Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

And when you think of the role that the State Department and USIA and USAID have had in not only winning the cold war but in spreading the fundamental principles for which the United States stands throughout the world, you recognize that the little investment that this country has made has paid tremendous dividends.

And I can see no reason why we need to dismantle organizations that have done so much to preserve the peace and to spread the principles of human rights and democracy throughout the world.

And I can see it coming up over the horizon, and it is a very destructive force that wants to dismantle what it has taken so many years and so many people since World War II to establish.

And so I am going to fight any dramatic cuts or any dramatic destruction of these agencies with whatever limited means might be available, Mr. Chairman. And I know in my heart you agree that these agencies need to be protected and preserved and supported, as does the ranking member of this committee.

And I am looking forward to being able to join you in fighting for what we know is so important to the future of the American people, resources which are within the agencies that these individuals before us today represent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Moran.

We will start with Mr. Moose, Under Secretary of State for Management.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD M. MOOSE, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MANAGEMENT

Mr. Moose. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And thank members of the committee for inviting my colleagues and me to return and to have this opportunity to testify with a specific legislative proposal in front of us.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Moose, could you move the mike a little closer to you?

Thank you very much.

Mr. MOOSE. Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. Is that better?

There are many ways, Mr. Chairman, in which the U.S. Government might organize itself to deal with international affairs.

One way is exemplified by the legislative proposal before us, that is to put as many foreign affairs functions as possible together in a single executive department, resulting in a larger, more complex, and layered bureaucracy.

A much better way to go is one which relies on the overall policy direction of the Secretary of State, supported by a number of specialized agencies and programs. This administration believes the more flexible, less centralized model will better serve the country's needs.

I have heard the estimable Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Gingrich, cite futurist author Alvin Toffler as one of the thinkers he most admires. In his book, "The Third Wave", Mr. Toffler argues for what he calls "de-massification" in the corporate world and elsewhere.

We have seen examples of de-massification of enormous benefits to consumers. Instead of three closely controlled TV networks, for

example, viewers can now pick from channels as large as CNN or as small as our local school district.

One mammoth telephone company has been replaced by literally hundreds with greater choice and lower prices.

And would the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force be better prepared for crises if they were eliminated as distinct organizations and merged into the Army? With all respect to the U.S. Army, I do not think so.

Our foreign affairs institutions are no different. There are 38 agencies of the Federal Government which have personnel stationed at our missions abroad, each with responsibility to pursue a mandate given it by Congress and the executive branch.

Coordinating priorities and speaking with one voice abroad is a challenge but one which we have met and are meeting well. Abolishing 3 of the 38 agencies will not alter that equation.

The State Department's Strategic Management Initiative, or SMI-to which the chairman was so kind as to refer-reaffirm the soundness of State's basic mission and structure but proposed profound changes in the manner in which we do our business.

SMI will build on our core strengths, the geographic, political, and economic expertise of our career people, our worldwide network of posts, and our skills at reporting and policy integration.

Secretary Christopher yesterday announced his action plan for making the State Department more effective.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, for permission that the text of his townhall address announcing that program be inserted in the record; and I would like to offer to brief the committee staff more fully on it at their convenience.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection it will be made a part of the record.

[The information appears in the appendix.] Mr. Moose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under the program announced by Secretary Christopher yesterday, we will close at least 20 foreign service posts in fiscal year 1996. This is in addition to 17 already closed in this administration.

We will categorize posts according to basic interests in order to provide an objective basis for reallocating our overseas personnel among geographic regions and on basis of policy priorities.

We will reduce the staffs of the Secretary and the under secretaries and enhance the role and responsibility of assistant secretaries as managers of both policy and resources.

We will reallocate domestic support costs in order to accelerate information technology efforts and other enhancements and readi

ness.

We will expand the use of teams both within the State Department and interagency in the policy development and implementation process.

The Department of State and our sister agencies need to devote our creative energies and management resources over the next year to achieving the tangible reinvention goals of NPR.

Devoting those same energies and resources to trying to absorb these diverse partners will detract from and complicate what each of the agencies is doing itself.

I am reminded of another modern management book, "The Virtual Corporation" which describes "electronic partnerships as faster, more creative, and contributing more to customer satisfaction than mergers and takeovers."

SMI will move us toward that electronic partnership to take advantage of teamwork. These partnerships will embrace not just USAID, USIA, and ACDA but also with many more U.S. Government agencies operating internationally and with many American citizens and groups which have a vital and growing interest in what goes on around the globe.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot address structure without also speaking to the question of funding, because without adequate funding, no structure will be adequate. Nor can we think of structure in isolation from the question of authorities, for structure and funding will matter little if the President's and the Secretary's hands are tied on policy issues by statute.

Mr. Chairman, before leaving for Moscow, Secretary Christopher asked me to underscore his belief that the proposal before us would seriously undermine America's capacity for leadership abroad.

As a consequence, I am confident that the administration will oppose any bill to mandate reorganization through the elimination of these agencies.

But there is another path open to us. Each of these agencies is, in the Vice President's words, "an essential vehicle for achieving American foreign policy goals." But there has been some overlap. There has been some duplication of services. We are working actively to eliminate both and make very substantial progress.

In time, these steps will produce savings. But the truth is that consolidation, per se, does not save money. The savings being attributed to consolidation would come from reducing the budgets of specific programs, not from moving people to new offices with new signs on the door.

We cannot be world leaders on the cheap, and we cannot advance the cause of our own people without supporting programs and interests which we share with other nations of the world. And what happens around the globe does matter to America, profoundly, and in ever community.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the goodwill and the hard work which you personally have devoted to the bill before the committee. But I fear that consolidation proposals are a diversion and should be set aside while we pursue serious, cost-effective reform of agencies performing unique missions.

I would be pleased, Mr. Chairman, after my colleagues have spoken to join them in answering your questions.

Thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Moose.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moose appears in the appendix.] Chairman GILMAN. Secretary Atwood.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE J. BRIAN ATWOOD, ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. ATWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full statement be placed in the record. I will abbreviate it. Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

Mr. ATWOOD. Mr. Chairman, Under Secretary Moose has made a very, very strong statement in opposition to the proposed merger of these agencies into the State Department.

Indeed, he has quoted Secretary Christopher as saying that this would seriously undermine American leadership abroad.

I cannot believe that any member of this committee wants to accomplish that end. The Vice President has studied this question, and he has rejected the idea that bigger is better.

He has affirmed the missions and the need for these agencies. He has said that these agencies are essential vehicles in pursuing American foreign policy objectives.

You have indicated in your opening statement that these three agencies may be unneeded in the post-cold war period. It seems to me that is the question that should be debated: Do we still need to have a development policy as part of our foreign policy? Do we still need to have an arms control policy and a nonproliferation policy as part of American policy? Do we still need to have, in this day and age of information flows, an agency that specializes in information?

It seems to me these are the threshold questions that must be asked. I am not sure we have spent enough time in asking those questions. Certainly the administration has, and we have concluded that these agencies are vitally needed to carry out these important missions.

We have said publicly and in testimony that this proposal would throw our foreign policy mechanisms into disarray at a time when we are undertaking major reforms of these agencies in order to do more with less.

And yet Congress persists in attempting to reorganize the executive branch.

Let me say I have been in Washington for a long time, but I simply do not understand this.

No money would be saved by the merger alone. That is clear. Your staff person, Mr. Kirk, indicated that the GAO could not confirm that there would be any cost savings as a result of this merg

er.

The Ferris Commission that looked at this issue back in the Bush administration, at least with respect to USAID, confirmed that it would, indeed, cost money if you preserve the missions.

But, indeed, that is the issue: Do we preserve the programs? Do we preserve the missions?

The proposed bill demonstrates that. You have found your cost savings by reducing what I consider to be vital programs. You have made drastic cuts in the development programs, and these cuts, in my view, will precipitate reductions in other nations' contributions to development assistance.

Just last week, on May 4, the OECD countries met to consider this crisis in development assistance. In a press release on that date they put out the following statement:

In the immediate situation, the 22 members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, who together provide more than 90 percent of the world's official development assistance, expressed deep concern that domestic preoccupations and budgetary pressures in some member countries could seriously jeopardize the international development cooperation effort at a critical juncture.

Mr. Chairman, these cuts will contribute to a trend toward complex crises around the world that are much more costly than treating the root causes of these crises through development assistance. And they will cost future generations of Americans the export markets they will need to sustain economic growth within our own country.

Mr. Chairman, we know we will have to do more with less. We are making responsible changes in our programs and in our management systems to accommodate this. But this proposal would ask us to virtually eliminate the U.S. contribution to official development assistance, while downgrading the status of the U.S. Development Agency.

That, in my opinion, is a double whammy. We would get less money and less standing to leverage money from other countries. How could we possibly maintain American leadership with other donors? Who would listen to us as we attempt to convince others to contribute?

As Administrator of USAID, I do not know where I would begin to make these cuts. Would we concentrate on South Africa and leave the rest of Africa to fend for itself? That is a prescription for lost opportunity and more failed states. If that is our choice, then our disaster relief budget request that you have before you is woefully inadequate.

Shall we get out of Latin America altogether? Do we abandon what is still a fragile peace process and democratization process in Central America? Do we abandon the goals of the Summit of the Americas? Do we leave the emerging markets of Asia and South Asia to our competitors? Do we ignore the fast-spreading HIV/AIDS pandemic in Asia and Africa? Or do we give up on the wonderful efforts we have made with UNICEF to save the world's children from curable diseases?

No one wants to make these choices, Mr. Chairman. Whatever choices we make will leave us less effective, less able to influence other donors, less able to achieve sustainable results with the taxpayer's dollar.

We can cut population programs and spend our money on children, but we would be dealing with a larger population of children. More children would still die. We could ignore economic policy reforms and broad-based economic growth. And we will create fewer economic opportunities.

Then we save the children and relegate them to a life of poverty. Maybe those children become terrorists. Maybe they forget about their problems by becoming drug addicts or worse, drug dealers.

We could ignore the environment and relegate the children to a life in a vast waste land, a world where skin cancer is as common as the common cold, where agricultural production drops and food is scarce, where people seek refuge in urban shanty towns.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to have to make these choices, and I know you do not. You understand these programs. You have always supported them. And I know you are doing your best on these budget issues as you discuss the implications with your colleagues. I believe you know, as well, that we have made great progress in reforming USAID. The agency today is more responsive than ever to our development goals and to our foreign policy concerns.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »