS
10:52agencies themselves. The best-known example, of course, being shipping home
10:55goods when people are moving abroad. And due to this customer service nature, some
10:59of the Administration Bureau's divisions and programs have been able to run more
11:02as a business through the State Department's Working Capital Fund. One
11:07long-standing example of this is the Global Acquisition Division. The highly
11:11skilled and technical procurement team charges the other State Department
11:15bureaus a percentage fee of the overall procurement or contract cost to handle
11:19their acquisition work. In turn, those fees are what pay for the salaries of
11:23the employee in the division and the office spaces in which they work. Why is
11:27this a smart choice for taxpayer dollars and a good business model? One, it
11:31encourages bureaus to not to seek out only the contracting work that they need,
11:35not spend all that they have in their bureau budgets as there is a fee
11:39attached. Two, it ensures that the procurement shop remains flexible in
11:42size and agile in how it assigns staff as it is based on demand and use by the
11:48State Department. And three, it encourages the Global Acquisition Division to
11:52continue to look for ways to streamline and ever-increase productivity with its
11:56work to keep its fees low as higher fees cause higher levels of customer
12:00dissatisfaction. The Acquisitions Procurement Division has long
12:05served under the Working Capital Fund system, as have other parts of it,
12:08including logistics management. And a new Working Capital Fund Service Center is
12:13being developed as we speak. While I was Assistant Secretary, the Real
12:18Property Management team and I were keenly aware of the age and deteriorating
12:22condition of several of our domestic facilities. This is not a unique story to
12:26the State Department as many government buildings are in similar situations, but
12:30we increased our focus on lifecycle maintenance projections and schedules
12:34for the work that needed to be done to ensure proper upkeep and repair of our
12:38facilities going forward. The team and I also pushed to complete long-standing
12:43projects that mattered to the people at the State Department and improved
12:47their quality and quality of their work environment. One notable project
12:52we completed was the opening of the D Street entrance at HST, which had been
12:56closed for 12 years and was the access point closest to the Foggy Bottom Metro.
13:01As you can guess, this matters quite a lot to the employees of the State
13:05Department on rainy, snowy, and windy days. Taking these efforts one step
13:08further, since I left the A Bureau at the A Bureau, they have the Real Property
13:13Program developed with Congressional approval, a Working Capital Fund Center
13:17for its domestic facilities. All State Department bureaus are charged a fee for
13:21the square footage of the space that they occupy. Those fees go into a fund
13:24that handle operational and maintenance work, but also accrue funds for general
13:29facility lifestyle maintenance and repair work across fiscal years for
13:33things like roof replacement and updating electrical systems. This saves
13:37taxpayer dollars by, one, ensuring routine maintenance and upkeep is done on our
13:42government properties and not letting issues go by the wayside until
13:45situations are so dire and costs are astronomical to fix them, and then of
13:50course potentially having to come to Congress to ask for additional funds. And
13:53two, better understanding all the square footage that we have on hand, continually
13:58looking for ways to improve how the spaces are used, and as other bureaus are
14:02not going to want to spend more of their budget on fees for underutilized
14:05and unused space, when possible the State Department will be able to exit building
14:09leases that may no longer be needed, therefore decreasing cost. Working
14:14Capital Funds have been a successful tool at the Bureau of Administration as
14:17they provide flexibility, cost-saving, and responsiveness to the rest of the
14:21State Department, but technology is clearly another tool that the Bureau of
14:24Administration can further utilize to streamline its work. Like so many other
14:28government agencies and bureaus, the Administration Bureau is not alone in
14:31having aging IT systems. One of the biggest technological challenges in the
14:36A Bureau is the Integrated Logistics Management System, ILMS. ILMS is a
14:42product that works in tracking items that move from the United States to
14:45overseas and vice versa, following life cycles of State Department vehicles
14:49armored and otherwise, and is utilized in the audits of inventory at embassies of
14:53physical property. This work is vitally important. However, ILMS is costly.
14:58Technologies have advanced since the original development of ILMS many years
15:01ago, and going forward it is important to transition this work to new and improved
15:06platforms to continue to provide the best logistical support for the
15:09Department. I can also envision other ways that technology can be helpful at
15:14the State Department, including machine learning and AI, to continue to streamline
15:17work in things like declassification and FOIA, and helping overseas allowances and
15:22language services. I'm happy to discuss this and much more, but now I want to
15:26turn the conversation over to you. There's so much good and vital work
15:29being done at the State Department and the Bureau of Administration, and I know
15:32I've only scratched the surface this morning. I welcome your questions. Thank
15:36you, Ms. Chebaka. I now recognize Mr. Polk for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr.
15:42Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scherfelis McCormick, and distinguished
15:46members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to testify before you today regarding
15:51updating and strengthening America's diplomatic capabilities. I speak to you
15:56now as a private citizen, but one who has had the great privilege to serve our
16:00great country and the American people for 35 years in our diplomatic service.
16:05I've served six presidents and 11 secretaries of state, both Republican and
16:10Democrat, over the course of those 35 years. I offer to you a set of American
16:15diplomacy modernization ideas that a group of former colleagues and I
16:19published in September of 2022, entitled Blueprints Toward a More Modern American
16:25Diplomacy. Our proposals were supported by Arizona State University's Leadership,
16:30Diplomacy, and National Security Lab, with the participation of the Una Chapman
16:35Cox Foundation and the American Academy of Diplomacy. Our efforts were guided by
16:40four firm commitments. First, to work in full transparency with the State
16:45Department, Congress, and the many communities interested in these issues.
16:50Second, strict bipartisanship. Third, we remain convinced that because the United
16:57States should have the world's most modern and able diplomatic service, the
17:02State Department must change to earn its place at the center of U.S. foreign
17:06policymaking and execution. And finally, we offered our blueprints to those
17:11currently serving our country's diplomacy at home and abroad. We addressed
17:17what we consider to be four important sectors of our nation's diplomacy. Our
17:22recommendations are mainly Foreign Service specific. They do not claim to
17:27deal with the full complexities of State Department operations or every element
17:32of potential State Department reorganization. What we have done is
17:36submit for consideration detailed descriptions of how to implement our
17:41four blueprints, including specific legislative and regulatory language. To
17:46the best of our knowledge, this is the first time this has ever been done at
17:49this scale. Our four blueprints address, first, the mission and mandate of the
17:55Foreign Service in seeking enhanced authority, responsibility, and
18:00accountability for U.S. ambassadors worldwide. Holding U.S. diplomatic
18:06leadership, career, and appointed from outside the Foreign Service to the same
18:10high standard of foreign policy and the national leadership expertise. Third,
18:17empowering the State Department and the Foreign Service to play a more
18:20substantive role in the creation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy.
18:24And finally, fostering a stronger relationship between America's diplomats
18:30and the American public they serve. Second, we focused on professional
18:35education and training. Defining, implementing, and sustaining an education
18:40and training complement for the Foreign Service that is about eight percent of
18:44its total workforce. We focused on investing in robust diplomatic
18:49education and training to secure a dedicated career workforce with critical
18:53professional knowledge, including broad leadership and language skills. We
18:59focused on creating broad institutional expertise within the Foreign Service,
19:03both at home and through rotational opportunities abroad, to draw on whole of
19:09government and private sector capabilities. Finally, by prioritizing
19:15both mid-career continuing education and extending training for higher level
19:18positions, we sought to expand the pipeline of qualified leadership
19:22professionals. Third, we focused on a modern and strategically focused
19:28personnel system. By creating and staffing nimble, multifunctional teams
19:33and individuals positioned where they are needed, placing the right people in
19:38the right places, in the right numbers, with the right skills. Developing a
19:44recruitment strategy directly targeting young, multi-skilled workforce, best
19:49prepared to address rapidly progressing international challenges. And finally, in
19:55this area, and a growing greater professional opportunities for family
19:59members who serve with our Foreign Service officers abroad, as a ready
20:04additional asset pool for advancing U.S. interests. And finally, we proposed the
20:10creation of a diplomatic reserve corps. We seek to remedy the fact that the
20:15Department of State, in many ways America's first line of defense, has no
20:21ready, trained, and dedicated pool of reserves akin to the U.S. Armed Forces. We
20:27propose the development of a thousand person strong reserve corps made up of
20:31retired State Department professionals and other subject matter experts from
20:35outside the government, ready and able to move quickly in the event of
20:40natural disasters, political turmoil, or any emergency need. Finally, we offer
20:47these blueprints in support of an American diplomacy that is nimble, does
20:51not see creativity encumbered by perfunctory tradition, and that is deeply
20:57connected to the people it serves. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and
21:02I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Polk. I now recognize myself for
21:07five minutes of questioning. Ms. Chebaka, in your own words, can you describe the
21:13role and function of the Bureau of Administration? What is its mission? And
21:19during your tenure there, what did you see as the biggest weakness within the
21:23Bureau? Thank you for the question, Chairman Lawlor. Like I said in my
21:31opening remarks, I really do feel like the Bureau of Administration is the
21:35administrative backbone of the State Department, focuses on lots of operations
21:39that the State Department, both domestically and overseas, really needs
21:44to support the work that they are doing abroad. So everything from, again, moving
21:48people's home goods, to overseas school support, to language services, also
21:53procurement, which we talked about already, both of us, in our opening
21:57remarks, that that is obviously a vital part of providing services and
22:01additional support for the State Department. So I would say, again, it's the
22:04administrative backbone of the department. And again, as I mentioned, it's
22:08been around for 80 years, and though it doesn't have typing pools any longer or
22:13call centers in the same way that it did, technology has certainly evolved and
22:17opportunities have certainly evolved for the State Department. I would say one
22:20of the biggest challenges that I had when I was at the State Department was
22:24the ILMS system that I mentioned in my opening remarks. It's a significant
22:29platform that really does track all the logistical support for the State
22:32Department. Unfortunately, it's a pretty big platform that's been overly
22:38specialized over time and is very integrated, and I would say that the
22:43contract that it was originally placed on were very long contracts that have
22:46existed for a long time, and I think that as technology has improved, that the
22:51ILMS project should move on to new technological platforms that can support
22:55that effort going further. I appreciate that. What, in the work that we're doing
23:01now, especially considering that Congress has not undertaken this responsibility
23:06in two decades, what do you see as some of the considerations that we should
23:12make in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the current
23:18organization of the Bureau? Sure. So, like I mentioned, a lot of the State, a lot of
23:24the Bureau of Administration actually does already operate under an efficiency
23:28type model, and the fact that when you work in a revolving fund space or in a
23:32working capital fund, you always want to make sure that you do not go into the
23:36red, and there are several lines of effort at the State Department, not just
23:39in the Bureau of Administration, that work in a working capital fund, like the
23:42Counselor Affairs work that you see. I think something that's very smart about
23:46it is that it allows the staff to be agile, going where the demand is, the
23:50demand from within the State Department, which is what the A's, which is what A's
23:54focus is, most certainly, but places like Counselor Affairs can look to the outside
23:58and see what the demand is for their needs of staffing and their needs of
24:01effort. So, I think one thing that people should certainly look at is, are there
24:06working capital fund opportunities within the State Department that they
24:11can look to to make sure that they really are right-sized already? And again,
24:14making sure that your program doesn't go into the red versus asking Congress for
24:18more money is certainly a way that people can do that. So, a Bureau is
24:22responsible for domestic operations and emergency services at the Department. Can
24:27you explain to us what that encompasses and how it differs from the Bureau of
24:31Diplomatic Security's role? For instance, why is emergency services planning and
24:37operations for domestic and foreign incidents split into two different
24:41bureaus? Sure. So, emergency management services in the Bureau of
24:46Administration is actually more focused on coop and cog, so continuing operations
24:50both of government and of operations at the State Department. So, it's more of a
24:56domestic focus, so thinking of things like active shooter, unfortunately, and
24:59other topics like that. But also, obviously, emerging health crises.
25:03Obviously, emergency management was used a lot during COVID. Obviously, there's
25:08also a lot of efforts that were done internationally on COVID as well, but the
25:12focus is more domestic. I cannot speak to why emergency management services was
25:16originally put into the A Bureau, but it's been there a long time. I can
25:20certainly do that. And again, it's a slightly different focus than diplomatic
25:23security. However, they do work very closely together. That was my next
25:27question. They're coordinating between emergency planning with diplomatic
25:32security officials? Most certainly. Okay. Are there gaps in funding personnel or
25:39technology that hinder effective emergency coordination between A Bureau
25:43and diplomatic security? I can't speak to diplomatic security, as I never worked in
25:49that Bureau, but I can say emergency management services, we never had a
25:52shortfall. We actually did update the notification system when I was in the A
25:57Bureau from an outdated system, and that is basically so employees can
26:01call in if there is an active shooter situation, checking in, making sure people
26:05know where they are during a weather emergency or those sorts of things for
26:08the State Department to be able to do headcount. So that is a system that was
26:11updated when I was at the State Department, but I don't remember there
26:15being any financial problems when I was there. Okay. I now recognize the ranking
26:22member, Representative Sheriff Alyssa McCormick of Florida, for five minutes.
26:27Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for all your service to our
26:30country. My question is for Ambassador Polk. And for your continued service, I
26:35wanted to know about some of the cuts that we're seeing. Can you talk about
26:39some ways to reform the Department and better position in its workforce, Foreign
26:44Service, Civil Service contractors, and local staff to advance America's
26:47interests? And do you feel that these policies of this administration so far
26:51have strengthened our workforce or have weakened it? Thank you, Ranking Member
26:58Sheriff Alyssa McCormick. I want to be very careful in reasserting one of the
27:04key principles of the work that my colleagues and I did in this Blueprints
27:08for a more modern U.S. Diplomatic Service in our commitment to a strict
27:13bipartisanship. I do not wish to criticize or praise the administration
27:19in the current form or a past administration or criticize it. But I
27:25want to emphasize the important principles that our diplomacy serves
27:29and how one can approach the important aspects of modernizing it for a 21st
27:35century demands of international affairs. And in that context, I think it is very
27:40it is very important and I'm grateful to this committee for looking at the
27:45Foreign Service, looking at the State Department and its functions to see if
27:49they are still the most effective way to deliver the services to the American
27:54people whom they serve. So one thing that I would advocate is something that you
27:59mentioned in your opening statements, and that is to go ahead and look at the
28:03functions as you are doing of the Department of State, both Civil and
28:06Foreign Service and our workforce abroad, to see where they meet the mission of
28:11the administration's foreign policy. And the administration's foreign policy that
28:15we are right now focused on is this administration's foreign policy. Not
28:20previous ones, not to hear to criticize or to praise, but simply to follow the
28:25President's instructions to make his foreign policy the most effective for
28:29America and for the American people. That, in my opinion, as a 35-year nonpartisan
28:35Foreign Service officer, should not be a political issue nor a partisan
28:39issue, but simply one that supports America in the achievement of its goals.
28:44Specifically, my concern has been with our global diplomatic footprint. We've
28:49seen that we have actually lost ground when it's compared to China, and so I
28:52want to make sure that we're keeping our priorities and our goals front and
28:56center as we're making decisions, and that these decisions are actually
28:59strengthening us or bringing us into a place where we're actually gaining
29:02ground when it comes to that diplomatic footprint. So in that context, do you
29:07believe that the suggested cuts right now would actually lead us towards the
29:10goal of expanding our diplomatic footprint, or do you believe that it
29:14actually is having us in this continued regression?
29:17Thank you for the question. I'll give you my opinion and hope that it
29:23finds some resonance in your concerns. I firmly believe that the United States
29:30can afford roughly 1% of the federal budget on its diplomatic workforce to
29:37present a universally present American diplomacy in every part of the world. I
29:43do not think that it is something that is too expensive for the American people
29:46to support in terms of all the functions you mentioned in your opening statement
29:50and all the concerns that the Chairman mentioned in terms of the efficient
29:54operation of our foreign affairs bureaucracy. I would not
30:03cut back on our presence around the world, no matter how in our consulates
30:08nor in our in our embassies, simply because there are other competitors out
30:13there who are perfectly willing to fill the vacuum that we leave when we depart.
30:17And I can assure you that I have served in huge embassies abroad from Mexico
30:22City to Berlin, Germany to very small embassies in Estonia and in other places
30:26around the world, where the presence of the United States was always the central
30:31point of focus for both a host country and other diplomatic representations
30:37from other countries to see the American Embassy as the most effective and the
30:41most efficient diplomatic service there. Whenever they had questions about how to
30:46deal with the diplomatic challenges of that region and of that country, they
30:50would first come to the U.S. Embassy. I think this is something that we would
30:54want to preserve. So I want to shift towards solutions before my time runs
30:58out. Are there any things you'd recommend that would help us actually gain ground
31:02on our diplomatic footprint? The one thing that I really think would be
31:07really important, I would hope that you would take a very close look at, is our
31:11proposal for a diplomatic reserve corps. You know, when we when we deal with
31:17emergencies around the world, be they in Afghanistan, be they in in Europe, be they
31:23in any part of the world, in Africa, be they in whatever the places where it be,
31:27we do not have a ready search capacity in the State Department to meet those
31:32contingencies. What happens is you have to take people from existing positions
31:36around the world, take them out of those positions, and send them to the area of
31:40greatest need. Fair enough, we do what we have to do, but that is not an efficient
31:45way to handle crises when a search capacity is desperately needed. So
31:50recreating this thousand-person reserve corps, ready, trained, and cleared, and
31:56able to be deployed whenever we need them, wherever we need them, is something
32:00that we strongly urge the committee consider. Thank you, I yield back. Thank you to the
32:06ranking member, and thank you Mr. Polk for your testimony. I now recognize the
32:14Chairman Emeritus of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, the gentleman
32:18from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
32:22indeed, Ambassador Polk, thank you for your service. It's really inspiring to
32:27have known that your service in Estonia, in Serbia, Montenegro, and then find out
32:32Mexico City and Berlin. It just never ends. Thank you very much, and with that
32:37in mind, I'm so grateful for your association with McCain Institute. I had
32:41the wonderful opportunity to campaign. It was hard at Hilton Head Island for
32:46Senator McCain when he was running for president, and then I was grateful to be
32:50with him and Senator Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman campaigning in New York
32:54City. Mike Lawler gave me a visa to be there briefly, and so then over and over
33:00again, Senator McCain, what an inspiration. Each year at the Munich
33:05Security Conference, he played such a role, and indeed, he was referenced at the
33:11conference again this year as to his role that he's made, and so I wish you
33:16well in your service. With that in mind, in 2012, the GAO reported that the state
33:24had made limited progress in containing costs or providing administrative costs.
33:29It did not reduce the need for American administrative costs overseas,
33:36which cost more than local staff. Do you have any suggestions on how to
33:41re-engineer the administrative processes and seek innovative
33:46managerial approaches to improve cost effectiveness? Mr. Wilson, thank you
33:54very much for your question, and please, I'll give you my answer, but of
33:58course, I will defer to my colleague here who's got much more expertise in those
34:02specifics, but I'll give you my response from my experience of 35 years of
34:07being the beneficiary of the administrative services that the A
34:10Bureau and other colleagues at the State Department provided. I must
34:15say that the overall support that the State Department provides, both to its
34:19Foreign and Civil Service and its locally employed staff, is excellent.
34:24People try very, very hard to go ahead and make us capable to provide the
34:30services that we are to provide for the American people in whatever function we
34:34serve, political, economic, public affairs work, consular work, or the management
34:38staff of the Embassy. So overall, I think we all deserve gratitude. We all deserve
34:44to give gratitude and applause to our colleagues who provide the services. Now,
34:48that said, I must say that I've been, over my time in the State Department,
34:53involved in a few efforts previous to the current undertaking that I did with
34:59some of my former colleagues to try and streamline our overall bureaucratic
35:04processes. And I'll give you one example that I think is, I once proposed, and I
35:10was quickly shot down, but one that I'd like to offer here for your
35:14consideration. For instance, our travel management system. To travel for, as you
35:20probably learned from your own experience, to travel for the U.S.
35:23government can be a very complex enterprise, and it becomes very, very
35:27difficult to arrange, very complex to do, and I would argue costly to maintain and
35:33to then cross-check once you have accomplished it. I once proposed
35:38something totally revolutionary, which I think would save the government a lot of
35:41money and make it much simpler to go ahead and undertake the vast amount of
35:46travel that the State Department particularly has to engage in. And that
35:49is a totally no-fault travel system, where the United States government
35:54simply says, Mike Polt, you're being sent to U.S. Embassy Berlin. You are to report
36:00to your supervisor on date X, and you are serving there for the three years.
36:05The State Department has figured out that that costs so much money for you to go
36:11ahead and afford to make that travel. Coach class, American carrier, all
36:16those rules. We've deposited this amount of money in your bank account. Report to
36:22your supervisor. Have a safe trip. End over out. There's nothing further that
36:27needs to be checked, nothing further that needs to, no additional bureaucracy
36:30that needs to be deployed. You can just go ahead and do that. We could save
36:34ourselves a number of positions and expenses if we did away with some of
36:38those people. Thank you for that suggestion. I saw Chairman Lawler write
36:43that down to forward it ahead. And Madam Secretary, as a former real estate
36:48attorney, it's always intriguing to me real estate owned, particularly by the
36:52U.S. government, and there are some properties that are underutilized. What's
36:57being done to determine the ability to divest properties that are not needed
37:03worldwide? Sure. So I can certainly speak to domestic facilities because
37:10Overseas Building Operations is the Bureau that's responsible for the
37:13properties that are overseas that are owned by the State Department. As I
37:16mentioned in my opening remarks, one of the things that the real property group
37:19is doing in the Bureau of Administration is working under a working capital fund
37:23in the idea that if you charge other bureaus at the State Department for the
37:28space that they occupy, whether they use it well or if it's underutilized or
37:32potentially not used at all, that they will not want to incur those fees
37:35charged to them by the real property management team, and therefore find ways
37:40to use the space more efficiently going forward. And if the space is unused, be
37:44willing to give up that space and give it back to GSA, who we all know is the
37:49landlord of the majority of the domestic facilities that the State Department
37:53operates out of. So I think that's really a good way to really make sure you know
37:57what square footage you actually have. It's surprising how many government
38:00agencies don't even know the footprint that they necessarily possess. Thank you
38:04for your efforts. No problem. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I now recognize
38:12for five minutes the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett.
38:17Thank You, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here. You don't have to
38:23adjust your mics. This is the way we talk in East Tennessee. It's the only
38:27place in America where people don't speak with an accent, so thank you. I
38:31never know what Lawler's saying. I just look at him. If our eyes meet, I
38:35figure he's talking to me, but I can't never figure out what the heck he's
38:38saying. What did you just say? Yeah, see? There you go. Hey, leave the comedy to me,
38:43Lawler. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, could you give me the ... I'm sorry, not Mr. Chairman,
38:51but you know you got me all confused. Could one of y'all tell me the role and
38:57the function of the Bureau of Administration, and what services does it
39:02specifically provide for the State Department? Just give it to me from the
39:06heart. You don't have to read something, ma'am. Just tell me what you think. How
39:09about that? Sure. I would say the A Bureau is certainly a collection of
39:14interesting operational functions that are the backbone of the
39:19State Department and the operational services there. Again, as mentioned,
39:23travel services is certainly one of those, but logistics management is a big
39:27category. Records management and privacy mandates and FOIA is another one that
39:33people obviously think of. Contracting and procurement is a huge part of what
39:38the A Bureau does, and then real property is certainly something. We also
39:42oversee the overseas school program, which making sure that those that serve
39:46overseas with their families, that their children can attend schools that
39:52are up to U.S. standards and give them the support that they need for the
39:55education of their children. We also do things like language interpretation and
40:00translation. It's far and wide. I kind of always make the joke there was this old
40:05life cereal commercial, like give it to Mikey, he'll eat it. The A Bureau is
40:09kind of that model, quite frankly. It is the place that lots of little programs
40:14that maybe a lot of people don't think about go, that support the State
40:17Department as a whole. Sir, would you add or detract anything from that? Well, the
40:23first thing I would like to add, Mr. Bouchet, is that I appreciate the way you
40:27talk because I'm a graduate of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville,
40:30despite my accent, which is obviously not from Tennessee. Go Vols. What year was
40:33that? 1977, the year I joined the Foreign Service. Let's see, I was, wait,
40:40yeah, 97. No, my dad was Dean of Student Conduct back then. I doubt he saw you
40:44then either. You were probably one of those overachievers, but he also had the
40:48Freshman Honor Society, so I don't know if he saw you there either. Let me
40:53skip around a little bit. Do you think that the State Department is
41:00maintaining facilities that provide little or no benefit to its diplomatic
41:05mission? Because I know we're looking into a lot now at waste and things, and I
41:10don't want you to be critical, but I would like to know if you could see
41:15some efficiencies there. I'll speak from my perspective, of course. I'm happy to
41:20have my colleague be much more specific because she was in charge of the real
41:24estate of the department. I know that there's a plan or at least some
41:31consideration being given right now to streamlining our overseas presence in
41:34terms of, do we need to have consulates in various parts of various countries?
41:39Can we close smaller posts? Can we go ahead and create more efficiencies by
41:44not being everywhere? First of all, I would certainly recommend and advocate
41:49that we maintain the principle of universality in terms of being present
41:53in every country in which the United States has diplomatic relations. That
41:57does not mean that we have to have a gigantic presence or that we
42:01have to have multiple consulates in the same country. That the
42:04embassy can be the focal point of the U.S. diplomatic presence and
42:09representing U.S. interests. So in that context, taking a close look at the
42:14multiple consular posts we might have in certain countries, particularly in the
42:19more advanced countries or the more modern parts of the world, and also
42:24whether every agency that is represented overseas needs to be overseas to go
42:30ahead and perform the functions on behalf of the American people. In other
42:33words, does every agency right now that has a perch in certain places, can
42:38it be done from either regional offices or can it be done from back in the
42:42United States versus having it done an overseas location? So in that sense, I
42:47think it's very worthwhile to look at efficiencies, not to sort of say, no,
42:51we have to have everything just the way it is. But I would always do it with
42:56the consideration of, let's not move the United States out of countries
43:00altogether, in which we know that Chinese and other interests will very
43:04quickly fill the vacuum that we leave behind. Real quick, you mentioned
43:07Chinese. Something I have a real passion for, and I'm not sure if it's
43:11with you all or not, is reclaiming desert areas all across the continent
43:17of Africa. Everybody thinks Africa is a country, it's a continent. But they are
43:20reclaiming the desert through a process, or several processes, don't need to go
43:25into it. And I'm wondering, is that a function that you all would help
43:28facilitate through grants or something like that? In other words, the question
43:35being, would we... Because if we don't do it, the Chinese are going to do it. In other words,
43:39should we be competing everywhere in the world, including on the area that
43:43you just mentioned right now? My strong recommendation is, categorically so. We
43:48should not let Belt and Road be the effort that sort of rules the
43:53roost around the world without the United States being present. I'm way over
43:57my time, but if you all know somebody who's involved with that, if you all could
43:59get with me, I would really love to be involved in that. Yes, sir. It's not worth
44:03a vote for me, but I could sleep well at night knowing that we did something.
44:06Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm way over, but thank you, brother. Just a wee bit. Thank
44:12you, Mr. Burchett. I now recognize for five minutes the gentleman from New
44:18Jersey, Mr. Cain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being
44:23here today. As the administration concerns ways to improve the efficiency
44:28of U.S. government overseas operations, we must determine the best approach for
44:34providing support services to the various agencies stationed at embassies
44:37and consulates. GAO has found that increasing participation in the
44:43International Cooperative Administrative Support Services system can lead to
44:47economies of scale and cost savings. It also noted that Congress should consider
44:53requiring agency participation in ICAS unless a valid business case can
44:58justify its exemption. Can you explain the benefits and the challenges that
45:03might require the State Department to participate in ICAS? Thank you. Hi, thank
45:11you for the question. Right, the ICAS system is something that's well known to
45:16people that serve overseas, and obviously it's a voluntary participation by not
45:23only the State Department, but also the other departments that potentially have
45:27people that are serving overseas, and it provides an administrative backbone of
45:31the services that are are provided overseas at embassies. I think the big
45:36question that kind of is outstanding is should it be voluntary by the agencies
45:39that don't participate in it or do participate in it, and I think that
45:44that's a good question. I do think that generally consolidating services, which
45:48the A Bureau does not only for the State Department, but for a lot of other
45:52agencies, like in delivering mail to people at their posts overseas and
45:56moving all of their home goods and their office supplies and making sure that
46:01those are done in a consolidated manner. I think ICAS participation being
46:05voluntary is tricky, but it is a way to split costs also between different
46:09agencies that participate in it. So if you do work at the Peace Corps and
46:13you've got some folks that are at the embassy in a particular country, then
46:16they also participate in paying for the postal work that's done there and not
46:20having their own Peace Corps agency pay for that independently. So obviously
46:24there's some cost savings there. I do think it's a good idea for Congress to
46:27look into it. I know that there was a GAO report, I think back in 2012, that
46:32talked about this, so this is obviously even a topic that's been around. The ICAS
46:35system actually is run primarily out of MSS, so kind of the think-tank part of
46:40the State Bureau under the management family, but obviously the Bureau of
46:44Administration has great involvement with it, specifically in the
46:47logistics management space. So you prefer a voluntary or a mandatory? It is currently
46:52voluntary. I think the recommendation by GAO was to have it not be voluntary. And
46:57what's your response to that? Again, it's a percentage of number of people
47:03that participate in it for other agencies, so having other people pay into
47:06that system makes sense because it is based on the size of how you participate
47:10at the embassy. Obviously the State Department is usually the largest member
47:14of that team, so we obviously pay the largest share, but obviously there are
47:17other organizations. Again, Peace Corps is just one. There's quite a few
47:21that have people overseas. DOD is also one that participates. Thank you. Ambassador?
47:25I would vote for making it mandatory simply because if we're all
47:30over there for the same team working for the same American people, the most
47:34efficient way to do it is for one agency to go ahead and provide these services
47:38that my colleague is proposing. So I think if you're going to be overseas
47:42officially for the United States government, I think you should
47:45participate in this system. Thank you both. If U.S. agencies, including the
47:51State Department, reduce their presence overseas, it may be even more difficult
47:56to gain economy of scale in providing administrative services at the post
48:00level. What are some options to help contain the administrative cost for a
48:05reduced footprint? I think I understand the question. Are you asking if there are
48:13some places that maybe consulates no longer exist, how do you still provide
48:17economies of scale for administrative services? Is that correct? Yeah, I think
48:21regionalization, which is something that my colleague here on the panel mentioned
48:24as well, I think that's a good idea. There are examples of regionalization of lots
48:28of services. For example, in Bangkok, it's a service where there's a lot of
48:33financial processing that's handled out of the embassy there. For logistics
48:37management and shipping, the A Bureau has a pretty big presence at some ports
48:42in Europe as well. So I still think there is some regionalization that
48:46is possible. Also in the area of procurement, I know the A Bureau has an
48:49operation in Germany. I don't know that it's always the most cost effective
48:53because German labor laws are actually a little challenging and sometimes cause
48:57things to be a little more expensive. But I think there are some regional ways
49:00that you can do certain administrative aspects in regional parts of the world.
49:04Without compromising effectiveness? I don't think so. With technology the way
49:08that it is now, I don't tend to think so. I mean, you can have a procurement
49:12officer in Germany doing work for a country in Africa and I don't see there
49:15being any downsides. I think also if COVID taught us anything, that there are
49:19some things that can be done remotely and done in other places and people can
49:22be responsive that way. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you,
49:28Representative Cain. I now recognize for five minutes the distinguished gentleman
49:33and former Secretary of the Interior, the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Zinke, for
49:39five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just a couple comments as we go through.
49:44I would think that if you use the services, you ought to pay the freight.
49:49Whether it's mandated or not, there might be more efficient. Let those guys, you
49:54know, figure it out. But if they use the services, certainly, I think they should
49:57pay the freight. I think that's fair. Mr. Ambassador, looking through and
50:02listening to your testimony, I'm interested when you say enhanced
50:05authority. That seems to be a theme throughout. No doubt individuals would
50:13travel around. My experience as a commander, I think that everyone
50:17works for somebody. So to give carte blanche, I think probably the ambassador
50:22or the RSO is probably the guy that would approve such things. But
50:27explain to me when you say enhanced authority. What do you mean by that?
50:32Thank you, Mr. Zinke. Since the ambassadors, our ambassadors serve as
50:40representatives of the President of the United States around the world.
50:44And they are charged by the President in these what we call the chief of mission
50:49letters by every president in every administration that give the ambassador
50:53instruction. You are in charge of all U.S. official government activities in your
50:58country of assignment. And you have all these responsibilities and
51:02accountability for their safety and for the performance of their duties. I have
51:07found that over the years in my experience and also my experience as
51:10ambassador, that more and more there has been this effort to have to refer back
51:17to Washington for permission to go ahead and do your job. That has been very
51:21clearly outlined for you already by the President and the President's letter.
51:25And to your point, we're talking about regionalization, right? In my
51:30experience, you have to be very, very careful when you regionalize. Because
51:34oftentimes, rather than you regionalize a service, you regionalize
51:38authority. And that line is problem because it does create a bureaucracy. So
51:46when you say authority, do you have specific authorities do you think that
51:50that we can we can push the State Department to to give to the ambassadors?
51:56I think we should go ahead and let the ambassadors perform the function that
52:01the President and through his through the Secretary of State from the President
52:06have been given to the ambassador in very clear format and not ask for our
52:13chiefs of mission to have to refer back to Washington for the functions which
52:17they've already been authorized and to make sure that they have the authority
52:21to not only perform their mission but also to be the risk managers and the
52:25risk absorbers for our functions abroad. The example I'd like to give you is you
52:30know that many of our embassies nowadays are very heavily secured and fortified
52:34to make sure that our staff stays safe. That's a smart and prudent idea. At the
52:39same time, you can't do diplomacy from behind a fortified wall. You have to come
52:44out and meet the people to go ahead and engage with the host country to go ahead
52:48and take a certain amount of prudent risk in performance of your duty. Our
52:52ambassadors need to be authorized to go ahead and and and absorb that risk
52:57prudently, to hold themselves accountable for for taking those risks, but to go
53:03ahead and get their their staffs to be able to accomplish their mission and not
53:06to be so risk averse that we can't get the job done. In your experience, do you
53:12find it frustrating on our procurement process? It seems you have the
53:17operator that knows what he wants, the vendor who basically knows how to
53:21manufacture it, but we put a third entity called the contracting officer in charge.
53:26Is there frustration in the State Department like there is with the
53:30Department of Defense on timeliness of procurement? Certainly there is.
53:35Let me be honest, of course there is. At the same time, we realize
53:39that everybody cannot be his or her own procurement officer. You have to have a
53:44process that is fair, that is clearly delineated, and that is
53:49accountable to the money being wisely spent. At the same time, you know
53:54that sometimes it takes much too long to procure things. Often we work on budgets
53:59where there are restrictions all the way through the end to the end of the
54:02fiscal year, and suddenly at the end of fiscal year you said, my god, you better
54:06go out there and buy some refrigerators and some various other things because
54:09very quickly the money needs to be spent. It would be better if we had a more
54:13logical and more predictable procurement process throughout the entire fiscal
54:18year. You seem very articulate for a Sun Devil. I played for the Ducks, just
54:23for the matter of record. Let me ask you, if this committee, if
54:28you could say, we're going to focus on one thing, to fix one thing within the
54:34span and the authority of this committee, what would you pick? The one I already
54:39picked, sir, and that is the one is I really think you could give serious
54:44consideration for creating this diplomatic reserve corps. Create that
54:48body of surge capacity for the United States, not just for the State
54:53Department, for the United States to meet overseas contingencies on a diplomatic
54:58basis that we currently do not have. With the State Department positions
55:02already being vastly understaffed by current projections of about 13% of
55:06positions around the world not being filled, in order for us to go ahead and
55:11meet emergencies, it becomes a really dire situation to be able to meet those.
55:15Thank you. Thank you both for your service. Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you, sir.
55:19Thank you, Representative Zinke. Mr. Pol, I just wanted to go back and drill
55:27down a little bit on the diplomatic reserve corps concept that you've put
55:32forth. I certainly think there's great value in it, obviously, when there are
55:37flare-ups around the world, being able to have some type of surge capacity, if you
55:41will, and get, you know, a diplomatic reserve corps there on the ground who
55:48has experience, especially in, you know, specific geographic areas. I certainly
55:55see the value in it. How would you see that functioning within M-Branch or
55:59A-Branch, within the State Department? How would you see that set up, and what is
56:06it that you think Congress should do to help get that on track? Thank you, sir.
56:12Mr. Chairman, we've proposed a four-year ramp-up period of, basically,
56:19recruiting 250 individuals for over a four-year period until you reach the
56:231,000-person mark. Where it would be situated in the Department, I suppose
56:29that the right place would be in the M family, simply because M provides the
56:33overall umbrella for all of the platform services for our functioning, both at
56:37home and abroad. At the same time, I think it would have to have the kind of rigor
56:43that our military reserve services has, in terms of, once you sign up for this, and
56:47once you are trained for this and cleared for this, in other words, the U.S., the
56:52American people have invested in you to go ahead and be ready, you have to also
56:56sign up to a commitment that when you are called, you go. Meaning that the next
57:02time we have to have a surge of, let's say, a consular function in Doha,
57:08after the departure from Afghanistan, and you are now a
57:13trained consular officer, and you said, we need a hundred of you to go ahead and
57:17go to Doha, and you need to leave this weekend, you get on the plane and you go.
57:21In other words, it has to have the kind of rigor that is not
57:25traditionally used in the State Department parlance. We need to have the
57:30kind of discipline and the kind of requirement that once we invest in this,
57:34that it actually does happen when we need you. And that's the most important
57:38part. One of the concerns that I've heard in the past is, we can't enforce that
57:42kind of rigor in the State Department, we're not military. I would beg to differ.
57:46I think we can. I appreciate that. Okay, well, I appreciate you all coming here
57:58today and providing your testimony. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
58:04testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the sub
58:08committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will
58:12ask you to respond to these in writing. Pursuant to committee rules, all members
58:17may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for
58:21the record subject to the length limitations. Without objection, the
58:26committee stands adjourned.