Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

rights situation in Kashmir. I told him that we had, indeed, taken this issue up with the Indian Government.

Subsequent to that meeting, we sent him a letter stating the administration's position and stating that the 1994 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act did not contain his provision.

Now, I do listen very carefully, I can assure you, Mr. Burton, and I believe that your amendment and your discussion with Mr. Obey on the floor of the House did help improve the human rights situation in India. But, we did not, as a matter of considered judgment, agree that it would help the human rights situation to cutoff aid to children, to cutoff aid to education programs in India

Mr. BURTON. It was developmental assistance, it was not humanitarian assistance, and you did not pay any attention to the colloquy, and you did send money in violation of what the Congress asked.

Mr. ATWOOD. I would like, Mr. Chairman, if I could, to submit the letter that I sent to Mr. Burton for the record, just so that we have a full record.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

[The letter appears in the appendix.]

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully this morning on this reorganization work, and Mr. Hamilton had an impassioned plea. I think we could catalog it as such, saying, where is your plan? I just feel that maybe the State Department cannot come up with a plan, and maybe we have to reorganize the Department.

We reorganized the House of Representatives the first day we took over, and we downsized it by a third. Now, I wonder why the State Department cannot downsize by a third?

I have a question aimed at Mr. Holum. Who is in charge of reorganization? Who do we go to? Who makes the final decision if we have an idea?

Mr. HOLUM. Well, in the case of the National Performance Review

Mr. ROTH. I am talking about the overall department.

Mr. HOLUM. Right. Each of us is responsible for the reorganization of our own agency. We are getting advice and help in that respect from the National Performance Review. I would like to underscore in partial response to what you said, and also to Congressman Hamilton's question, the way to achieve savings often is not through large, dramatic strokes.

The way each of these agencies, including the Department of State, including my agency, is achieving savings and efficiencies is in a quiet, undramatic, day-by-day process of revitalizing and reorganizing our agencies. We are eliminating

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Holum, that will never work. This idea of hey, we will do it quietly, that is just balderdash. That will never work. What we need is a big change in the State Department. For example, how much money do we give to the State Department every year?

Mr. MOOSE. The operating budget of the State Department, Mr. Roth, is about $2.1 billion.

Mr. ROTH. About $2.1 billion?

Mr. MOOSE. Yes. Out of that, we support the 266 embassies and missions abroad, and provide a very substantial amount of support

for the overseas activities of over 50 other U.S. Governments and agencies.

Mr. ROTH. How many people do we have employed? I thought we had 140 embassies, but you said 200 whatever.

Mr. MOOSE. We have 160 or so embassies and another additional 100 consulates and other missions.

Mr. ROTH. How many people do we have employed in these embassies and consulates?

Mr. Moose. Altogether, in the Department of State, in the embassies and consulates, our overseas deployment is about 16,000 persons, of whom roughly 10,000 are foreign national employees. Mr. Roth. So, about 6,000 Americans?

Mr. Moose. About 6,000 Americans, roughly, yes.

Mr. ROTH. How many do we have in the State Department here in Washington, D.C.?

Mr. MOOSE. In the Department here, we have about oh, roughly 10,000 positions-about 9,500 people.

Mr. ROTH. You would say roughly about 9,500 people?

Mr. Moose. Right, 9,694 at some particular moment in the recent past.

Mr. ROTH. What would happen if we cut that down by a third, like we did Congress?

Mr. MOOSE. Well, it depends on what kind of role you want to maintain in the rest of the world. If one believes that this is a time for America to start drawing in its engagement with the rest of the world, I think we can cut further into the Department. But, I think one has to calculate the consequences of that at the same time, and I think it would have a harmful impact on our ability to respond and interact with events overseas.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Moose, let me tell you, I do not think it would make an iota of difference. We cut the House, the size of Congress by a third. I do not think there is any Congressman here that would say hey, it has made a marked change in Congress.

Mr. MOOSE. I would not want to dispute you on that.

Mr. ROTH. I do not think it would make any difference in the State Department either. That is why I think that maybe we are asking the wrong people to make the cuts. I think that we in the Congress have to make those cuts. I think that we in the Congress, after all, we are the people that are responsible. Maybe we have to come in with a plan to reorganize not only the State Department, but other departments, too.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time is expired.

Dr. DUFFEY. Might I take just a moment, Mr. Roth, to make a response. It appears here you are only supposed to respond to questions and be careful what you say, but I would like to respond to both you and Mr. Hamilton personally, because I think I have shown in USIA my feeling that the foreign affairs community does need to be right sized. We need to examine the question of our role in the world.

I think the consolidation being considered-and I speak only for myself is the consolidation of certain accounts in the 050 that have to do with intelligence, and other accounts in 150, to look at the picture of where our national security needs are. It is very relevant to think about the consolidation of some accounts and re

drawing our sense of our national security. It is a job all Americans would welcome our willingness to take on, to ask where our security lies, to look at our intelligence budget, the defense budget, and the foreign affairs budgets and try to approach consolidation in that way.

I do not believe consolidating these agencies solves the problem of what we are no longer prepared to do or how we cut, and I think we have to address that problem. It is a very serious question, but it is not solved simply by consolidation.

Mr. ROTH. You know, my friend, I appreciate a man or woman who speaks frankly or candidly. But, let me speak frankly and candidly, too. We get more information from CNN than we get from all of our departments.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time is expired.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to offer my personal welcome to the distinguished members of the panel that have testified here this morning.

I would like to underscore, stress again and again, reemphasize, a reconfirmation of what the gentleman from Indiana stated earlier, because that was the second question I was going to ask you gentlemen, as to the timetable in terms of the Vice President's plan for reinvention of government, as to exactly what status are we in with this whole restructuring or reorganization.

I do not think I have to repeat what the whole purpose of reconsolidation or whatever we need to do. Avoid duplication, cut costs, get rid of dead logs or bureaucratic dinosaurs, promote merit against incompetence. I think we are all familiar with those issues, gentlemen. But, our friend on the other side has come up with a plan, and I assume this is the Helms' plan that I have in my hand, here. I think an Indian chief once said, there is a lot of thunder, but no rain. But, gentlemen, I want to say that it is starting to rain, because this is the plan that I am seeing, and I am not seeing anything from the State Department or from the administration.

really could not emphasize more what the gentleman from Indiana has stated earlier to you gentlemen.

I have one question for Mr. Atwood. My observations in serving on this committee concerning the functions and the activities that the nongovernmental agencies have provided, whenever there are catastrophes, emergencies, NGO's have served a very valuable contribution and services to the communities throughout the world. I was wondering your opinion about the International Development Foundation that Senator Helms proposes to be included in this restructuring of our State Department, and just wanted your response to that.

Mr. ATWOOD. As I understand it, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Helms would be creating a foundation that would be outside the government, that would be working exclusively with these NGO's. These are organizations that are wonderful organizations that have their own internal precepts and their own missions. Not all of these organizations are equally good.

We try to work with them and try to have them work with us within the strategic context that we set. I do not know quite how the foundation would work in making that happen, nor do I know

how the foundation would hold them accountable for what it is they do.

Mr. Faleomavaega, you mentioned, as did Mr. Hamilton, this question of the plans. I want to make one statement similar to Dr. Duffey's. If we see this serious work that we are involved in here, trying to figure out what the post-cold war structures of our Government will be in the foreign policy area, as simply a battle of the plans, then the American people will lose, I am afraid.

I say that with the greatest respect. I understand exactly what Mr. Hamilton is saying in this regard. You are in a legislative arena, and I have, of course, worked in the Congress and I have worked as an Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations. I have the utmost respect for Congress, but I would suggest to you that it is primarily the President's business, the President's prerogative to organize the executive branch. He did not interfere with your efforts to reorganize the Congress. He could not.

You obviously have the right-I am not suggesting that you do not have the right-to come up with a plan to reorganize the executive branch

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Atwood, because my time is limited, I think you must agree with me that it still has to be done legislatively as to whatever organization the administration comes up with.

Mr. ATWOOD. That is right.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, I think in response to Dr. Duffey's comments, I could not agree with Dr. Duffey more. We are not doing this for the sake of consolidation. The fact is that I really enjoy the comments by Dr. Duffey, but the fact of the matter is, the administration has got to come up and say yes, this is the plan. We think the reorganization should be based on these intelligence problems, and let us go on. That is the concern that I think we are trying to elucidate here.

Mr. ATWOOD. You have an initial response from the Vice President, and that response also indicated that further studies on duplication were underway. I can assure you that when they are complete, we will come forward with those suggestions.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Secretary Moose, considering the Karachi killings, are we planning more steep cuts in the diplomatic security budget or any closing of any field offices of security?

Mr. MOOSE. We have the Office Diplomatic Security, like all the rest of the Department, under close examination. We certainly have to be exceedingly cautious about any change in the nature of the security precautions that we take for our people overseas.

In addition to the tragedy at Karachi, there are a half a dozen other very tense situations around the rest of the world that we have to be on our guard about. We will continue to develop and to devote adequate resources to protecting our people abroad. We are studying the question of field offices in the United States, the structure of our passport agencies, our Office of Foreign Missions, and that is under review, as part of the Secretary's strategic management initiative.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Moose.

Mr. Atwood and the other panelists, I would like to call on our panelists today to try to approach the reform measures in the spirit of real frankness. Last week, our committee heard testimony giving one the impression that the foreign affairs function had been ravaged over the years.

I requested our staff to look into those assertions. Point of fact, while spending on foreign affairs has been going down, it has not done so as radically as some of the testimony asserted.

For example, in 1985, the point of comparison that was chosen by the administration, that was a high water mark for the international affairs function and budget authority terms. Congress passed a large supplemental, including Middle East, replenish multilateral development institutions, and supported huge spending in base rate countries, and in Pakistan. Frankly, choosing that year as a base and using the budget authority figures distorts the debate.

We could look, for example, at the 4 Carter years, fiscal years 1978 through 1981, when both the Congress and the Presidency were in the hands of the other party. In those years, the average outlays for foreign affairs were $21 billion in 1996 dollars. This year, your request is also for outlays of $21 billion. So, there is substantially no real difference, but your budget is calling for outlays in 1997 through the year 2000 of $20 billion, $18.8 billion, $18.5 billion, and $18 billion in fiscal years 1997 through the year 2000. It is equally improper, we feel, to compare the percentage of the Federal budget spent now, and at some point in the past, on foreign assistance. The fact is that our budget problems are due primarily to increases in entitlement spending. Foreign affairs could be expected to increase in proportion to all spending, only if it is also an entitlement. But, it is and we support it, but let us not link it to such things as Medicare or Medicaid.

Mr. Holum, I have a number of questions that we would like to ask you to respond for the record. If you would please have your responses back to us before May 1, we would appreciate it. I would like to make it part of the record without objection.

Mr. HOLUM. I will be happy to do that.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I, too, will submit a number of questions to our distinguished panelists, but just let me ask one, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to Dr. Duffey.

I am very concerned about the integrity of our international broadcasting activities, particularly of Radio Marti, TV Marti, and Radio Free Asia, which are charged with bringing a strong profreedom message to oppressed peoples. I am concerned about the integrities of these operations, even under the present structure, but I do have some concerns and I would ask you to briefly address those, as to whether or not consolidation would make it more or less likely that our broadcasting efforts would maintain their independence.

We all know that there is a potential for, folded into State, of some clientitus rearing its ugly head and the desire to get along with repressive governments being a higher priority than getting

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »