[Senate Hearing 110-843] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 110-843 A RELIANCE ON SMART POWER--REFORMING THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE BUREAUCRACY ======================================================================= HEARING before the OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE of the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 31, 2008 __________ Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 44-587 WASHINGTON : 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN WARNER, Virginia Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director Joel C. Spangenberg, Professional Staff Member Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director Jessica Nagasako, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Akaka................................................ 1 Senator Coburn............................................... 2 Senator Voinovich............................................ 3 WITNESSES Thursday, July 31, 2008 Richard L. Greene, Deputy Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, U.S. Department of State....................................... 4 Leo Hindery, Jr., Former Vice Chairman, Commission on Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People Around the Globe (HELP)....... 18 Gordon Adams, Distinguished Fellow, Henry L. Stimson Center...... 20 Anne C. Richard, Vice President for Government Relations and Advocacy, International Rescue Committee....................... 23 Samuel A. Worthington, President and CEO, InterAction............ 26 Gerald F. Hyman, Senior Advisor and President of the Hills Program on Governance, Center for Strategic and International Studies........................................................ 28 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Adams, Gordon: Testimony.................................................... 20 Prepared statement........................................... 60 Greene, Richard L.: Testimony.................................................... 4 Prepared statement........................................... 43 Hindery, Leo Jr.: Testimony.................................................... 18 Prepared statement........................................... 54 Hyman, Gerald F.: Testimony.................................................... 28 Prepared statement........................................... 94 Richard, Anne C.: Testimony.................................................... 23 Prepared statement........................................... 75 Worthington, Samuel A.: Testimony.................................................... 26 Prepared statement........................................... 81 APPENDIX Background....................................................... 103 Speech by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, entitled ``U.S. Global Leadership Campaign,'' July 15, 2008.................... 112 Charts........................................................... 117 ``Improving US National Security: Options for Strengthening US Foreign Operations,'' working paper by Anne C. Richard and Paul Clayman........................................................ 120 ``Proposed Major Components and Organization of a Cabinet-level Department for Global and Human Development,'' Policy Paper from InterAction, June 2008.................................... 144 ``Revamping U.S. Foreign Assistance,'' December 10, 2007, submitted by The HELP Commission............................... 159 Questions and Responses for the Record from: Mr. Greene................................................... 181 Mr. Hindery.................................................. 221 Mr. Adams.................................................... 227 Ms. Richard.................................................. 231 Mr. Worthington.............................................. 237 Mr. Hyman.................................................... 248 A RELIANCE ON SMART POWER--REFORMING THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE BUREAUCRACY ---------- THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2007 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Akaka, Voinovich, and Coburn. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. I call this hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia to order. I want to welcome our guests and our witnesses as well, and thank you for being here today. This is the fourth in a series of hearings exploring the effectiveness and efficiency of government management of our national security. The first hearing looked at reforms of the U.S. export control system. Subsequent hearings examined the management and staffing of the arms control, counterproliferation, and nonproliferation bureaucracy at the Department of State. Today we focus on our foreign assistance programs. Foreign assistance includes economic development, security, humanitarian, disaster response, health, and governance programs. We have helped other nations through our foreign assistance programs for over 60 years. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, countries in Western Europe benefited from the Marshall Plan as they rebuilt themselves after World War II. President John F. Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law in 1961 in response to the American desire to help others. Foreign aid programs continue to be a vital part of our foreign policy strategy. The devastation of September 11, 2001 was a demonstration that what happens in failed states can bring terrible tragedy to Americans. Al Qaeda was free to plot in one failed state--Afghanistan. Our national security depends on how well we help failed states recover. In the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, ``organization charts, institutions, statistics, structures, regulations, policies, committees, and all the rest--the bureaucracy, if you will--are the necessary pre-condition for effective government. But whether or not it really works depends upon the people and their relationships.'' Policy is not enough. Organizations and people do matter. Good policy depends on capable organizations. Without objection, I will introduce the entirety of Secretary Gates' speech into the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The speech by Secretary Gates, entitled ``U.S. Global Leadership Campaign,'' July 15, 2008, appears in the Appendix on page 113. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- My primary goal in this hearing is to identify possible recommendations for improving the foreign assistance bureaucracy. The key components I ask our witnesses to address in their remarks are the human capital, management, coordination, and structural challenges that reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. foreign assistance. We need to ensure that we have an organization with the capacity to support the foreign assistance policies of this Administration and the next. In 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a new direction for U.S. foreign assistance in order to align U.S. foreign assistance programs with the Administration's foreign policy goals. Secretary Rice announced the creation of a new Deputy Secretary level position, the Director of Foreign Assistance, who would also serve at the same time as USAID's Administrator, although this has not been established in statute. This new foreign assistance bureaucracy confronts a number of challenges. An overview of some of the core problems--and there are three charts\2\--can be seen in these charts: The steep decrease in USAID Foreign Service Officer staffing from 1967 until today; the fragmentation of foreign assistance among many agencies and programs; and the amount of development assistance not under the direct control of the Director of Foreign Assistance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Charts referred to appear in the Appendix beginning on page 117. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The challenges are clear. We need to design a national strategy for foreign assistance with a clear mission and the means to accomplish it; streamline aid programs to ensure effectiveness and efficiency; simplify foreign assistance since there are too many programs, in too many departments, chasing too few dollars; reduce the role of the Department of Defense in foreign assistance as their involvement may come at a cost of supporting their own core mission; and finally, we need to improve USAID's human capital because its current staffing and training levels do not support its worldwide requirements adequately. Clarifying the key foreign assistance organizational and human capital issues will help the next Administration better focus its efforts and further strengthen U.S. national security. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these matters. May I now call on Senator Coburn for any statement he may have. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN Senator Coburn. I will not make an opening statement. I have a history of being very interested in the subject on how we carry out our USAID projects as well as the people involved with it, and I look forward to hearing our witnesses testify, and I thank you for the hearing. Senator Akaka. Thank you. So glad you are here. Senator Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka. We appreciate your convening today's hearing to examine our foreign assistance structure. As a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity to meet regularly with international leaders to advance our public diplomacy. As the United States seeks to advance its interests and promote global stability, the delivery of foreign assistance in a timely and consistent manner is crucial to our efforts to support democracy abroad. Our current framework limits the return on our investment. Many would be surprised to learn that our foreign assistance structure spans 26 agencies and offices. The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development control just over half of our development assistance and in 2008 will provide more than $24 billion to 155 countries. Without an orchestra leader to direct our development program and integrate existing agency silos, we limit our collective ability to strengthen the third pillar of our National Security Strategy. Now, critics have described our current aid structure as fractious, cumbersome, and rigid, a relic of the Cold War. While the creation of the F Bureau was well intended, most agree further reform is necessary. It seems to me that our development goals could be more easily accomplished if all partners involved sat down and crafted a comprehensive foreign assistance strategy. Compounding an inefficient structure is a lack of an adequate number of trained personnel to administer our foreign aid structure. The forthcoming report by the American Academy of Diplomacy, which I am proud to be part of, will show that the USAID currently has 2,200 personnel who administer more than $8 billion annually in development and other assistance following cumulative staff reductions of nearly 40 percent during the last two decades. While the average Federal contracting officer oversees an estimated $10 million in contracts, the average USAID contracting officer is responsible for approximately $57 million. Our foreign aid is intended to ensure stability and prosperity overseas. We also hope that our investment will help us to win the hearts and minds of those we are trying to help. In 2007, the program on internal policy attitudes reported that 20 of the 26 countries, including many who receive millions of dollars of U.S. foreign assistance, felt the United States was having a negative influence on the world. Unfortunately, these numbers are the lowest ever recorded. While Secretary Rice is to be commended for her transformational diplomacy and initiative, it is clear that we have got to do more. Secretary Gates also encouraged us earlier this month to strengthen our civilian institutions of diplomacy and development. I hope today's hearing will result in a foreign assistance structure that is well managed, supported by highly skilled individuals committed to public service, and funded in a manner that allows us to use our foreign policy tools more effectively to meet the challenges of our rapidly changing world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. I welcome our first witness to the Subcommittee today, Richard Greene, Deputy Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Department of State. It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses, and I would ask you to please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Greene. I do. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let it be noted in the record that the witness responded in the affirmative. Before we start, I want you to know that your full statement will be made part of the record. I would also like to remind you to keep your remarks brief given the number of people testifying this afternoon. So, Mr. Greene, will you please proceed with your statement? TESTIMONY OF RICHARD L. GREENE,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Coburn. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Greene appears in the Appendix on page 43. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I would like to point out the irony of talking about reforming the foreign assistance bureaucracy, and both the Chairman and the Ranking Member included quotes by Secretary Gates in their opening statements, and I have a quote by Secretary Gates in my opening statement. I think it is a sign of the times. The degree of turmoil and poverty in the world poses both challenges and opportunities for our foreign assistance programs. Our goal of improving lives around the world is consistent with our national security goal of making the world a more secure place. By addressing the long-term conditions that lead to despair and instability, development takes its place alongside diplomacy and defense as key components of our National Security Strategy. Today we must ensure that each of our major foreign policy tools works together to achieve results that promote our development, humanitarian, and national security goals all around the world. Under Secretary Rice's leadership, we have invested considerable effort to begin to improve the coherence and effectiveness of our foreign assistance architecture. Our overall approach has many features. These include adequate funding levels; the creation of a new structure to coordinate USG strategic and operational planning, integrated budget formulation and execution; a bigger and better trained and supported workforce--we are trying to turn that trend around; a focus on country needs in our planning and budgeting; better expanded civilian-military coordination and delivery; expanded public-private partnerships; and a new rapid response capacity through the Civilian Response Corps. These are all works in progress, and in my opening testimony, I would like to focus on just three components. First, regarding funding levels, there are numerous recent examples where we, the Administration, you, the Congress, as well as our stakeholders have worked closely together to provide the development funding commensurate with the challenges and opportunities that exist around the world. Consequently, the U.S. Government has nearly tripled Official Development Assistance since 2001. Of course, the signature program of that growth is PEPFAR, and yesterday the President signed into law a bill reauthorizing a second-year program with very strong support from the members of this panel that we are most appreciative of. We have also significantly increased our investments in other key development areas, such as health, education, economic growth, and governance. And I think both Congress and the Administration can take pride in the significant resources and the focus on results that we have provided to important programs that are transforming lives and making our world more secure. Second, we are reforming the foreign assistance planning and allocation process. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, Secretary Rice reviewed our current structure and frankly, she did not like what she saw. She saw fragmentation, duplication, no clear lines of authority, inadequate data transparency, and she had a hard time getting any answers to any basic management questions about what we are spending, where we are spending it, and what are the purposes. Consequently, Secretary Rice established the position of Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, and you have talked about what that position is all about. To carry out its mission, the new organization has developed several new, and I think important, tools. These include a Foreign Assistance Framework as an organizational tool to describe a broad range of foreign assistance programs, a set of common definitions, standard indicators, and country- level operational plans that describe how resources are being used and how results will be measured. The office is also focused on integrating State and USAID foreign assistance efforts and developing a country-specific focus, and for the first time, the Administration has submitted an official foreign assistance budget that fully integrates State and USAID requests for individual countries and program areas. We are also working to incorporate non-State and USAID foreign assistance programs, a subject of your chart on the far right. For example, we are piloting a strategic planning process where stakeholders from across the U.S. Government are working in Washington and in the field to develop U.S. Government-wide country-specific foreign assistance strategies. Finally, I want to mention operational support. Successful foreign assistance reform depends on our ability to rebuild USAID's core development capacity. My Secretary of Defense quote is where he said, I think about a month ago, ``It has become clear that America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long--relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more importantly, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our Nation has around the world.'' Simply put, we need more better trained and supported people to work in new ways to support the achievement of U.S. Government development objectives. Staffing has not grown commensurate with the tremendous growth in programs and funding levels and challenges and degree of operational complexity. USAID's workforce and infrastructure must keep pace. Consequently, Administrator Henrietta Fore launched a 3- year plan to double USAID's Foreign Service capacity and significantly ramp up systems and training resources. Administrator Fore calls this program the ``Development Leadership Initiative.'' So where does this leave us? I think this is all clearly a work in progress. It is fair to say that the initial implementation of the reform effort had some serious problems, but I think it is also fair to say that we have seen significant improvements in many of the key areas of concern. I think we now have a greater development focus and sense of U.S. Government unity about how, why, and what we are trying to accomplish in our foreign policy and our foreign assistance goals. And while we are still in the formative days of our reform effort, we have made significant progress in bringing greater U.S. Government coherence to what we are trying to accomplish in foreign assistance. We have also taken the first steps to reinvigorate USAID's development corps. I think what is also important is to talk about what we need to do next. We collectively need to do more to realize our goal of significantly improving foreign assistance cohesiveness. We need greater funding flexibility. We need programs that are demand-driven and not ones that are dictated by the type of funding available. We need to do a better job of giving country experts the ability to shape and implement development strategies. We need to recruit and retain a robust workforce, with strong operational and technical skills. We need to further streamline our internal planning and allocation processes. We need to fully implement a whole government approach that achieves better coordination of U.S. Government foreign assistance programs. And to be successful, we need the active engagement of Congress, public and private partners, and the international community. So, in closing, I think the one word that captures where we are in our efforts to help achieve what we are talking about here is ``more.'' In the assistance world, there are more issues to consider; there is more complexity; there is more aggregate resources; there is more security concerns; there is more information about what works and what is important; there is more understanding of the impact of not coordinating defense, development, and diplomacy; there is more international focus on improving our collective foreign assistance performance. But most importantly, there is also more promise and more potential for achieving long-term sustainable development goals around the world. Progress can only be made if we have a sense of shared community goals and efforts. And I think there are clear signs that we are heading in that direction, and I salute the members of today's second panel for their leadership role on that front. Modernizing foreign assistance is necessary, it is urgent, and it is essential to the achievement of essential foreign policy and national security objectives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Greene. We will have 7 minutes of questions each here on the first round. Mr. Greene, you note that our foreign assistance was stovepiped into numerous accounts overseen by a multitude of offices, each with different standards of measurement and different ways of judging success or failure, and that this fragmentation made it difficult to plan coherently and could lead to conflicting or redundant efforts. I thank you for this honest assessment. You also state that in the year 2006, Secretary Rice launched an effort to improve the coherence and effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance, and let me call your attention again to these charts that we have here on my right. It does not look like much progress has been made when you look at the charts.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The charts referred to appear in the Appendix beginning on page 117. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you tell us what new steps the Administration is planning to take to improve coherence and effectiveness? Mr. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me be blunt. We have not done anything to simplify, collectively, the Administration and the Congress of the United States has not done anything to simplify the account structure that exists. And what the Secretary's initiative focused on was what we could do administratively to bring greater coherence. So what we are trying to do is to bring together State and USAID planning efforts. What we are trying to do is develop tools that describe in much greater detail what we do, and how we do it. What we are trying to do is to develop an attitude that gets around the stovepipes, that has State and USAID employees working together to plan, to develop, to formulate, to execute programs. And what we have also developed is a core set of improved tools in terms of developing foreign assistance policy that will be significant enhancements over what we have had. And you mentioned some transition and legacy issues that I think will be a great aid to whoever comes in and manages these programs in the next Administration. So our focus has been on what we can do without legislation, and what we can do without legislation is bringing out stronger State/USAID coherence. Senator Akaka. Mr. Greene, Mr. Worthington of InterAction argues that the F Bureau has been measuring performance of foreign assistance programs by outputs rather than impact or outcomes. Do you agree with him? Mr. Greene. Mr. Worthington is a fine and astute individual. I think it is a very--everything about foreign assistance is complex, and arguably, foreign assistance programs present the most complex public policy challenges there are. If you look at the number of programs, you look at the number of implementing partners, you look at the types of programs, you look at legislation, you look at countries, you look at security objectives, and if you laid all that out in a matrix, I would argue it would be probably the most complex matrix there is in any public policy arena. And I think it is a combination of factors. Of course, we look at outputs. We are output oriented. And, Senator Voinovich I think has worked hard in a lot of his other committees on this issue. One of the biggest challenges is to really usable performance measures that you would really use to manage programs by, that you would really use to make funding and allocation and staffing decisions, and we are working on that. It is a work in progress, and I would echo Mr. Worthington's point that it is very important to make continued progress on that. Senator Akaka. Mr. Greene, right now there are over 20 U.S. agencies and over 50 programs conducting foreign aid. In Afghanistan alone, there are eight different U.S. Government agencies and many private contractors. Using Afghanistan as an example, what is being done there to develop a coherent strategy? Mr. Greene. What we have in Afghanistan is, on the foreign assistance side, what we call our Country Operating Plan for Afghanistan that takes all of the foreign assistance resources available--to be clear here, I do not want to make this out to more than it is--for State and USAID, arrays it and allocates it by program area down to a pretty detailed level in terms of different types of programs, different types of delivery mechanisms, who the implementing partners are and what the expected results are. So we have a much greater degree of coherence in terms of allocating foreign assistance funds than I think we have had before. Now, in Afghanistan and in other post-conflict states, of course, there are huge overlaying security concerns, and there are huge overlaying political concerns that drive that relationship as well. Senator Akaka. Mr. Greene, do you believe it would make sense to consolidate most of our foreign aid programs under State? Mr. Greene. I do. Full stop. Senator Akaka. If over 40 percent of all foreign aid is controlled by agencies outside of the State Department, how does State ensure that other departments are not undermining its policies? Mr. Greene. It is a major challenge for us now, again, to be blunt. And the way we do it is we rely heavily on the leadership by our chiefs of mission in the field. We rely heavily on the leadership of our USAID mission directors who are assistance leaders in almost every mission where they are at around the world. And what we are trying to do is to develop U.S. Government-wide assistance strategies that incorporate the resources of agencies that are not under the authority of the Secretary of State. Now, we do not have the authority to make other agencies participate, and we are piloting it in 10 countries around the world. We will see how it works. We will see if we are able to achieve greater coherence without additional authorities. It basically will happen with the cooperation of others, recognizing what is at stake here, or it will not happen at all, sir. Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Greene, our dependence on continuing resolutions impacts the agencies charged with the delivering of foreign assistance, and recipient nations rely on long-term guaranteed funding to sustain economic growth. At my request, the Congressional Research Service prepared a soon-to-be-released report on the impacts of continuing resolutions on agency operations. We complain about what various departments and agencies are doing, but the fact of the matter is that we contribute to it with the continuing resolution, omnibus bills that we pass. But the report highlights a 138-day delay in increased funding for the President's Malaria Initiative for fiscal year 2007, and USAID noted, ``Because of a shorter time frame before the end of the fiscal year, planning and implementation were difficult and hurried in terms of the distribution of funds and in developing contracts for implementing various approaches in malaria control.'' Could you just spend a little time telling us how the way we do things around here is impacting your ability to deliver what we want you to deliver? And, second of all, in your opinion, does it add to the cost because of the way we are operating in terms of our appropriations? Mr. Greene. I appreciate the question, Senator. It clearly adds to the cost of how we operate, and more importantly, adds to planning uncertainty about funding flows, about how to proceed. What is important is sustaining commitment, and you do not get results on the programs we are talking about here unless you are engaged in a sustained way over a number of years. You do not make development progress in a number of months. You make it with sustained focus and attention over a number of years. And if we go through this process each year where we are under long-term CRs, we get the appropriations late in the year, the implementing partners who we rely on, who do heroic work in the field and every place around the world, cannot plan, they cannot judge, they cannot hire people, they cannot put projects into place. There is a huge operating tax associated with that, and we are certainly worse off because of that, sir. Senator Voinovich. Also, it is my understanding that so often many of these projects that you undertake are earmarked. Would you like to comment on that? Mr. Greene. Sir, I think we are not at a good place in terms of implementing a balanced foreign assistance program in the United States, carefully balanced between congressional priorities, Administration priorities, and the needs and views of people on the ground that are actually implementing the programs. And in order to get that into better balance, my opinion is that we need a lot more flexibility in terms of funding categories, in terms of timing, in terms of the duration of projects as well. And I think because of what you are describing, sir, in many cases we end up with programs that do not adequately balance our key objectives and do not really reflect what the experts on the ground think are necessary to make development progress. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. In two area, we are responsible for making it more difficult for you to do the job we are asking you to do. Mr. Greene, the Commission on Smart Power that was headed up by Joe Nye and Dick Armitage describes how many of our traditional elements of soft power, such as public engagement and diplomacy, have been neglected and fallen into disrepair, and the report urges the State Department to give greater attention to an integrated foreign assistance program driven by strategic considerations. I would like to know how is the Department meeting this goal. And then the other question is, Does the Department's current framework support the goal? And I guess last, but not least, do you believe there would be a benefit to appointing additional senior officials to oversee this whole structure that we have or appoint someone that would be kind of the orchestra leader that would tie all of this together and make it happen and give them enough power so that they could get people to do what they are supposed to do? We keep running into situations where, even in the area of enforcement of our intellectual property, you have about a dozen agencies, and we have been trying to get them together. And the President was able to go along with an orchestra leader, and a guy named Christian Israel is putting it all together. But it seems that you have to have somebody that has the clout to try to make this happen, and I would like your response to that. Mr. Greene. The two whose responsibility it is to make it happen are Secretary Rice and USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore. Now, clearly neither of them have authorities over foreign assistance controlled by non-State/USAID agencies. That is a significant chunk, and it shows in your chart up there. I think the foreign assistance programs of the United States could be more effectively developed, implemented, and monitored, if more of the foreign assistance funding was under that leadership structure. Your second question, sir, was on integration. I think the effort that we have launched is a good first step. Again, this is a work in progress, but I think it is a good first step, sir. Senator Voinovich. In other words, you put a team together and this is the recommendation about how to get it done? Or are you just dealing with it because that is about the only way you can deal with it? Has this been taken up, for example, to talk to OMB about how that could be better? Mr. Greene. We made a conscious decision in terms of developing this reform effort that we could achieve the most progress the fastest if we did what we could do administratively as opposed to seeking new authorities. And so we did what we could do administratively, which is to basically try to get greater State/USAID coherence. And I think we have made pretty good progress on that. But as all of you point out, and as the chart points out, there is a whole other world out there of non-State, non-USAID foreign assistance, and that coordination and improved coherence relies on interagency cooperation. Senator Voinovich. Interpersonal skills between the people involved. Mr. Greene. Yes, sir. This is a very strong leadership- dependent operation, sir. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I happen to think PEPFAR and Millennium Challenge Corporation grants, the work that is done there is probably by far some of the most effective work we do. And my observation from that is that because they have outcome requirements, they have metrics, they are measured. We know what we are trying to achieve. We know how to measure it, and therefore, we can assess it. And I am very glad to hear of some of the management changes. Does every program in American foreign assistance have an outcome goal? Mr. Greene. There are outcome goals, Senator, for every program. Now, I think it is also fair to say that in many cases they are not as effective, not as clear, not as easy to measure as PEPFAR and malaria when you are talking about capacity building in terms of a government ministry when you are talking about democracy programs, when you are talking about economic growth, and when you are talking about governance. The challenge of coming up with effective performance indicators is a bigger challenge, sir. Senator Coburn. It certainly is, but the management of all those programs is made much more simple if, in fact, you spend the time on the front end trying to get those performance indicators. And one of the things that I want to make sure we do--and I think it will help the State Department plus everybody else--is we ought to have a metric on what we are doing. And we just really do not in the State Department. In a large number of areas, not only do we not have clear outcome goals, we do not have metrics to measure whether or not we are achieving those goals. So one of the things that I am hopeful for is--it is really different in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are combat areas. And the judgment that we should make on performance should be different in those areas than it is in others. But to highlight, the funds have been highly effective, whereas in many areas, USAID, because of the limitations we place on our USAID folks, they do not have the range of possibility that a local commander has in terms of spending money. I mean, we know--and part of that is security, and I grant that we have to discount a lot of that. But I think one of the important things--and I cannot stress to you enough, and I am going to be around here a little while longer--is we have got to have programs that are outcome driven not demand driven. And they have got to have metrics, and that is going to be one of the things. And I would have a little bit of disagreement with Senator Voinovich on CRs. A CR, you know what is coming. You just do not know what the increase is in what is coming because the CR is set at the level of the year before. So we do not know what the increases will be, but there should be no reason that a CR would slow us down for anything because the CR is a continuing appropriation based on the levels that we have been running. And so while we do handicap you--and I agree, we should be getting our work done on time--the handicap is on increases. It is not on the funds that are running because we are translating those through on a month-by-month basis at the same level at which they were before. If we had metrics, let's say we spent the extra time to really work to try to get an outcome, whether it be crop production or whatever it is, whether working with Agriculture or U.S. Fish and Wildlife or the Corps of Engineers, if we could spend the time up front on that, would it not make sense that we would probably be more effective if we had common outcome goals with all those other agencies where you do not have direct command and control over? And is there any way to set that up when we implement foreign policy before we invite the Corps of Engineers in, before we invite the U.S. Department of Agriculture in and saying here is our goal? Now, here is the goal, here is what we want to see, and how do we get there and how do we measure it? That is my first question. The second thing is could we not help you more effectively if we had more oversight hearings on what is happening so that we get a better understanding in Congress of the tools that we need to give you that you may not have, and also holding you accountable to meet those outcome measures? Mr. Greene. I appreciate your comments, Senator, and more importantly, many people that I work with are in total agreement with you on metrics. Metrics are a greatly underappreciated facet of any program management exercise, I think anywhere in the U.S. Government. We have started down the path of assigning metrics to various program areas and elements. Some of them work, some of them do not. And we take your call very seriously to pay more attention and invest more time to that up front. I think our efforts at getting to coherency and improving efficiency of our programs would be improved if we did what you are talking about in terms of having common metrics and common indicators for every foreign assistance program no matter where they were in the government. We are taking steps in that direction in terms of just initially trying to capture data and trying to describe what they do with our 10 pilot programs on overall country assistance strategies and there will be metrics components or performance components to that. And so I am in strong agreement with you, sir. Now, regarding oversight hearings, I have mixed emotions on more oversight hearings, but certainly more substantive discussions about what we do and how we do it and the challenges we face are welcomed. We would love to do that. Senator Coburn. Yes. We had all the hearings on a lot of the waste associated at USAID in Afghanistan, and some of it could not be helped. I understand that. But the fact is that even after the hearings, we went back and hired the same contractors who did not do a good job the first time. And sometimes that is the only contractor we had. But we ought to be about trying to change those things rather than to go in the manner that we have gone. You have a tough job, especially in the conflict areas, and it is hard to be too critical of you in that, especially when there is a security component to it. So I will save my criticisms for that. But I am going to be watching for outcomes in all these programs, and I am going to be looking for metrics. And I would just say one other thing. We cannot ask our State Department to have metrics and be accountable when we refuse as a Congress to hold the United Nations accountable with $5.4 billion of our money. This Senate passed 99-0 that the United Nations funding ought to be based on the fact that they are transparent and accountable to us with our money, and it was taken out in conference. We are going to get a vote on that every year I am here, and there is no way we can hold you accountable when we send money to another agency and turn a blind eye about how whether they are accountable or not. With that, I would yield back. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Coburn. Mr. Greene, according to the charts again, as this middle chart shows, there has been a marked decrease in USAID Foreign Service officers from 1967 to 2008. In his testimony, Dr. Adams of the Henry L. Stimson Center states that USAID has hired more than 1,200 personal services contractors. He states that USAID has become largely a contract management agency with programs being implemented by a growing number of outside contractors.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 119. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you agree with this assessment? Mr. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I have a long tradition of never disagreeing with someone who is sitting right behind me. You just never know. Dr. Adams is an expert in this area. Dr. Adams has been very involved with these issues for a number of years, and I agree with his assessment. Now, I think what is important is to talk a little bit about what we are doing. One, we--meaning under Administrator Henrietta Fore's leadership--recognize that this is a serious problem and that we need to rebuild USAID's core capacity. Two, Administrator Henrietta Fore has launched the Development Leadership Initiative where her objective is to double the size of USAID's Foreign Service Corps over 3 years, and fiscal year 2009 is year one. The Congress has been very supportive of that objective and provided additional funding in the supplemental in the FY 2007 bridge supplemental. And the initial marks of our appropriation bills in the House and the Senate also provided additional funding. So I think we are, with your very strong support, taking a good step to try to reverse that trend, and it is a worrying trend. I also think there is no interest in going back to the 1967 levels when the aforementioned Richard Armitage was in Vietnam. But we certainly need to significantly increase what we have now. Senator Akaka. Mr. Greene, I was recently informed by an organization called Inside NGOs that USAID's staff spends up to 75 percent of their time on pre-award contract work, such as defining technical requirements, writing scopes of work, and evaluating proposals. Less than 25 percent is spent monitoring performance and administering the awards. Now, this suggests that accountability may be more of an afterthought rather than a management priority. Do you agree with Inside NGOs' characterization of the situation? If not, what percentage of time is spent on pre- award work versus performance monitoring? [The information provided for the record follows:] INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD FROM MR. GREENE When looking at USAID staff across the board, warranted contracting and agreement officers and contract specialists make up less than 10 percent of USAID's workforce. These professionals are far outnumbered by Cognizant Technical Officers (CTOs) and other Project Specialists who are nearly fully devoted to program implementation, monitoring and evaluation. If Inside NGO was referring only to USAID contracting and agreement officers and contract specialists, no analysis has been done regarding the percentage of time spent on pre-award actions and post-award performance monitoring and administration. It is our opinion, however, that the 75 to 25 percent ratio is fairly accurate with regard to contracting officers and specialists. Following award, the CTOs--also procurement professionals according to Office of Federal Procurement Policy's definition, but not warranted--act as the contracting and agreement officers' representative for the purposes of program implementation, performance monitoring and evaluation and spend a greater percentage of their time on administration and oversight. In addition, within the USAID Office of Acquisition and Assistance, there is an Evaluation Division and a Contract Audit and Support Division which carry out many contract administration duties such as financial reviews, claims, training, advisory reports, the suspension/disbarment of contractors, and contract performance reporting. Therefore, USAID is strongly committed to accountability as a priority. Ideally, the warranted contracting and agreement officers would play a larger role in post-award activities than they are currently able to. This remains a goal of USAID. Unfortunately, there is a chronic shortage of contracting and agreement officers across the Federal Government and this is true at USAID as well. For example, USAID currently has fewer staff in the 1102 (Contract Specialist) back- stop than it did 10 years ago, yet obligations have tripled. Given more human and financial resources, USAID would be able to focus a greater percentage of contracting and agreement officers' time on post-award activities and provide for even greater accountability on the part of implementing partners, improved tracking of contract performance, improved transparency through better reporting data, and greater stewardship over resources. We hope to be able to sustain the significant recruitment effort we recently initiated to bring more Civil Service and Foreign Service procurement officers into USAID. Mr. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the specific numbers are. If there are specific numbers, we will get back to you. Just my instinct is that in terms of order of magnitude, it is probably not that far off. And, again, more importantly, taking the tone of your remarks on every issue so far, it is what are we doing to reverse that? And our main tool to reverse that is to ramp up USAID hiring in both operational and technical issues. That is the only way we are going to be able to reverse what is a troubling trend, sir. Senator Akaka. Mr. Greene, Dr. Adams in his testimony argues that Foreign Service officers should be encouraged to hold a development or foreign assistance post in their careers. Do you agree with this and agree that this would be useful? And if so, is State doing anything to encourage this? Mr. Greene. I think it would be very useful, sir, and I think you are seeing a sea culture change in terms of the experiences that Foreign Service officers have at the State Department. You look at the number of people who have served in Iraq, who have served in Afghanistan, who have served in Bosnia, and the large number of our people who have been in post-conflict situations, and who have been part of managing, and directing assistance programs. And so the comfort level with assistance programs has increased. The linkage and knowing the relationship between assistance programs and achieving our overall goals has increased. And it is a trend that is going to keep on keeping on, as we say, and we will do everything possible to encourage it, sir. Senator Akaka. Mr. Greene, GAO reported that Human Resources Bureau officials did not attend meetings in which foreign assistance budget decisions were made that could potentially impact human capital requirements. Do you agree that this happened in the past? And what has changed since this report was issued in September 2007? Mr. Greene. Sir, there is a State Department equivalent of USAID's Development Leadership Initiative. At this point it does not have an eye-catching title like Development Leadership Initiative, but Secretary Rice and the leader of this effort, Under Secretary Kennedy, are also trying to significantly ramp up State's core technical operational staffing. And a part of this effort is to increase the number of people and increase the competency of State Department Foreign Service officers who have oversight, who manage, and who support foreign assistance programs. Senator Akaka. Mr. Greene, over the last few years, there has been a process underway to subordinate USAID to the State Department. Meanwhile, some of our allies abroad have been undertaking efforts to create separate agencies to direct their foreign assistance agenda. The United Kingdom's Department for International Development stands out as one example. In your opinion, is the British development department effective? Mr. Greene. I think our colleagues at the Department for International Development (DfID) are effective. I would also note that we just had a very long session with our colleagues at DfID who wanted to know what we do in the Foreign Assistance Bureau of the State Department and how we do it and what we are doing to try to gain greater coherence. And so they were looking to learn some of the tools from us to apply back to their own situation. Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much for your responses. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. This is a difficult one to answer, and in my opening statement, I said that the program on international policy attitudes reported that 20 of the 26 countries, including many who receive millions of dollars of foreign assistance, felt the United States was having a negative influence on the world. Real low numbers. Any explanation why you think that is the case? Has it got to do with the Iraq War or Abu Ghraib? Mr. Greene. I think there are some pretty well-documented, and discussed reasons why that could be true, sir. But I also think that there have been some recent polling information that shows that trend starting to turn around a little bit. And, again, I think what is important is what are we doing to try to turn around that trend. And, I think we are doing it, sir. Senator Voinovich. If there was one or two things that you would recommend to the next President that he do to kind of change this as rapidly as possible, what would you suggest? Mr. Greene. Sir, are you talking about overall attitudes or are you talking about---- Senator Voinovich. Yes, overall attitudes. I mean, this is all a part of our public diplomacy. It is part of our national security. It should be. Mr. Greene. I think we do extraordinary work around the world. We do extraordinary work around the world that brings great daily benefit to millions of people around the world. We do it in conjunction with countries, with partners, with organizations. And I do not think we do the greatest job possible of talking about how we do it, why we do it, and the results we achieve. And I just think we need to significantly improve telling the story of what this country does and what this country helps accomplish around the world on a daily basis, sir. Senator Voinovich. Well, it is interesting. We are known for our great public relations, the fabulous firms that represent corporations and so forth that are in that business. You think that we need to figure out how to do this better, to communicate who we are and what we want to do and what we have done, and that we do care about other people? Mr. Greene. Yes, sir, and to do it in a sustained, engaged way using communication styles and techniques that are more in tune with the changing communication styles and techniques that are out there today. Frankly, I think we are just starting to wake up to that potential and that methodological change that is necessary. Senator Voinovich. Do you have any people in your shop that are working on that? Mr. Greene. Those are primarily in the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy's shop, Mr. Glassman, and he is leading the charge on that, sir. What we constantly get---- Senator Voinovich. How much coordination is there between you guys and Glassman's operation? Mr. Greene. What Glassman is always looking for two things: One are success stories, give us information, feed us all these success stories that your people say you are doing so that we can get them out to our communicators all over the world. Paint the picture, give us the information. So he is looking for success stories, and he is looking for resources to get the core capacity to deliver those success stories in an integrated way, looking for much more forward presence in terms of public diplomacy strategy as well, sir. Senator Voinovich. Shifting the questions to Senator Coburn, as a mayor and governor, I used to say, if you cannot measure it, do not do it. And one of the problems that we have--Senator Akaka and I have--we try to get strategic plans on how people are going to get off the high-risk list. You are setting up some kind of metrics. When you do this, do you ever sit down with the General Accounting Office to talk to them about it? Because so often what ends up happening is they come in and look over your shoulder, and then they come back with reports that program challenges remain. Is there any work that is being done in that area? Mr. Greene. Right now we are privileged to have a General Accounting group looking at many different aspects of our operation, and my understanding--I have not been in these conversations myself, but my understanding is that we have had discussions on performance measures and monitoring. I will find out exactly what---- [The information provided for the record follows:] INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD FROM MR. GREENE We have discussions with the GAO on a range of foreign assistance related issues, including performance metrics. The current GAO study is however not specificallly focused on metrics. Senator Voinovich. It would really be good to do that because we have had situations, haven't we, Senator Akaka, where they come before us and claim they are not being measured the same way or that we do not agree with the definition and we are still trying to get some feedback on several of those areas. The last thing I would like to mention to you is that you have recently started this effort, and we are going to have a new Administration. I mentioned the American Academy of Diplomacy, you have the Commission on Smart Power, and I think there is one other group that is going to come back. There is a big coming together of thought on what we ought to do to go forward. And I would really appreciate it if, as these reports come out--in fact, I am going to have my staff look at them, and I am going to look at them, to see what the common threads are. And you have been there, and it would be interesting to know before you tip your hat what you think about those reports and whether you think that they are suggesting the right things. I would be very interested--and I am sure Senator Akaka would--in terms of your thoughts about that because we are going to have a new day in this area. And we had the Aspen Institute breakfast this morning. We had an adviser to the Secretary on terrorism, and his opinion was that there are a whole lot of things that we ought to be doing differently today. And then I think, Senator Akaka, you are on the Armed Services Committee. There is only so much money to go around. I think the State Department's budget proposal is $36 billion. Mr. Greene. Yes, sir. That includes assistance and operations. Senator Voinovich. Yes, $36 billion, and I think the defense budget is $683 billion, something like that. And I know this is probably not something good to suggest, but it seems to me that we should be allocating our dollars differently than we are today, that the enemy is different than it was before the Cold War. We have a group that is out that does not fly under any flag, and we need to be--as Joe Nye says, we need to have smart power and figure it out. And I am hoping that those of you that are close to this really get out and start beating the drum for the fact that we need to reallocate our resources and put them in the areas where we are going to get a much better return on our investment. Senator Akaka, one of the things that drives me crazy around here is that--they call it the ``military-industrial''-- Eisenhower talked about it, and it is also the congressional thing that we need to be concerned about. And we just seem to be going down one course, which is the past, and not looking to the future. And somehow we have to break that mind-set and start looking out differently than we are today, I think, if we are going to be successful, understanding that we have limited resources. And if we keep going the way we are, Senator Akaka, with the $10 trillion debt--we have some serious problems that need to be addressed, and I am hoping that we have a lot of new thinking. It is not to take anything away from what you are trying to do and the next Administration as to how we are going to handle this situation. If I do not get a chance, thank you for your service. Mr. Greene. Thank you, sir. Could I just respond to one of your points, if you do not mind, Senator Voinovich? I think there is an extraordinary level of compatibility and coherence between what we as an Administration are trying to do and what the reports that you cited, the HELP Commission also, have concluded. And so as much as the stars ever get lined up on this incredibly complex, important subject, I think they are about as lined up as they are ever going to be in terms of what outside groups are saying, what Members of Congress are saying, and what we, the Administration, are saying. And I think it provides a really good foundation to get to a much better place in terms of coherent foreign assistance programming, planning, and implementation, sir. And we greatly appreciate your comments. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Akaka. I want to thank Senator Voinovich. Mr. Greene, thank you so much for being here and for your testimony. I want to commend you for being as candid as you have been with your statements, and we look forward to continuing to work on this and to improve the system. So thank you very much. Mr. Greene. Thank you, sir. Senator Akaka. I want to welcome the second panel of witnesses. The second panel of witnesses includes Leo Hindery, Jr., Former Vice Chairman, Commission on Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People Around the Globe (HELP); Dr. Gordon Adams, Distinguished Fellow, Henry L. Stimson Center; Anne C. Richard, Vice President for Government Relations and Advocacy, International Rescue Committee; Sam Worthington, President and CEO, InterAction; and Dr. Gerald Hyman, Senior Adviser and President of the Hills Program on Governance, Center for Strategic and International Studies. It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses, and I would ask all of you to please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Hindery. I do. Mr. Adams. I do. Ms. Richard. I do. Mr. Worthington. I do. Mr. Hyman. I do. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let the record note that the witnesses responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hindery, please proceed with your statement. TESTIMONY OF LEO HINDERY, JR.,\1\ FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON HELPING TO ENHANCE THE LIVELIHOOD OF PEOPLE AROUND THE GLOBE (HELP) Mr. Hindery. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I am Leo Hindery, and I was the Vice Chair of the HELP Commission, which was created by Congress in the year 2005 to reflect on how best to reform the tools of development assistance. And it is an honor for me to be here today to testify to your Subcommittee. I along with two other HELP Commission Members--Jeffrey Sachs and Gayle Smith--prepared a Minority Commission Report entitled ``Revamping U.S. Foreign Assistance,'' and I ask that you place that entire Minority Report into the record.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hindery appears in the Appendix on page 54. \2\ The Minority Commission Report entitled ``Revamping U.S. Foreign Assistance,'' appears in the Appendix on page 159. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the few minutes I now have, I want to discuss in brief three of the five most significant conclusions which we drew up in our Minority Report, and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my fuller testimony also be placed into the record. Senator Akaka. Without objection. Mr. Hindery. Even though the principle has been part of U.S. foreign policy doctrine for 60 years, our first conclusion was that the United States must continue to promote development assistance as a core pillar of national security and American moral values since this principle is now no longer universally embraced. The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States explained well the rationale and the imperative of development assistance when it said that, ``Development reinforces diplomacy and defense, reducing long-term threats to our national security by helping to build stable, prosperous, and peaceful societies.'' Our second conclusion, and an extremely important one in light of the testimony a moment ago, was that the United States should immediately establish a new separate Cabinet-level ``Department for International Sustainable Development.'' This new department would house USAID, PEPFAR, the President's Malaria Initiative, and Millennium Challenge Corporation, plus all new emerging initiatives such as in climate change. The case for a separate Department rests on five principles: The need, as I mentioned, to upgrade U.S. development assistance as a pillar of U.S. national security; the need to improve U.S. Government management and expertise in public health, climate change, agronomy, demography, environmental engineering, and economic development; the need to work effectively with similar Cabinet-level departments and ministries in partner donor countries; the need to de-politicize development assistance so that it can be directed at the long-term investments that are critical in the fight against poverty, hunger, disease, and deprivation; and the need for coherence, which is apparent today, of those U.S. policies which impact sustainable development. The shift, Mr. Chairman, as you commented, in the United Kingdom in 1997 from having a sub-Cabinet development agency to having a Cabinet-level department called DfID has dramatically increased the standing, reputation, and experience of the United Kingdom in the area of international development. Consequently, it was our conclusion that DfID is now, in fact, far ahead of USAID as a global thought-leader in development policy and thus, relatively more successful. Our third conclusion had to do with what works and with what does not work with ODA, which is particularly germane to this Subcommittee's strong interest in organizational process. The discussion on aid effectiveness is often clouded by confusions, by prejudices, and by simple misunderstandings. Many studies, Mr. Chairman, try to find correlations between overall aid and economic growth, and when they find little positive correlation, they declare aid to be a failure. Yet this low correlation does not prove that aid is failing, since much of the aid is directed to countries in violence, famine, or deep economic crisis. It is not a surprise, therefore, that aid is often correlated with economic failure, not because aid has caused the failure but, rather, because aid has responded to failure. We need, as you have commented, a much more sophisticated approach than standard simple correlations to judge the effectiveness of aid. And then we need to assess the objectives of specific aid programs and whether these objectives are fulfilled. Did the food aid stop starvation? Did immunizations save lives or eradicate disease? Did infrastructure spending on roads and ports help to generate new employment in new industries? Did aid for schooling raise enrollments, completion rates, and literacy? Did farm aid increase the productivity of farms? In short, I believe there are six keys to success in development. First, interventions should be based on powerful, low-cost technologies. Second, interventions should be relatively easy to deliver and based on expert systems and local ownership. Third, interventions should be applied at the scale needed to solve the underlying problems. Fourth, in a comment raised today, interventions should be reliably funded. Fifth, interventions should be multilateral and draw support from many governments and international agencies. Sixth, and extremely important, interventions, as Senator Voinovich has commented, should have specific objectives and strategies so that success rates can be assessed. Development assistance programs should have clear objectives, and they should not directly aim for excessively broad and overarching goals such as ``democracy'' or ``the end of terror,'' even though broad goals such as these can appropriately be among the direct and indirect motivations for the actual interventions. But only, as the Senator has commented, with specific objectives can there be measurements, auditing, evaluations, and re-assessments as needed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Hindery. Dr. Adams, will you please proceed? TESTIMONY OF GORDON ADAMS,\1\ DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, HENRY L. STIMSON CENTER Mr. Adams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to appear before this hearing this afternoon. I congratulate both of you for holding the hearing because, as has already been said today several times, this is a very propitious moment for thinking about how we strengthen, improve, restructure and make more effective the development assistance of the U.S. Government. So it is extremely timely. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Adams appears in the Appendix on page 60. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also wanted to thank you in particular, Senator Voinovich, for your service on the Advisory Panel for the study that the American Academy of Diplomacy is sponsoring, which we at the Stimson Center are writing. We appreciate your service there as well and look forward to giving you a useful and implementable result. I will briefly make a few points today, and thank you for putting my full statement in the record. Precepts first, I focus on our foreign policy toolkit, and our foreign policy toolkit is out of balance. We have relied on the military instrument of power and have neglected and understated our capabilities in diplomacy, development, and foreign assistance. And it is my judgment that the Congress and the next Administration are going to have to address that priority. I observe in my testimony that despite a growing State Department operational budget in recent years, we still have a Department that is inadequately staffed and funded to play a full part in our foreign and national security policy. And despite roughly doubling our foreign assistance over the past 8 years, our development and foreign assistance institutions still suffer from what I call a ``diaspora'' of organizations and capabilities. They need to better integrated and coordinated. They need more strategic direction. They need more funding and staff. And they need, in my judgment, a coordinated budget process to be effective. So I want to mention four things that I recommend in the testimony. First off, with respect to the State Department, we need to invest in additional staffing for the State Department and reshape the career expectations of people going into America's diplomacy. I think both of those are important. We will recommend in the report that Senator Voinovich is helping us with that there be a roughly 35-percent increase in the overseas Foreign Service staffing of the State Department over the next 5 years. But increasing the people is not in itself enough. We need to have also different people or to evolve the people we have. We have some fine diplomats, but the State Department today--and this is very much at the core of my testimony--is doing a great deal more than report, negotiate, and represent, which is the classical function of a State Department officer. Through the State Department and through USAID, we have a very strong and growing ``gray area'' of program activity at the State Department: HIV programs in PEPFAR, the EUR assistance programs in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, counterterrorism programs, and peacekeeping operations. For all of these, we are getting a new generation and a new set of experiences for our State Department diplomats. We need to focus on that reality, in a very concentrated way, to recruit, to train through their careers, to assign across cones, to assign across departments, and to reward a much broader career path in the State Department than what traditionally has been the case. We also think that it is very important to expand and reward the work of the public diplomacy function at the State Department. Senator Voinovich referred to this in his early questions. We think that is a very important aspect, and we will be recommending in the Stimson Academy Report an increase in staffing and in programming for the public diplomacy functions at the State Department. I mention these issues because, in my judgment, they are all connected. We are talking about the civilian capability of the U.S. Government; our foreign assistance and diplomacy and public diplomacy are connected in our effort to be effective. Second, to come specifically to the area of foreign assistance, when I was the Associate Director at the Office of Management and Budget back in the early to mid-1990s, one of the things that struck me most strongly was that most of the accounts that are in what we call the Function 150, the international affairs budget, were integrated at my desk. I was an OMB official. It is not the place that these accounts, programs, or strategies ought to be integrated. Because the integration mechanisms at the State Department were not effective, they were integrated at my desk. This reflects the diaspora I mentioned earlier. And the diaspora has gotten worse in this Administration. Congress and the Administration have created programs that have the opportunity to be effective. I am talking about PEPFAR and about the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which make up the bulk of the growth in foreign assistance funding over the last 6 or 7 years. The consequence of the diaspora and your chart amply demonstrates it--is the weakening of our core foreign assistance institution: USAID. Here there is not only a need to rebuild the core, but to restructure that core so it can carry new responsibilities. It needs to reform to being a technical and field agency as opposed to a contracting agency, and forward to deal with the kinds of issues it now works on with the Department of Defense and the private sector. I want to note here that the flow of funding to the developing countries right now from the private sector overwhelms any bilateral official aid. The effective coordination with other donors requires an adequate staff in the field. So we have a very strong recommendation in the study about doubling the field presence of USAID and making sure that it is technical, programmatic, and on the ground, not just more contracting officers. We see USAID as the central player in our foreign assistance and development programs. I would urge appointing someone to the position that exists in statute but has not been filled, making the current Office of Director of Foreign Assistance an actual Deputy Secretary of State. A Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources position exists in law, in Title 22. And we recommend appointing that person and dual-hatting them as the Administrator of USAID. This will ensure a voice for foreign assistance at the intergovernmental level, and it will assure responsiveness to the Congress because it is a confirmed official responsible for development assistance. The third point is strategic planning. We have talked a little bit about that, and Mr. Greene talked about that a good deal, too. This comes to the core of the problem. There is a close tie between our foreign policy goals and our foreign assistance and development programs. Rather than separating them, I see over time the need for a very close tie if the United States is going to have a powerful and effective civilian foreign policy toolkit, and a more integrated strategic planning and budgeting capability that meets the needs of development as a central goal of U.S. international engagement. This to me is not a question of development versus foreign assistance. A very broad definition of development, one used by most of the development community today, incorporates programs that we call ``foreign assistance'' and programs that we call ``development assistance.'' And it is not a question of ``short term'' versus ``long term.'' The short and the long are increasingly interlocked in our statecraft. There will always be some conflicts between short and long term perspectives. That is just in the nature of things. But both are important. It is important to recognize that reality-- -- Senator Akaka. Dr. Adams, would you please summarize? Mr. Adams. Yes, I will. Thank you. The State Department does both long and short term work. USAID does both short and long term work. So we see Mr. Greene's office as flawed, flexible, fixable, and an important foundation for building this long-term, transparent capacity for budgeting. I will simply add one other point, and that is that in the testimony I talk a bit about this question of militarization, and both here and in the Stimson Center Report, we will try to be responsive to Secretary Gates' concern about militarization of foreign assistance to bring back into the State Department and the USAID world the authorities over many of those programs now being implemented by the Defense Department under its own authorities. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Adams. Ms. Richard, please proceed. TESTIMONY OF ANNE C. RICHARD,\1\ VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADVOCACY, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE Ms. Richard. Thank you, Senators. Thank you for holding this hearing on Reforming the Foreign Assistance Bureaucracy. Your interest in this issue is very well timed. There is a consensus emerging that change is needed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Richard appears in the Appendix on page 75. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This afternoon, I would like to outline three major weak points in the foreign assistance bureaucracy--one, leadership; two, people; and three, coordination--and propose steps that could help address these weak points and strengthen the U.S. foreign aid program. My remarks are informed by my position as the Vice President of the International Rescue Committee, an internationally recognized relief and development agency, and also my past experience at the State Department. I was Madeleine Albright's adviser on budgets and planning. I should also mention that I am the co-author of a forthcoming paper from the Stanley Foundation and Center for New American Security that describes how the next Administration might improve U.S. foreign operations; and my co-author, Paul Clayman, was the counsel for Senator Lugar on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I request that my remarks and the forthcoming paper be put into the record.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The working paper from the Stanley Foundation and Center for New American Security entitled ``Improving US National Security: Options for Strengthening US Foreign Operations,'' appears in the Appendix on page 120. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Akaka. Without objection, it will be made part of the record. Ms. Richard. Thank you. Moving quickly to my first point, I think many of us here believe that stronger development management, policy, and leadership is needed from the U.S. Government. There is just a stronger need for leadership of development assistance. The Bush Administration has increased overall foreign aid but really opted out of using the U.S. Agency for International Development for major new initiatives and instead developed ``work-arounds,'' such as creating the Millennium Challenge Corporation as a separate agency and also funneling HIV/USAIDS funding, the PEPFAR funds, through an office in the State Department. A logical move would be to fold these initiatives into USAID and thus, bring most of the major aid projects under one roof and ideally, reporting to one strong leader within the Administration. The Administrator of USAID is an important job that needs to be filled by someone who can speak with authority. This person has to go to conference tables at the White House and be included in the discussions as decisions are being made and not told what happened later on. In international meetings and summits, the USAID Administrator should be empowered to meet with development ministers from other governments as a peer. Put simply, the Administrator must be the point person for relief and development in the Administration. My written statement discusses militarization of foreign aid and concerns about reconstruction after conflicts. These are very hot topics right now, but they are parts of this overall foreign aid picture. All of these various trends seemed to have boiled down lately to a disagreement among experts about the best place to lead U.S. development aid efforts. Some would say leadership should be at the top of the State Department, as Mr. Greene did, or with a new Cabinet-level development department, as both InterAction and Mr. Hindery would maintain, or through a coordinator based in or around the White House. Paul Clayman and I developed what we call the ``hybrid model,'' which we think combines the best of all these ideas: A new directorate for foreign operations at the National Security Council with staff who are knowledgeable and able to obtain input from key actors and help resolve disputes as they arise; a State Department that can coordinate and influence the overall direction of the full range of aid programs--which, as we know, is more than just development aid--to address the President's foreign policy needs--and that could be built off of the current F process--and a strong development agency, which I would propose be a revamped and empowered USAID--that includes all or most major development programs. I would also propose that we continue the practice of having the leaders from different agencies involved in foreign aid meet to discuss the trends and the policies that the Administration has, and this could be modeled on the Millennium Challenge Corporation's board. Importantly, this hybrid model could be readily implemented within a short period of time by a new Administration. There is a need for more people in both the State Department and USAID to carry out the important work of these agencies. It will be important for the Department of State and USAID to explain the impact new personnel will have, how they will make a difference, and what tasks they will undertake. Not just more people are needed, but more training, too. The international affairs agencies need trained and skilled personnel to match modern demands. This includes the ability to speak hard languages, appreciation for the use of technology, and a good understanding of program management. In terms of skills, there is a clear need for personnel who can respond rapidly to crises and can play useful roles in post-conflict situations. Finally, both the State Department and USAID need contingency funds to head off and respond to crises. I know proposals for contingency funds almost never survive the budget process. I have firsthand experience in that. But I would propose modeling a disaster contingency fund on the highly successful Emergency Refugee and Migration Account that the State Department manages for refugee crises. My recommendation, therefore, is that this Subcommittee speaks out in support of greater investment in the international affairs budget and the personnel of these agencies, but that you also seek good answers to the questions of what the new hires will be doing and how the workforce will be used to tackle global threats and the full range of modern demands on Foreign Service officers. My third point is that the very complexity that Rich Greene talked about requires coordination. Many of those who criticize the current way the U.S. Government organizes foreign aid complain about the large number of agencies that run aid programs and the long list of budget accounts that fund aid. And so I think a fresh approach would probably consolidate this large number of government actors into a smaller number of decisionmakers that work more closely together. But there will always be multiple actors because of the complexity of U.S. interests overseas. A coherent strategy does not necessarily mean that U.S. national security priorities, goals, and objectives can be easily described or condensed into a simple catchphrase. U.S. national interests are broad and varied. The United States has relations with, and Americans have interests in--and I am sure nobody knows this better than U.S. Senators who hear from their constituents what their interests are-- nearly every country on the globe. U.S. Government engagement with the rest of the world should be expected to be multi- faceted and complex. What is true is that the many U.S. foreign aid actors, organizations, and budget accounts make the entire enterprise harder to explain to senior officials, the media, the public, and to justify it to you, the Congress. Government leaders should do a better job communicating the importance of this work. There is a need to coordinate across various U.S. Government agencies in order to align U.S. foreign aid programs with foreign policy goals, avoid duplication, and ensure a smart approach. The paper Paul Clayman and I wrote on the hybrid model also proposes ways to do this. Before concluding, I just want to say, Senator Voinovich, your question earlier about the continuing resolution and really the reliance, too, on supplementals to fund emergency funding and crises in the world is having an impact on organizations like mine, the International Rescue Committee. What happens is there is a great deal of uncertainty at the start of the fiscal year, when managers, good managers, should be sitting down deciding how many people to hire, where they should be deployed, and how do you set about operating for the rest of the year. Without certainty, you cannot know that, and, in fact, when you are told that your funding has been cut but you might get more later in a supplemental, what ends up happening is you have to let people go. You have to give up the rent on your property. You have to not order the supplies or send people for training. And it is very hard to do that later in the fiscal year when half or three-quarters of the fiscal year has gone by. As bad as that is in terms of a management problem, it is really more troubling in life-and-death situations such as the situations some of my colleagues working in failed and fragile environments see. You cannot go back in time and deliver healthy babies after they have been born, you cannot go back and ``back-feed'' growing children, and you cannot stop the spread of deadly diseases as they are tearing through villages three-quarters of the way through the year. So I would be very happy to talk to you more about that. We have done a lot of thinking about that, both in my organization and within InterAction, our coalition of relief and development agencies. Let me stop there. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to your questions. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Richard. Mr. Worthington, please proceed with your statement. TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL A. WORTHINGTON,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERACTION Mr. Worthington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I am President and CEO of InterAction, which is the largest coalition of U.S.-based international development and relief organizations.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Worthington appears in the Appendix on page 81. \2\ The Policy Paper from InterAction, June 2008, entitled ``Proposed Major Components and Organization of a Cabinet-level Department for Global and Human Development,'' appears in the Appendix on page 144. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Foreign assistance plays a critical role in advancing U.S. national interests overseas, and it represents, as we know, our humanitarian values and puts the best face of America forward to the world in many ways. InterAction's 168 members receive $6 billion a year from the American public directly, which is more than twice what they receive in partnership with the U.S. Government. We believe that the cornerstone of our foreign assistance portfolio is development assistance, which at the heart of it should be poverty alleviation. InterAction believes that the chief goal of U.S. development assistance should be to reduce poverty and help countries and people achieve their full potential, and that these reflect American humanitarianism and equal opportunity for all. The problem today is that we have too few development dollars spread over too many agencies, as we see in these charts,\3\ fragmented across 26 different departments, and our aid programs are often poorly coordinated, at best, and at worst, working at cross purposes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The charts referred to appear in the Appendix beginning on page 117. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is for this reason that InterAction and its members believe that the United States should develop a National Development Strategy and that this National Development Strategy, among other things, should prescribe how foreign assistance programs will be coordinated and integrated with other foreign policy tools for working with low-income countries, assert that poverty reduction is a primary goal of foreign assistance, recognize the role of women in reducing poverty, describe how U.S. development programs relate to the Departments of State and Defense, and lay out how our assistance programs should coordinate with other bilateral and multilateral and other funding, including funding from the U.S. nonprofit community. This last point about coordination raises another important issue for us, which is the government's capacity to be a good partner in development. Right now USAID, which is our lead development agency, lacks the capacity to coordinate effectively with other bilateral and multilateral donors or of its own partners, including U.S. civil society. The latter problem is caused by the agency's human capital limitations, which we were talking about earlier today, as USAID just does not have the staff to effectively manage the grants and cooperative agreements that are used and comprise its primary funding relationship with the U.S. civil society and NGOs. This problem was exacerbated when the agency's Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination, which handled many functions related to donor coordination, was moved out of the agency into the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance. I have made 11 key recommendations in my written testimony that I believe will improve the government's capacity to respond to this coordination, and I would like to share a few of them with you right now. First, I would urge Congress to work closely with Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Henrietta Fore, to implement her Development Leadership Initiative, which is, in essence, turning back some of the challenges that have plagued USAID for the last 15 years. Second, I urge Congress and the Administration to work together to replace USAID's operating expense (OE) account with a funding mechanism that allows Congress to maintain its oversight, but gives the agency the resources and flexibility it needs to be effective. Third, we need to prioritize monitoring and evaluation so that USAID can know what works and what does not. Fourth, to ensure that USAID staff know the difference between acquisition contracts and assistance cooperative agreements. The NGO community has always approached USAID a co- equal partner rather than simply a contracting agency that pays for development programs. And, finally, we need to elevate development assistance within our government to its rightful place alongside defense and diplomacy, a principle that is well established as part of our government's National Security Strategy. It is InterAction's position that the best way to elevate development assistance is to create a Cabinet-level Department for Global and Human Development. A Cabinet-level department would streamline the various goals and objectives of U.S. foreign assistance as well as the current proliferation of assistance programs, including PEPFAR and the MCC, and creating a Cabinet-level department would protect development from militarization by the Department of Defense or subordinated to the tactical goals of the State Department. Those who suggest that USAID ought to be merged with the State Department underestimate the differences in the culture and the functions between the two agencies. The alignment of development and diplomacy is important. So is the alignment of defense and diplomacy. And yet no reasonable person would ever suggest merging the State Department into DOD. Soldiers enlist in our military to become warriors not aid workers. Similarly, State Department officials aspire to be diplomats not development specialists. Humanitarian development policy experts choose to work at USAID or the Cabinet-level department we propose because they believe they can make a difference in the lives of the world's poor, particularly as it relates to our national interests. InterAction has a paper that proposes how we might organize such a department, which I submit for the record along with my written testimony. Hundreds of CEOs and InterAction are not alone in seeking a Cabinet-level department. It is an idea that is gaining momentum here in Washington, also the position of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, a bipartisan group of experts from think tanks, universities, and NGOs, of which I am a part. It is clear that the 21st Century presents us with foreign policy challenges that our current development infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle. We are also at a point in our history when respect for the United States abroad is at an all- time low. At the same time, the next President will take over a country with a large constituency that supports international development, as well as a military that supports improvement in our non-military tools. It is vitally important that he works with Congress to reach a grand bargain that prioritizes these issues and gives the Executive Branch the flexibility it needs to respond to a rapidly changing world and ensures comprehensive legislative oversight. The United States must elevate development within our government and give it the space it needs to be effective vis- a-vis defense and diplomacy, focus our foreign assistance and development programs on a streamlined set of objectives by creating a National Development Strategy, and improve the capacity of our government to partner effectively with U.S. NGOs, with other donors, and with aid recipients. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Worthington. Mr. Hyman, would you please proceed with your statement? TESTIMONY OF GERALD F. HYMAN,\1\ SENIOR ADVISOR AND PRESIDENT OF THE HILLS PROGRAM ON GOVERNANCE, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Mr. Hyman. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich, for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. I ask that my full written testimony be included in the record. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hyman appears in the Appendix on page 94. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Akaka. Yes. Other materials that are being requested by our witnesses, without objection, will be included in the record. Mr. Hyman. Some of the points I wanted to make have already been made by others, so I will be briefer than I might otherwise have been. I am sure you will not object to that. The first and most important, of course, is that the organization of U.S. assistance is fractured, tangled, mismanaged, and mal-aligned. That is a point that everyone at this table--and, in fact, Mr. Greene pointed out himself when he said it was fragmented across multiple bureaus and offices within State and USAID. And your chart points that out even more forcefully. USAID was, and remains to some extent, the primary assistance vehicle, although it is deeply troubled, weak, and demoralized, and that needs to be turned around, in my opinion. So the first of these three points is the fractured nature of our assistance programs. Within the State Department, we have a number of programs that could easily have been managed by USAID and were pulled out for reasons of bureaucratic turf wars, personality, and a whole variety of other measures that had, I think, little to do with the substance of what was going on. That includes PEPFAR, it includes the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and it includes the Middle East Partnership Initiative. I was in the original group that worked on what became the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and initially that was--a separate corporation was only one of several options available for how to do a program like the MCC program. Pulling it out just was another example of picking away at what could have been or should have been and was a central development agency. That trend, it seems to me, needs to be reversed. The second major feature--and that is all within the 150 Account, all underneath the Secretary of State, underneath the Agency for International Development. The second point is the point that is on your chart as well, and that is the other government departments that are doing assistance, with the possible exception, sir, of the Bureau for Indian Affairs. It is not obvious to me that there is any department in the U.S. Government that does not have a foreign assistance program of its own, and that creates a huge problem of fracturing, fragmenting, and so on, particularly when people from different agencies are engaged in similar or parallel programs in the same country at the same time and often giving contrary advice. So it seems to me that fracturing is the first issue that needs to be dealt with. Secretary Rice has tried to deal with that through the 150 Account and the development of the so-called F process and the Director of Foreign Assistance. In my personal opinion, it is a defective attempt. But as Mr. Greene pointed out, they are working on some changes, which I hope will improve the situation dramatically. My second point: I agree with Mr. Adams--and I am afraid I disagree with some of my other colleagues on this panel--about the advisability of separating the assistance--a coordinated assistance effort into a different independent department separate from the Department of State, for a variety of reasons. First, the new National Security Strategy calls for development diplomacy and defense into the same--into a unified national security policy. I do not think that separating development out of that is going to increase the coherence of those three. It seems to me it is going to elevate the problems of integration to a higher level, which may require, as Ms. Richard suggested, a NSC arbiter. But it seems to me it is not a wise idea, again, to pull things apart and then move them to the top for integration into the National Security Council, which will wind up having to adjudicate a whole variety of turf and theoretical and implementation issues that it seems to me would be better handled within the Department. Second, there are other kinds of programs than the pure development account programs, and those are in the ESF accounts. We can talk about and I think it would be useful to talk about joining those two, but the fact is that we do a variety of ``development programs'' in countries for reasons other than pure development. Haiti, Sudan, the FATA regions of Pakistan, North Korea--the list goes on and on. These are programs that look like development programs done for very different reasons. We are not putting $750 million into the FATA because it is a great development partner. We are doing it for other reasons. And those, in my opinion, are perfectly reasonable to do, perfectly legitimate, and the programs may look like development programs--education, schools, roads, health--but they are done for very different reasons. And that is why you have, we have, separate accounts. It might be useful to come back and relook at those accounts, but those are programs that, again, require diplomacy and development to be linked together, in my personal view. If you pull them apart, either two-thirds of the ``development budget'' would not be funded, or it would be funded at levels justifiable only on purely development grounds, or they would be managed by the Department of State while you had a separate development level agency doing the so- called development program. I do not see that the first two are advisable, and the third is neither advisable nor realistic, it seems to me. So I would keep them within the confines of one agency. The third thing is strategy and tactics. I would be happy to talk about that in the question period, but the fact is that the F process that Mr. Greene talked about merges tax strategy and tactics, hyper-centralizes the decisions in Washington, does not adequately, in my opinion, look at the advantages of the field programs and field expertise. It oversimplifies the character of recipient countries. It undermines the value of our in-country expertise and has damaged the attempt to measure impact, as you discussed earlier. So I have nine recommendations. I think I am out of time. They are in my testimony, and I will just leave it at that. Thank you so much for the opportunity, and I look forward to your questions. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Hyman. I would like to ask my first question of Mr. Hindery. I know you have limited time here. Mr. Hindery, in the four tasks you identified for starting up a new department for International Sustainable Development, you did not include the need to ensure that human capital needs, such as recruitment, retention, or training are addressed, even though you mention these needs as part of your case for starting a separate department. Do you believe that a new department would already have most of its human capital needs met? Mr. Hindery. Mr. Chairman, I think the question is a seminal one, and you have raised it in other contexts this afternoon. This is about quality of personnel. It is about quantity of personnel. But it is also about morale. And in our longer testimony, my colleagues and I on the HELP Commission concluded that all three of them can only be met well in a separate department. I take exception with some of the other panelists. I think it is the status that would come from a separate department that would address the morale question, and I think that as these three Secretaries sit as partners in this initiative of defense, diplomacy, and development, that all of the management concerns that you and Senator Voinovich have raised could be more easily addressed. I have had the privilege of being a chief executive of large organizations, and that is an unmanageable chart to your right, sir, absent consolidation and coordination and status-- and I really would emphasize, as somebody who has had the privilege of leading large numbers of people, that status is critical. Status is critical to attracting people. It is critical to retaining people. And absent it, I think foreign assistance will not be the success that you and Senator Voinovich might like to see. Senator Akaka. Mr. Hindery and Mr. Worthington, in your testimony, you make a case for a new separate Cabinet-level department focused on international development. Do you see any other practical alternatives to this such as improving the F Bureau or somehow keeping the foreign assistance responsibilities within the State Department? Mr. Hindery. Mr. Chairman, over the 3 years that the HELP Commission existed--and I was, as I mentioned, its Senate- appointed vice chair--with a lot of exhaustive review, all of the Commissioners concluded that there were only three choices available to this Congress on this issue: A super State Department, that is, the collapse of this activity into the State Department; a much emboldened USAID; or the third alternative, which Mr. Worthington and I and Ms. Richard, I think, are in consensus on, which is the stand-alone department. We did not find a fourth, Mr. Chairman. I do not think there is one. And it was our conclusion that the negatives of a super State Department belie the principles of three D's as you would have just killed off one of the D's. And as for an emboldened USAID, it would not confront the three charts which you have presented to us today. Just emboldening USAID and managing it better would not fix its structure problem. I think as a final comment--and I would defer to Mr. Worthington, who is so able on this subject, and to Ms. Richard--there is such a good model in the DfID success that for you and the Ranking Member, you do not have to speculate that this works. It has been proven to work in the DfID model. And I think that would give great comfort, should give great comfort to the next Administration and to this Congress. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Worthington. Mr. Worthington. The F process was a beginning of an attempt to engage in coordination, and as such, it should be applauded as a first step. The challenge is for a community that engages directly with the U.S. Government in the field, that coordination did not go far enough and in many ways was too centralized in the way it related to the field. So one level, we applaud the coordination attempt, but it simply did not go far enough. The second is a recognition that any attempt to bring all these actors together will only work in terms of how it is reflected in an embassy overseas. You will always have an Ambassador as the primary representative of the United States overseas, but underneath that, right now you do not have a clear actor who is responsible for U.S. foreign assistance on the ground as it relates to different parts of the various programs you have over there. At times, you do not even know who is going to come and visit a country from different agencies. So our community--and this is a discussion among some 100 different CEOs over a long period of time. It slowly emerged that we needed to have this broader degree of bringing together the different parts of U.S. foreign assistance to simply enable us to work with. Some members of our community are working with 10, 15 different parts of the U.S. Government. Our challenge was that when we saw the F process come into being, the overall goals and direction of U.S. foreign assistance shifted significantly at the local level and in budgeting to reflect interests of the State Department and diplomatic interests, which are purely--very much valid for U.S. foreign assistance, but we saw that there was no longer the space for what we would view as development was actually narrowing at the time when resources are significantly increasing for development work within the Administration. And that led us to conclude that it was only establishing a more empowered USAID ultimately to a Cabinet-level department under a broad strategy would be the best outcome. Senator Akaka. Ms. Richard, would you care to comment on that question? Ms. Richard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where I agree with Mr. Worthington and Mr. Hindery is on the importance of having a USAID that is functioning and that is strong. And I am really surprised that the current Administration, which talked a lot about taking a very businesslike approach to foreign aid, bypassed working to fix whatever is wrong with USAID and set up duplicative, new, and other organizations. I thought that if one wanted to be businesslike and be a good caretaker of the taxpayers' money, one would have looked at USAID, examined how it was operating, and come up with proposals to strengthen it. And so I would propose that the next Administration do that. Where I differ from them is that I do not think there is anything magic about elevating an organization to a Cabinet level. To me, that is no silver bullet. I think that what is really needed is that the organization operate very well and have the support of the President and of the Secretary of State, and that will enhance the status, and that will enhance the morale of the personnel in the organization. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for that. I am going to ask Senator Voinovich for his questions. Senator Voinovich. One of the things that I was really happy about when Senator Akaka put this hearing together was that we are kind of at a junction or watershed period where we have a chance to really do something different. And I think one of the things that needs to be underscored is the landscape of the world has changed, and that is, we have a whole different variety of challenges that we must face. But the one thing I would like to ask, Mr. Adams, in the report coming out from the American Diplomacy, have all these people at the table had any input at all in the report? Mr. Adams. Yes, in a variety of ways, they have. Anne Richard is a member of the Advisory Group helping us with that study. That group has taken into consideration all three of the pieces of work: The Modernizing the Foreign Assistance Network in InterAction; the work Jerry Hyman did for the Carnegie Endowment; and the HELP Commission report as well. All of those pieces of work are taken into consideration in the work that we are doing. Senator Voinovich. It seems to me that we have a gigantic public-private partnership, and I think it is really important that you take into consideration the contribution that many of these organizations are making. I think you said, Mr. Worthington, they spend more money than we do combined. And so that is something that is very special, and we ought to be encouraging that, and there ought to be as much coordination going on as possible. I think the problems that are going to be confronting the next President are enormous in so many areas. I would urge all of you to really get together and get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night trying to come back with some kind of consensus, a recommendation to Congress and to the next President, about how this thing should happen. As I say, the stars are in line. Two years ago, I talked with General Jones about this, as well as the head of Africa--and they all-- everybody seems to understand we have got to do something different. But I think that if we get into the next year and we have got people going different directions, it will make it difficult for us to be successful. I am going to spend a lot of time trying to figure out this concept of a new department because I have experienced--and so has Senator Akaka--this whole new Department of Homeland Security. And it is a nightmare and probably should never have been put together the way it was. And I say shame on the Administration for not coming up here and wrestling with us to say, look, we have got the job to do and this is the way we think we need to do it, instead of letting us kind of impose it; and now that it is not working and things are not going the way they are supposed to, we just say, Well, that is your baby, you take care of it. I think that is really important to think about how does that get done. You have a lot of different groups out there, and how much more difficult or less difficult would it be than the Department of Homeland Security? We did the Defense Department. There was kind of a thread that ran through all of it, and it was a lot easier to do. You have different cultures, all kinds of things that need to be looked at. So I would really like you to give some more thought to how to handle that situation, and the other thing, of course, is the issue of the earmarks that are there. Again, that does not give you the flexibility that you need to look at the programs and how do they jibe together and how you can maximize the dollars that are available. Mr. Adams. Senator, since you asked my view on the department, let me be clear, I do not, in fact, favor creating a separate Department of Development. My views really join Anne Richard's and Jerry Hyman's. The reason I have that view is precisely because, as I said in my opening statement, the reality of our foreign affairs agencies and programs is that there is a substantial degree of integration, overlap, and even cooperation particularly between the State Department and USAID with respect to both program definition, program implementation, and the objectives served by the programs. This is what I called the ``gray area.'' It is really the connection between our foreign policy objectives, our national security objectives, and the important role that development has in those objectives. USAID does a number of things, not just development programs. It works closely with the Defense Department today in Afghanistan. In Iraq, as you know, it has transition initiatives programs, conflict management, military affairs programs and disaster assistance, all of which focus on the near term. And in the State Department, you have a European Assistance Program that is budgeted and planned by the EUR Bureau in the State Department and implemented in part at USAID. They have to work with each other hand in glove all the time. In other words, we have a rapidly changing culture--here I do disagree with Leo Hindery--in the State Department with respect to its attention to program definition and implementation and to long term objectives in the field. And we have a foreign assistance organization which can do both long term and short term at the same time. In my judgment, this is best served--and here I join Anne Richard and Jerry Hyman--by strengthening the capacity of USAID in relationship to the State Department. My recommendation is that a Deputy Secretary of State position for resources and management that exists in law be, in fact, the steering official for the foreign assistance programs of the United States, these programs give both accountability to Capitol Hill and a presence at the decision tables in the White House. That vision may not have quite all the details right, but it conforms to the reality of U.S. involvement overseas today. Trying to separate out one very specific thing narrowly defined as poverty reduction and development is not an accurate description of what we call ``development'' programs in the government and would artificially separate out these other policy-relevant programs. Then where is their home? What do they do? Senator Voinovich. Mr. Hindery wants to comment. Mr. Hindery. Senator, I think that your concern about the problems around the creation of the Department of Homeland Security are well stated. We looked at that, and we all have to remember that DHS was born out of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and many of its activities were new in their own right. Senator Voinovich. Pardon me. You said something about the DfID model? Mr. Hindery. The DfID model, which is the euphemism for the United Kingdom's stand-alone department. It is called the Department for International Development (DfID). Senator Voinovich. That was the other thing I was thinking about when you were talking. I wonder how other people handle it. So you are referring to the way they---- Mr. Hindery. The United Kingdom, Senator, has a stand-alone department. I would go back to the comment about the Department of Homeland Security. We need to remember that much of its problems were because it was also trying to start new initiatives. U.S. foreign assistance already exists, and it has existed for 60 years. It is a noble part of what we do as a Nation. If you and your colleagues looked at it more as a reformation, a rehabilitation of what we are doing now and not the entirety of a new initiative, as DHS was, the Department of Homeland Security, while it is not an unformidable task, it may be more comforting to your and your colleagues as you try to draw the contrast. Senator Voinovich. Ms. Richard. Ms. Richard. The proposal that I put forward is less than ideal. It was put forward because it is a compromise between people who would like to see a Cabinet-level development agency and people who think that the State Department should do more, should be more in the leadership. So as a practitioner, Paul Clayman and I were looking for a way to bridge these two communities. Senator Voinovich. How long were you with Secretary Albright? Ms. Richard. I was at the State Department starting in May 1990, working actually for Deputy Secretary Eagleburger, and I was there most of the 1990s. And for 2 years, I reported directly to Secretary Albright on these activities. Senator Voinovich. So you were there for a while. Ms. Richard. Most of the decade of the 1990s I was working on foreign aid and trying to figure out how to work across the agencies that were--and try to bring more coherence. And what is happening today is a much more serious effort than we were able to mount back then, although every Secretary of State has cared about this, and usually the longer they are in the job, the more they care about it because they realize that this is indeed the toolkit they have to make a difference in the world. So our proposal is a compromise. It is not ideal, but one of the benefits of it is it could be done relatively easily in the first 90 days of a new Administration. Now, could you do more and could you do something more towards an ideal? Yes, you could, but in order to do that, you would have to have the President personally interested, I think, with the White House behind it, and some sort of understanding at the outset with Congress that there would be joint work to produce something useful. We have seen how hard it is to get foreign assistance legislation passed in the Congress, and that is why I do not have a great deal of hope that a major restructuring could be carried out. But as you say, it is an interesting time. There is a lot more attention to this. You may have a better sense up here on the appetite for undertaking something large and sweeping. I do think there is a consensus that is changing---- Senator Voinovich. I am taking too much time. I would like to interrupt you. The thing that is really important here is that you can have a new President, and new Presidents like to do new initiatives. And you are complaining about the Millennium challenge corporation and other things that should have been there, and they did not--they wanted to have something that they could point to. And I think that if there is not a lot of good work done before that and you can go to the next President and say, look, we worked this thing out, we do not think we need to have a new department, here is the way you can get it done and try and say that his initiative will be that he is going to bring these other things together in a special way. I think it is really important you do that because if it does not happen, the new guy is going to come in and say, hey, I am doing it this way, and off we go, and a year from now or 2 years from now, maybe we get something done. We do not have time for that. Ms. Richard. Well, where there is consensus is there is consensus change is needed; there is agreement the United States must be more effective on this. There is a general belief that foreign aid is indeed a useful tool to pursue U.S. national interests. There is a recognition that the United States needs a better balance between military and civilian tools. There is a desire to consolidate the large number of actors. There is an emphasis on the need for coordination, and there is a recognition that we need a longer-term strategic vision for U.S. programs. So I believe everyone here at this table would agree to that and that becomes then the nucleus for pulling people together around those concepts. In looking at what the candidates have said, they have not come up with well-developed proposals along these lines, but they are talking about change and trying to do more and investing in tools of reaching out to foreign countries and foreign publics. So in order for them to achieve what they would like to do in the concrete, specific proposals, they are going to have to have a better bureaucracy to support that. Finally, I would like to say that the International Rescue Committee benefits from private fundraising. We get grants from the U.S. Government to carry out programs in the U.S. national interest. We also, though, receive monies from the United Kingdom Government's Department for International Development. And what is interesting to me is that they are very good at funding some of the forgotten and neglected crises. They provide a lot of funding for us for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has really fallen off the screen here in the United States, even though there has been tremendous rates of mortality there. And they are also very good at looking how climate change has the potential to really hurt some of the world's more poor and vulnerable people. So I can only say very positive things about the U.K. example, and I think it is worth looking more at that example and talking more to them. Senator Voinovich. All right. Mr. Worthington. Mr. Worthington. I think we have to take into account a fundamentally changed external environment. I mentioned earlier that our community raises $6 billion from the American public. It makes us a donor of the size roughly of France. When you look around the world, many times in a given country, the United States is just one of many development actors in a country. Those actors are the NGO community, the private sector, other development actors and so forth. The challenge is, as the United States, we then have multiple actors of our own. So when it comes to leveraging things--leveraging private resources, leveraging resources from the NGO community--our government does not take advantage of it the way we could. We could be matching you 2:1 in terms of resources in many types of programs, and yet it is divided across many different actors. The DfID group is very good at leveraging how the U.K. fits in a given country compared to other development actors in a country, and the United States, by not having a development strategy of where is our specific value-added, where can we make a difference, we do not take as much advantage of that as could other actors. The other is InterAction did a study of many of our members in terms of the implementation of the F process in the field, and unfortunately, we got some relatively negative feedback, both in terms of morale--and this was feedback from partners of the U.S. Government as well as within USAID. In a sense, at a time when we need to be empowering development within the U.S. Government, we should not be taking steps that disempower it. We need to be able to elevate as much as we can. Now, whether that leads to a Cabinet level, I do not know, but there has been a lot of consensus, and it goes from the IRC's CEO, other actors within our broad community, to the Brookings Institution, the Center for Foreign Relations, other actors who have gotten together in this Modernizing Foreign Assistance. And whether you go all the way to the Cabinet agency one can debate, but the broad elements seem to run across many different groups, both from the Republican and Democrat, of the need, one, for fundamental reform; two, that there is a need to elevate in some way development to create a greater space for the voice, a capacity to better leverage U.S. interests in development overseas; and to do that under a strategy that is comprehensive and goes across multiple actors within the U.S. Government if it is not just one department. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Akaka. I thank Senator Voinovich for his questions. For the second round, I have just two questions, and I will also call on Senator Voinovich again. But this question is for the panel. Like the military, the Foreign Service prefers to recruit most of it officers at the entry level. Dr. Adams suggests recruiting FSOs at the mid-career levels may be preferable since many, especially those who have served in the military, NGOs, or the business world, may bring programmatic, technical, or other critical skills. Do you think that the Foreign Service culture, especially at USAID, could find a greater role for mid-career-level employees who desire to join the Foreign Service? Are there any obstacles that would prevent this from happening on a large scale? Mr. Adams. Maybe I should start since I made that point in my testimony. The answer is yes and yes. What is crucial here is that the Foreign Service is changing, and as everybody at the table has said, the world is changing. And so how we engage as a Nation in statecraft is, therefore, changing. And the old model and culture of ``report, represent, and negotiate'' does not work even for the Foreign Service officers at the State Department. And because of the damage amply demonstrated in your chart, the new culture of managing contracts does not work very well at USAID either. The reality is that for both of these organizations and more broadly, we need to recruit a new generation, people who are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Who are prepared to be both managers and diplomats, both planners and implementers, and be engaged in the field. And if you put all of those pieces together, it means both organizations need, and I think our report is going to make this point very strongly-- to recruit, train, promote, incentivize, and cross-assign the personnel who promote our foreign policy interests. Can they do this at the mid-career level? Yes, they can. The Foreign Service Act that was passed in 1980 is both simple and explicit on this question. It is completely possible and within the range of the law to recruit people at the mid-career level and to recruit them very broadly with respect to specialization. And that is important. If you wait until junior officers come in with that skill set, it is going to be a very long time before they get to the level where they are defining and implementing programs, making a difference in the field. So you want to start fast, hit the ground running, and be bringing in people at the mid-career level. The obstacles are in the personnel rules in the two departments. But even USAID has moved beyond that. They are deliberately setting out explicitly, as part of the expansion you heard described earlier by Richard Greene, to recruit people at the mid-career level with the technical and field specializations that they need. So it is entirely possible. This is simply an act of will in the two departments to proceed down that road. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Richard. Ms. Richard. I agree with what Dr. Adams said. I also might point out that the staff of the State Department and USAID are made up of political appointees, Foreign Service officers, civil servants, Foreign Service nationals, some nationals of the countries in which embassies are located who are the locals. And the U.S. Agency for International Development, it has a Foreign Service, has civil servants, and, of course, there are consultants and occasionally people on loan, such as people from the Pentagon. What has happened is that when any kind of change is proposed, because of the environment in which everyone is working, there are always concerns that the change will be negative, that somebody is going to lose something. There are going to be less benefits or less pay or less opportunities. And this is not a good way to run organizations. There has to be more working together to build an esprit de corps and to take advantage of a very diverse workforce and really pull out people's best talents and have them move quickly into new areas to confront new challenges. And because, in part, I think the personnel always feel under threat that something is about to be lost, they are very defensive to any kind of reforms or changes. And I think that there has to be a better look at what is needed and modeling a staff that can then address what is needed. Thank you. Senator Akaka. Mr. Worthington. Mr. Worthington. The U.S. nonprofit community has over 200,000 people working in development around the world, and we bring in experts from the United Nations, from the private sector, and other areas. The idea that you would bring in mid- to senior-level people in the U.S. Government makes a lot of sense. The challenge is: Are these jobs that people want to take? Are these jobs that are interesting? We are looking at the type of people that are coming in this new increase of Foreign Service officers. Now, many of them are coming from a background of a significant interest in transitional States and post-war conflict. So when we look at the world, it is not necessarily through development, but it is looking at the world through a lens of war. Our challenge is we need to bring in people who are also looking at the world through a lens of how do you improve the well-being of people and do so at the mid-career level and, in essence, be competitive with other types of jobs like our community where there is much more flexibility with private resources. Senator Akaka. Dr. Hyman. Mr. Hyman. Thank you, Senator. I was in USAID when we went back and forth between the very two things you are talking about. You can do it; definitely, you can do it. USAID did it. You get into this list of alphabetical acronyms. They were called NEPs, new entry professionals, to distinguish them from the earlier group, which were called IDIs, international development interns, or something like that. So what happened, of course, was that the people who came in at the bottom, so to speak, or earlier in their career got lower ranks. The people who were brought in later for so-called more professional got higher ranks. So the people that had been in the Foreign Service had served overseas for X numbers of years were suddenly confronted with Mary or John who comes in at a higher rank than they are in without having been in any of these countries. That can be overcome, but there are problems of managing personnel with bringing in people at higher levels. Definitely it can be managed. In my personal opinion, I think the best way to do this would be to have an agreement between the Congress and the Administration that we are going to go on a certain path and we are going to stay on it, we are not going to go back and forth. After the so-called NEP experience, now Administrator Fore is going back to the earlier model, bringing people in at a lower level. So the people coming in now are saying, ``Well, why don't I get a GS-3 rank? Why do I get a GS-6 rank? I am not any worse than so-and-so.'' It seems to me that this going back and forth and back and forth is part of the morale problem in USAID and other agencies, and that really gets, Senator Voinovich, to your point earlier about initiatives. One of the recommendations I made here is that the Congress resist this continuous attempt to have new initiatives with the new mark of whoever has come in at the top. Whether it is the President, the Secretary of State, or the USAID Administrator, there is a flood of new initiatives in almost every Administration, and many of them do not live long through the Administration, let alone enduring through the next Administration. The Foreign Service and the civil service bounce back and forth between every new initiative, and it seems to me Congress could do a great service by avoiding or trying to resist or asking for resistance of constantly having new programs, new directions, new personnel systems, new program initiatives, etc. That said, going back to the point that was made earlier, one of the reasons that USAID and the U.S. Government, I think, are going to have a more complicated assistance structure than, let's say, the U.K. system, the U.K. system is devoted to poverty reduction. As Mr. Worthington said, he thinks that is the primary thing for our assistance program. If it is, you may very well be able to create a U.K.-type structure. But our structure has a multiplicity of purposes and a multiplicity of functions. If we do not want to do that, fine, then we should limit our assistance program to poverty reduction. That is not where it is now. It has now got anti-terrorism dimensions; it has state foreign policy dimensions. It has a whole variety of things that are all engaged in the way in which projects are put together. If you have that kind of complicated function, then you are going to get a complicated form as well. It is just like regular architecture. Organizational architecture, form ought to follow function. And we have a complicated series of functions and, therefore, need to look at what forms will best achieve those kind of functions. And I think that is where I think you were driving at, Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Hyman. As I said, I had two questions. Now, the last one, you heard Mr. Greene give his top three recommendations for improving the foreign assistance bureaucracy, and I am going to ask the panel to submit--each of you submit your three top recommendations in writing to the Subcommittee. Now I would like to ask Senator Voinovich for any questions or final remarks. Senator Voinovich. I just think this has been a great hearing, and I really appreciate all the work that you all have done, and your organizations. There is this tendency when you come in to try and do new things and build on--it is hard to say we want to have--I will just remember back when my predecessor was Governor Celeste, and he put a lot of money in ``Ohio is the heart of it all.'' And my people came in and said, ``We have got to change this.'' I said, ``What do you mean we have to change it?'' ``Well, we have to have our own thing.'' And I said, ``This State spent probably millions of dollars in hustling this `Ohio is the heart of it all.' Why would we want to change that?'' And then he put in place the Edison Centers. ``Well, we have got to have our own centers.'' I said, ``These things are working. Let's take what he has and let's build on it and make it better.'' That is why I think it is real important that you guys keep doing what you are doing so that we get this information over to whoever the next President is and they do not come in and try and reinvent the wheel, and take the best of your thoughts and put it together and also do a good job of coming up to the Hill and lobbying and try to get some of our colleagues to understand that some of these earmarks and so on really are not helping the situation and we are not getting the best return on our investment because it does not allow us to put our dollars where they are needed most. For example, the international de- mining group. And it is amazing to me how much money they are leveraging today. We put in, I think, $10 million, and they leverage another $10 million. And, frankly, they could even leverage more than that if we did the match. So there is this concept of how you can take your dollars and maximize them and get a bigger return on your investment is extremely important. That is why this public-private partnership I think is so important. The last thing I would say is that Senator Akaka and I have been trying for the last 10 years to deal with the issue of human capital, and we are talking about bringing people in from the middle level. Do you all believe that we have enough flexibilities to make that happen? Because I think the last time we looked, we only bring in about 13 percent of the people who work for the Federal Government that come in at a middle- level area. One of the things that we did was leave. If you work for the Federal Government--maybe it is different in the State Department. You are here for a year, you get 2 weeks. You are here for 3 years, you get 3 weeks. And then you are here for 15 years, and you can get a month. And we have changed that situation. We have changed the paying off of loans--well, that does not so much deal with people coming in at mid-level. But do you think we have enough flexibilities there to go after some of these folks? Mr. Adams. My sense, Senator, is that you do. The issue that Jerry Hyman put his finger on is real; that is, you are dealing with an existing workforce and you have brought most of them in at a non-mid-career level and created an expectation about how they will move up through the career ranks. And, inevitably, the management challenge in doing what you are recommending--and I think it is highly desirable--is managing the career expectations of the people who are there. One of the keys to this is on the budgetary side, ensuring that we are expanding what we are expecting of the organizations. And expanding their funding. We are going to recommend in the Stimson Report, an expansion of the number of positions, which will require more funding. More positions and more funding will help alleviate some of the tension Jerry Hyman is talking about. But it definitely is an HR management issue to ensure that as you recompose the workforce and bring in the skill sets you need, you are not creating resentment and ill will in the existing architecture. It is a management challenge, but my sense is in law there is virtually no impediment. The challenge is going to be in managing the regulations and structures in the HR processes in the organizations. Senator Voinovich. You are going to have to bring in somebody who is really good in terms of HR or identify somebody already in the shop that can really understand that. Mr. Adams. There are two keys here. One is bringing in somebody with the level of expertise and knowledge and credibility to run the foreign assistance operation, someone who really knows what they are doing. It is not just another political appointee. Somebody with real skills and talents. In my judgment, 75 percent of this is an HR issue, and that means bringing in somebody who has the real skill to do this HR job. Senator Voinovich. Thanks very much. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. There are many challenges that face our foreign assistance bureaucracy, not the least of which is, as we have been talking about, human capital. I believe that it is vitally important to establish a clear national strategy to not only guide our foreign aid efforts, but also to facilitate the effective management, coordination, and staffing so that our national interests can be attained. This Subcommittee will continue to focus on reforms of critical aspects of our national security. Our next hearing will explore the evolution of challenges to the public diplomacy bureaucracy. The hearing record will be open for 1 week for additional statements or questions from other Members of the Subcommittee. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44587.214