SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
46–498 CC
1998
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OVERSIGHT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 17, 1997
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN McHUGH, New York
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel
MARK S. KIRK, Counsel
CAROLINE G. COOPER, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
Hon. Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, Inspector General, Department of State
Hon. Jeffrey Rush, Inspector General, Agency for International Development
Mr. F.A. ''Tex'' Harris, Secretary, American Foreign Service Association
Mr. Frank Miller, Vice President, American Foreign Service Association for USAID
APPENDIX
Prepared statement of Hon. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers
Prepared statement of Hon. Jeffrey Rush and additional materials
Prepared statement of Mr. F.A. ''Tex'' Harris
AFSA Guidelines for Employees Involved in Inspector General, Diplomatic Security and Outside Law Enforcement Agency Investigations
Prepared statement of Mr. Frank Miller
AFSA Examples of Requesting Interviews Under False Pretenses
Compelled Interviews of Public Employees submitted by AFSA
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Responses to additional questions for the record from Hon. Jeffrey Rush
Responses to additional questions for the record from Hon. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, presiding.
Chairman GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations meets today to receive testimony from The Honorable Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, Inspector General of the Department of State, U.S. Information Agency and the Board of Broadcasting Governors and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Also, we will receive testimony from The Honorable Jeffrey Rush, Jr., Inspector General, the Agency for International Development; and from Mr. F.A. ''Tex'' Harris, Secretary of the American Foreign Service Association.
The Offices of Inspector General perform missions of crucial importance to our nation. Their job is to search out and report mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse within their respective departments; to investigate violations of the criminal law on the part of employees, contractors and others having contact with the department or agency; to review the accounts of the department or agency, and to advise the head of the agency and the Congress on their findings, including any suggestions for changes in the law that they may wish to bring to our attention. The State Department Office of Inspector General also carries out periodic inspections of the bureaus and overseas posts of the agencies under that office's jurisdiction.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our Committee has invited the Inspectors General to testify today and report directly on their most important recent findings and to respond to questions by the Committee. We are particularly interested in a few specific matters, such as their reflections and how the respective agencies are preparing for consolidation, and what issues need to be addressed in consolidation and convey those matters in letters to the IGs which will be made part of the record.
And, finally, the Office of Inspector General is granted all but complete independence in the way they carry out their functions. We are faced with the age-old question who guards the guardians. It is therefore important that this Committee provide adequate oversight of the Office of Inspector General's operations and respond to complaints that have been brought to our attention.
I know that there have been questions raised about the investigative practices at the Office of Inspector General of the State Department. I am grateful that the Committee on Government Reform Oversight's Committee on Government Management, Information and Technology held a hearing on this matter, at which its chairman, Congressman Horn, said he would be willing to consider legislative needs to address this problem on a comprehensive basis. I look forward to learning of his conclusions.
With regard to the AID/IG's office, I am also concerned about reports of low morale, the lack of retention of senior investigators, and the lower numbers of full audits requiring formal follow through. While you have done excellent work on the NMS computer, we are concerned about the lack of FSN auditors and the drop in formal reports.
We would like to begin by indicating our thanks to the two IGs who are appearing with us today, and to their staffs. There is no question that they are dedicated to helping the agencies they inspect and audit to improve their functioning, and to rooting out any waste, fraud and abuse. I would like to thank the two Inspectors' General offices for their responsiveness to our inquiries from this Committee.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Rush's office has been quite forward-leaning on the system of the fabled New Management System, or NMS, that AID management assisted on putting together, despite the fact that it required several waivers of standard regulations and practices. There is no question that AID was wrong in pushing the project forward. The Inspector General caught them, and AID finally pulled the plug on the $96 million failed computer system last month.
I will note that one of the problems with the computer was that it took up to 1 hour between key strokes at some stations, meaning that typing the name Atwood could have taken 7 hours to complete, creating somewhat of a problem. The NMF computer cost about $100 million that AID could not really afford to waste, and the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab or else Congress will be accused of shortchanging foreign aid and of being isolationist.
Mr. Rush, you have supervised the investigation of the infamous case of Harvard University employees working for the U.S. Government and using insider trading for themselves and their Russian friends to enrich themselves. This has been ground-breaking work and I want to learn how you will throw the book at this kind of wrongdoing.
I am also concerned about AID failing to meet the requirements of the CFO Act, the Results Act, and other important statutes that ensure performance and ensure a well-run ship. In reading your testimony, Mr. Rush, it is hard to find a statutory deadline that AID has met.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask both Ms. William-Bridgers and Mr. Rush to devote more time and attention to synthesizing the outcomes of your studies. You examine not just offices, but systems: systems that are intended to provide necessary controls. When you find symptoms or problems, you should look below the surface and ask is top level management managing properly. If they are not managing, why are they not doing so?
And so, I would like you to always think about what internal changes need to be made so that issues are addressed before they arise, not after you spot the need for a change and bring it to management's attention.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, finally, I would ask you to reflect on how common elements in your inspections or audits can best be brought to the attention of management and to the Congress. And by stating these concerns I do not want to indicate in any way that I have any lack of regard for the valuable and difficult job that you are doing, and I thank you for coming today and sharing your insights with us.
At this point I would like to ask our Ranking Minority Member, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, for any opening statement he may care to make.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate greatly the fact that you are having these hearings today, and I know you have a lot of topics to cover. I am especially interested, of course, in the manner in which the Inspector General of the State Department carries out investigative components of their oversight responsibilities. That, as you know, has been a topic of some concern to me and to the Committee, and to the House. The Chairman made reference to the hearings before the Government Reform Committee with Mr. Horn, and I appreciate that.
My particular interest is making sure that individuals who are under investigation have adequate notice about their rights both with regard to general notice in the form of up-to-date guidelines on the Office of the Inspector General, how you go about your investigations, your procedures, as well as specific notice when a person is the target of an investigation. And I have also been concerned about the practices and how information with respect to ongoing investigations is shared with the press, and I have tried to raise some of these concerns with some legislative language.
I am very much aware of the competing equities that are involved here—I know you are too—in trying to balance on the one hand the ability to carry out a thorough and careful investigation, and to carry out your responsibilities; and on the other hand to provide a fair process for individual employees who are the subject of the investigations.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since this little matter has come before us, I have received a lot of complaints about the investigative conduct of the office. Those complaints come both from political appointees as well as career foreign service officers. And so I think we have got some work to do here in seeing that a fair process is carried out.
I understand that you have concerns that we are just looking at your office, or at least I am in the amendment that I offered. Of course, I operate under restrictions here. We are only dealing with the State Department at the time that amendment came up, and this Committee does not have jurisdiction over other IGs.
I understand that you are concerned that the notice requirements and other aspects of my amendment might put you at a disadvantage with respect to other Inspector Generals. I think there are broader concerns that we have to look at, and I am very pleased that Congressman Horn is doing that. I think it is a good idea to address these concerns across the entire Inspector General community, and I want to be supportive of that effort. On the other hand, the complaints that I have had are very specific and they are with respect to your office, and that is the jurisdiction that I am having to deal with.
So I want to ask you a few questions at the appropriate time about where you stand in all of this and see if we can advance the discussion about our common interests in an investigate process that is both thorough and careful as well as fair to the persons who are the target of the investigations.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the hearing. I look forward to it, and will have questions at the appropriate time.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Any other Members seeking recognition? There are no other Members seeking recognition at this time. We will proceed with the testimony. I want to ask our witnesses if they may orally summarize their testimony and submit their testimony in full. And after you have made our oral presentations, our Members will be recognized for their questions.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, I will call on Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers. Ms. William-Bridgers became Inspector General in April 1995. She is a graduate of Syracuse University where she earned her undergraduate degree and a Master's from its Maxwell School of Public Affairs. Most of her government career was at the General Accounting Office where she compiled a most distinguished record working on housing and community development, and transportation issues.
Ms. Williams-Bridgers, without objection, your entire statement will be entered into the record, and after you complete your testimony I will be calling on Mr. Rush for his questions. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELYN L. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hamilton, and Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss the work of my office at the Department of State, USIA, and ACDA.
The Office of Inspector General has responded readily to the changing needs of the foreign affairs community in developing its new policy and organizational framework. In doing so our work has been framed by three strategic objectives over the past year. As described in our 5-year strategic plan these objectives encompass the following questions:
How well is U.S. foreign policy being implemented? Are the resources in the foreign policy community linked to policy priorities? And last, how well are platforms and infrastructures working to support foreign policy implementation?
Our first strategic objective is embodied in the mandate of responsibilities for my office—to assess implementation of foreign policy. In defining how we approach this objective, we have undertaken work that will help to answer the question of whether existing U.S. foreign policies are clear, comprehensive, and prioritized. For example, over the past 2 years, OIG has assessed existing national security policy for Africa and policy guidance from Washington to African posts. We have found the need for improved policy coordination in Washington and a better policy dialog between these posts and Washington. We have underscored the lack of clarity in U.S. policy toward many African countries that have persisted for several years.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have also raised a caution flag with regard to the potential consequences of drawing down U.S. resources, perhaps prematurely, for some operations. Policy instruments previously available to our ambassadors for carrying out their missions are in a downward spiral. Public diplomacy is an important tool for implementing foreign policy in many areas, including promoting democracies, human rights, and economic reform. Withdrawal of programs traditionally provided by AID and USIA, for example, will severely test the ability of our chiefs of missions to achieve broad policy objectives in this very important region.
State, in terms of its own resources, is not in particularly good shape in African countries. State direct-hire staff has been reduced in most posts and, given our limited interests, usually justifiably so. But these missions now have very little slack, no surge capacity and are inevitably hard to staff, particularly for administrative work, and, as our other agencies depart, State officers often have more to do.
The result? Long staffing gaps and inexperienced people filling the most responsible positions. This has negatively impacted our missions' ability to carry out their mandates. And it is going to get worse. As post size declines, it increasingly becomes difficult to maintain these essential support services, such as medical care and schools. In addition, burgeoning crime makes living in some countries very dangerous and unattractive to foreign service officers bidding on assignments.
Another aspect of our work that addresses foreign policy implementation asks: How are U.S. Government agency activities overseas coordinated?
Public diplomacy is an increasingly significant factor in the midst of the communications technology revolution. With unprecedented public access to information sources, it is imperative that accurate information on U.S. policies and goals be available to foreign government leaders. In most countries we inspected, the Public Affairs Officer was a significant member of the Ambassador's country team, skillfully using the media and developing exchange programs, conferences, and relations with the academic community. Building such long-term, positive relations helps embassies establish the basis for implementing U.S. foreign policies. As the agencies merge, OIG believes that public diplomacy must continue to serve as a critical foreign policy tool.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress also mandated that greater efficiencies be sought for consolidating international broadcasting and ultimately privatizing some broadcasting operations. The first of these initiatives was the move of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (RFE/RC) from Munich to Prague. We have examined issues related to the move, along with several areas in which the operation could achieve greater efficiencies.
Preliminary findings indicate progress in most areas. Despite the progress, RFE/RL needs to continue its efforts to improve administrative operations, particularly in the procurement and contracting area for use and payment for freelance services.
Subsequent to our merger with USIA/OIG, we established in the Office of Audits, a division focused on international broadcasting issues. Our initial broadcasting work pointed to the need to assess whether or not Radio Marti program content adheres to VOA broadcast standards and is consistent with the broad U.S. foreign policy objectives. This work is ongoing. Because of the importance of international broadcasting—a $400 million per year program—in the overall promotion of U.S. national interests abroad, full oversight of this program is critical. I am requesting the support of this Committee, Mr. Chairman, in clarifying the authority to oversee international broadcasting activities in comprehensive oversight consistent with the Inspector General Act.
Meeting our intelligence needs in this changing world is critical. We look to our chiefs of missions to ensure that intelligence activities in their jurisdictions are targeted on high priorities and are conducted consistent with the broader foreign policy and national policy interests.
Last year I created an intelligence oversight division to focus more sharply on the effectiveness of chief of mission policy oversight and coordination of intelligence activities. I will be regularly sharing the results of these intelligence oversight reviews with you in our classified annex to our semi-annual report.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The chief of mission also plays a critical role in overseeing the coordination of law enforcement activities at posts abroad. We will soon begin a worldwide audit to examine the coordination of overseas law enforcement activities and assess the effectiveness of INL programs in fighting international crime and improving foreign criminal justice systems. Meanwhile, our teams conducting their inspection will pay particularly close attention to law enforcement coordination in the field, especially the implementation of the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding between State, Justice and Treasury concerning chief of mission oversight.
Our second principle strategic objective frames OIG work in order to answer the question: Are resources linked to policy priorities?
To address foreign policy challenges, it is critical that the systems we have in place recruit the right people, properly train them, and assign them in accordance with foreign policy priorities.
Our recent reviews indicate some critical problems in the area of human resource management in all of our personnel systems: Foreign Service, Civil Service, Foreign Service National and locally employed personnel. Department operations suffer from serious staffing gaps throughout the world, especially in our hardship posts. Critical staffing shortages continue to exist in the area of administration and consular affairs; both have been identified as material weaknesses at the Department. We have also informed the Department of specific training deficiencies for officers working in procurement and contracting, administration, and the security area.
To further address our strategic goal of linking resources to priorities, we ask if there are effective systems in place to ensure that resource allocation decisions reflect those priorities. The Mission Program Planning process was designed to produce formal, written guidance on U.S. interests and policy goals in each country, to set out the courses of action to be undertaken in pursuit of those goals by all elements of the U.S. mission, to allocate resources, and to provide measures to gauge success.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A key finding in almost every embassy inspection during the last year was shortcomings in the ability of the mission program planning MPP process to produce timely, well-focused, and practical guidance for implementing policy and allocating resources. For example, in the Bureau of South Asian Affairs, there was no or little overall policy guidance for this region.
The Department has also embarked upon some imaginative initiatives to better link resources to policy decisionmaking. One such initiative in this regard is the Overseas Staffing Model. Another recent initiative is the Department of State Strategic Plan for International Affairs, which responds to the Government Performance and Results Act.
In your letter inviting me to testify today, Mr. Chairman, you asked for our assessment of management's implementation of GPRA, which requires that agencies submit a strategic plan by this September.
Because we have not yet seen all of the plans, and those that we have seen are still in draft, we have not yet been able to provide that comprehensive final assessment. However, the guidelines that have been issued for each of these agencies seem to indicate that the USIA and ACDA are using a systematic approach to establishing goals, objectives and strategies and performance measures. We will wait to see the final plans to make our final determination of the appropriateness and the seriousness of the goals and the resource linkages. The strategic and performance plans that we are developing in our own office include efforts for us to validate and to verify all the agencies' efforts to implement the Act.
In response to your request also, Mr. Chairman, in September 1996, we completed a review of whether budgetary rollbacks in security resources have endangered U.S. personnel, facilities and information. We found that the current security funding levels appear to afford a sufficient level of security to minimally protect people, information, and facilities. We expressed concern, however, that further reductions would undermine the Department's ability to provide adequate security, particularly in security staffing, information systems security, and the operation and maintenance of security equipment.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last, in the area of effective application of resources to priorities, the Department needs to upgrade its telecommunications and computing infrastructure as well as to modernize obsolete proprietary hardware and software. Although IRM has been a material weakness for several years, the Department has made little progress toward overcoming weaknesses and continues to use obsolete equipment for financial management, consular affairs, and telecommunications.
Our third and last strategic objective: How well are our platforms working?
To support and advance U.S. interests around the globe, the Department maintains some 250 diplomatic and consular posts in 164 countries, and provides the basis for more than 200 other U.S. Government entities abroad. As the Members of this Committee are well aware, this involves not just maintaining the physical buildings and myriad support systems and communications for the employees who work in these facilities, but also includes the basic infrastructures for operating in foreign cultures, and some 150 currencies, including everything from developing local compensation plans to providing passport, visa, and consular services.
Our work here has included looking at ICASS to determine whether it is achieving efficiency and effectiveness in cost allocation for administrative support of U.S. presence abroad. Our preliminary findings are positive. However, as diligently as the Department might work to implement ICASS, the success of this program will require the assistance of Congress to realign other agencies' budgets in accordance with the ICASS system.
We have also devoted considerable resources to conducting financial audits and helping the Department produce agency-wide financial statements. In fact, we have given the Department clean opinions on the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund for the past several years and a qualified opinion on the agency-wide Statement of Financial Position for Fiscal Year 1996.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beginning with 1997, my office will be auditing the entire set of agency-wide financial statements, including income and expense statements and financial information provided for other agencies' financial statements.
The Department is responsible for more than 12,000 office, residential, and other properties abroad. In the past, OIG found that the identification and disposal of overseas properties that are excess, underused or have become too costly to maintain was hindered by A/FBO's lack of a comprehensive system for identifying those surplus properties. A/FBO is now required to certify its property holdings annually.
Once such properties are identified, however, their disposal is often slow and bureaucratic. We have continued to press for the sale of these properties. However, weaknesses in the financial and information management systems continue to limit the Department's ability to manage its resources and track its inventory.
Are Department programs and security activities adequate?
One of my highest priorities is the oversight of Department security programs to protect lives and information. In today's fiscal environment, however, we must balance the need to adhere to the community security standards with the operational realities in the field where strict adherence is not always possible. With risk management, we can identify funds to be put to better use in certain low- and medium-threat environments where security measures in place may provide adequate security by meeting the spirit, if not the letter of the law.
Another question we address in reviewing the effectiveness of agency platforms is whether our visa and passport programs strengthen border security and deter fraud?
The Department has improved visa operations significantly in recent years. However, there is room for continued improvement in this area as well.
Another important facet of the Department's efforts to improve the issuance process is the machine-readable visa (MRV) program, used for issuing nonimmigrant visas. The MRV is not electronically authenticated at points of entry by INS or Customs, and the name check system used in some posts fails to identify individuals ineligible to enter the United States. OIG will assist the Department in correcting the remaining MRV deficiencies and encourage more widespread implementation of a new version of MRV.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last, in response to concerns raised specifically by Mr. Hamilton and others in the House, the OIG is committed to and goes to great lengths to protect the Secretary of State's ability to pursue the foreign policy objectives of the United States free from the impediments of waste, fraud, and abuse as the Congress intended and as the U.S. taxpayer deserves. The investigative process is a very important component of OIG's ability to detect and hold employees accountable in the Department of State, the USIA international broadcasting activities, the BBG, and ACDA. In the conduct of Federal criminal investigations, my investigators operate under the same legal guidelines and exercise the same law enforcement authorities as other Federal law enforcement entities such as the FBI, the DEA, and the INS.
My office is charged with fraud prevention as well as fraud detection. Toward that objective, my office engages in several activities including preparing and distributing Fraud Alert Bulletins and Management Implication Reports, conducting training, distributing informational pamphlets and booklets, all in the name of proactive engagement with the employees in our Department and agencies.
In response to your request, Mr. Chairman, my office is also reviewing the adequacy of administrative actions taken by the three foreign affairs agencies in response to our reports and investigations. Our report has been drafted and is currently being reviewed within these agencies. Our preliminary conclusions are that generally these agencies are responsive to OIG reports of investigation and have disciplinary processes in place to assure procedural protections for employees. There are, nevertheless, many areas requiring improvement in order to increase the deterrent impact of administrative disciplinary actions, including the need for standardized penalty guidelines, more restrictive use of prescriptive relief, a heightened threshold for the level of sanctions that can be grieved to the Foreign Service Grievance Board, and better recordkeeping within the agencies.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams-Bridgers appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Williams-Bridgers.
Now we will call upon Mr. Jeffrey Rush, Jr. Mr. Rush was appointed Inspector General of the Agency for International Development September 1994; spent most of his career with the Office of Inspector General, Department of Agriculture, concentrating in the area of investigations, and was acting Inspector General of the Peace Corps for about 1 year, in 1993 through 1994. He was a counterintelligence specialist with the army from 1968 to 1971. Mr. Rush was born in Kansas; has a Bachelor's Degree from Baker University, and is a graduate of the George Mason School of Law, and a member of the bars of Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Rush, your full statement will be entered in the record. We would welcome an oral summary, and then proceed to questions. You may proceed, Mr. Rush.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY RUSH, JR., INSPECTOR GENERAL, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Chairman Gilman, Ranking Member Hamilton, Members of the Committee and Committee staff, good morning, and thank you for another opportunity to appear before this Committee.
Today, I will discuss OIG resources, organization, staffing, and accomplishments, and I will also discuss how USAID's management is addressing its financial management, information technology, and results management challenges.
First, the Office of Inspector General is currently organized in four units: a legal counsel and management staff, a security staff, an investigation staff, and an audit staff.
Our legal counsel and deputy legal counsel, who is also our assistant for management, head of staff that has 32 full-time employees. My counsel serves as a deputy designated agency ethics official and provides annual ethics training for all Washington-based OIG employees. In addition, counsel reviews all of the required filings of financial disclosure forms for OIG employees, all Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests, and serves me as my legal counsel with respect to execution of OIG subpoenas.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Assistant Inspector General for management supervises personnel, budget, acquisition, information, resource, management and administrative services. That staff is divided into three units.
Our personnel services staff supports both the Civil Service and Foreign Service Personnel Programs. They provide a full range of service, including relocation of overseas staff, retirement employee benefits, classification staffing, promotion awards, and training.
Our budget and acquisition staff has faced many challenges in the past 2 years. That staff manages the operating budget and assists me in budget formulation, budget submission, and budget execution.
Our acquisition staff processes security equipment shipments to overseas missions and awards a wide range of small and large contracts for our background investigations programs and our general supply services and professional services.
During 1995 and 1996, our OIG undertook the development of an Information Strategic Plan. In order to achieve the goals of that plan, we established an information management staff. That staff has refined our work requirements for network services such as Internet presence and use, enterprise-wide CD-ROM access, E-mail and PC facsimile capability.
The Assistant Inspector General for security is responsible for supervising the performance of security activities relating to all of USAID's programs and operations. That assistance is also the agency representative on the Overseas Security Policy Board and the Overseas Security Advisory Council. The office has 35 full-time positions.
Our information and personnel security programs involve the conduct and adjudication of background investigations and the training of USAID programs in the proper handling and storage of classified information. OIG security has conducted mandatory training for all new-hire personnel in USAID and annual refresher training for all USAID personnel on the proper procedures for creation, storage, handling of national security and classified information. Since April 1995, more than 4,000 employees and contractors have been trained by that staff.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our physical security program provides state-of-art physical countermeasures against terrorism, espionage, sabotage and crimes directed against USAID employees, personnel service contractors and dependents. The physical security program is designed to provide a 24-hour security umbrella for USAID employees and their dependents. Our domestic physical security program involves the design, procurement and operation of security alarms, access devices and other systems and guard services for USAID facilities in Washington.
The Assistant Inspector General for investigations is responsible for supervising investigative operations throughout USAID. The investigation staff is allocated 30 full-time positions and is organized into two divisions. We have a domestic division that handles sensitive investigations and enforcement operations in one team, and program fraud in another team. Our overseas division is made up of resident agents who are assigned to each of the OIG overseas field offices. The IG investigation staff conducts investigations of apparent violations of rules, regulations and laws. When we have reason to believe that a Federal crime has been committed, we report directly to the Department of Justice.
Our Federal criminal investigations involve working with U.S. Attorney's Offices throughout the country. These investigations often involve collaboration with other Federal agencies, notably the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and with other Offices of Inspector General.
Today, more than in prior years, these investigations may result in the deputization of our investigators as U.S. Marshals. This is necessary for them to carry out their law enforcement duties such as making arrests and executing warrants.
Overseas investigations offer special challenges and differ from our domestic investigations program. USAID/OIG investigators working overseas must cope with language and cultural differences and comply with host country laws governing the investigative process. Overseas criminal investigators are often complicated by the need to involve the host country foreign ministry and host country investigative agencies. OIG investigators are limited in their authority to question host country nationals. When this is permitted the investigator must follow the particular steps found in legal assistance treaties or agreements.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Assistant Inspector General for audit is responsible for supervising the performance of the audit of USAID's programs and operations. That office is organized along functional lines in Washington, DC and along geographic lines overseas. Auditing activities involve both financial and performance audits of USAID programs and operations. USAID audit activity totaled 512 audits and related reports during the past two semi-annual reporting periods. Those reports identified more than $44.8 million in costs or funds that could be put to a better use.
We have been increasingly concerned about our accountability of non-U.S. grantees, and it has led us into a new relationship with recipient government audit organizations commonly called Supreme Audit Institutions. These organizations present us with an opportunity to not only approve accountability over foreign assistance but to help develop a recipient country's own audit capability. We have found this to be a very cost-effective method of expanding our audit reach while helping developing countries improve their own capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, as you know the USAID directly contributes to the achievement of U.S. foreign policy goals through its development and humanitarian assistance programs. Sustainable development is the process leading to a lasting increase in the capacity of society to improve the quality of life for its people. Humanitarian assistance, which contributes to crisis prevention and mitigation, is also an essential part of sustainable development.
The OIG's oversight of USAID is principally driven by the congressionally mandated audit assignments that I would like to list:
First, the Financial Managers Financial Integrity Act; second, the Chief Financial Officer's Act; third, the Government Performance and Results Act; fourth, the Government Management Reform Act; fifth, the Clinger-Cohen Act, formerly known as the Information Technology Management Reform Act; and finally, the Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996.
These mandates have led us to emphasize three areas in our audit program, and they are financial management, information technology management, and results management.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First let me speak about the financial management audit program. The Chief Financial Officer's Act was passed in 1990 and required 24 Federal agencies to prepare audited financial statements of revolving funds, trust funds and other entities performing substantial commercial operations. Among other things, the purpose of the CFO Act was to provide for the production of complete, reliable, timely and consistent financial information for the use of the executive branch and for the Congress in financing, managing and evaluating Federal programs.
The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 currently governs the preparation and the audit of financial statements. Financial statement audits provide reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements of an audited entity fairly present the financial position, the results of operations and the cash flows in conformity with generally accepted auditing principles and other accepted bases of accounting. An audit report of a financial statement renders an opinion.
With regard to USAID's Fiscal Year 1996 GMRA financial statements, we disclaimed an opinion on whether the statements were presented fairly because USAID had not prepared complete, reliable, timely or consistent financial information.
With respect to USAID's internal control systems, these systems often require multiple re-entry of data, maintenance of supplemental accounting records and lengthy and burdensome reconciliation processes. The systems do not contain sufficient discipline, effective internal controls and reliable financial information.
The USAID management has reported these weaknesses for many years under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. To date, little corrective action has been taken.
Information Technology Management: The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 makes each agency head responsible for implementing a process to maximize return and manage the risk associated with information technology investments. The Act establishes a chief information officer who reports directly to the agency head and is responsible for working with other senior executives to promote effective processes for managing information systems.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During Fiscal Year 1997, we continued our efforts to identify opportunities for USAID to improve its management of information and to implement the requirements of Clinger-Cohen. We have focused on the actions needed to successfully implement our so-called New Management Systems. As you know, NMS has encountered severe problems and significant additional funding may be required to correct software and design defects that currently prevent the system from operating effectively. Reliable information about the costs needed to complete NMS development will not be known until USAID completes an analysis of the technical and implementation problems and decides on a course of action to correct these problems.
We have recommended that USAID reduce these risks by continuing its use of existing systems on a parallel basis during deployment.
Our audit report concluded that USAID must act aggressively and recommended specific actions to correct the deficiencies to ensure USAID achieves its potential. But let me stop just to make clear, Mr. Chairman, that I received a response from Administrator Atwood on Monday, and I am just now making that available to Members of this Committee, and I hope each of you have received a copy of the Administrator's response to our audit of NMS. I can generally say that his very detailed response agrees with most of the recommendations that we have made and I look forward to meeting with him in the next few days to bring that matter to resolution.
Chairman GILMAN. We have received that response.
Mr. RUSH. Good. I will speak briefly about information security because the problems of information security are directly related to other problems in the NMS.
We are concerned that USAID has not established an adequate organizational framework to implement effective information security policies and procedures. These deficiencies increase the risk of vulnerability to threats such as diverting funds for personal gain; inappropriate accessing of information and unauthorized external access to USAID information.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will also just speak briefly about the so-called ''Year 2000'' problem. For those of you who do not understand this problem let me briefly state that most computers have an internal calendar that relies upon the last two digits of a particular year to distinguish its data. What this means is that the year 2000 will look the same as the year 1900 because only the last two digits, the two zeroes, show up on your computers.
The USAID has not fully implemented the GAO suggested practices to resolve the ''Year 2000'' problem. In fact, a recent study funded by USAID management determined that many serious date handling problems exist in NMS already and will prevent the system from processing year 2000 dates. Reports from users, in fact, indicate that NMS has already encountered these problems. Missions have reported that when information for out-years 2000, 2001, 2002 have been entered the dates are changed to 1900, 1901 and 1902.
I will close my summary by discussing our recent work under the Results Act. The OIG is continuing to audit the agency's ongoing process to meet the Government Performance and Results Act requirements. We have issued two agency-wide audits, and in our second agency-wide audit of USAID implementation, we have found four areas of emphasis. The first is how USAID is organizing the implementation process, and the last three relate to its efforts to develop a strategic plan, an annual performance plan and annual performance reports.
Concerning USAID's efforts to complete the required strategic plan covering at least 5 years by September 30 of 1997, USAID has submitted a draft to the Office of Management and Budget. The plan is not yet finalized and we have had some opportunity to comment and review it. In our report we have emphasized particular issues which we believe would be critical to the agency's strategic plan. They are: One, obtaining agreement from Congress on the strategic objective approach; two, determining who should develop the strategies for programs in the new Independent States and Central and Eastern Europe; and, three, resolving the attribution and aggregation of results issues with OMB.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope you have received copies of that audit. There is a detailed discussion of the issues of aggregation and attribution of data in that report.
Chairman GILMAN. We have received a copy of that audit.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I will close by just directing your attention, and the attention of Members and staff to attachments that I have made to my formal statement. I am providing you a copy of the biography of each of the senior staff members of the OIG. I am also providing you a list of the audits and investigations that are referred to in my detailed testimony.
And, finally, to give you some idea of what is happening to our program overseas, I have provided a table that has just been prepared that reflects the Secretary's approval of our office in Manila, and gives you some indication of how we will deploy our resources overseas in the next few months.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush appears in the appendix.]
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush, to the extent possible, can you brief the Committee on the extent of insider trading and other activities alleged against Harvard University employees that were working for AID in Russia?
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, as you know, on May 20 of 1997 the agency suspended two cooperative agreements to the Harvard Institute for International Development. That suspension came as a result of information discovered by AID officials in Russia and work done by investigators that I dispatched to work in-country for several weeks.
As you know, because this matter is being worked jointly with the Department of Justice, I am not at liberty to say much about the status of the investigation. When I met with you and with Ranking Member Hamilton on May 22, I tried to be a little more forthcoming. What I can tell you is that we have issued a number of IG subpoenas and we have a new team back in Russia. We are doing a 100 percent review of costs incurred under those two agreements, and I look forward to bringing this matter to some resolution in the next few months.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Are the Harvard employees still employed by AID?
Mr. RUSH. No, their relationship with AID ended with the suspension.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rush, we have a massive AID program in Egypt. Yet the IG staff has no Egyptian FSN or employee who speaks the language. In fact, you have no FSNs anywhere. Given that AID operates overseas in many high-corruption areas where local language and customs may be key in investigations, how can you operate without FSNs while the parent agency hires thousands?
Mr. RUSH. First, let me be sure you understand we do employee FSNs. What I did in early 1995 was make a decision to dramatically reduce the number of foreign service nationals in our nonadministrative program.
Said another way, I made a decision in early 1995 to end or not renew all of the contracts for our foreign service national auditors and investigators. This decision was made as a result of looking at budget realities and the downsizing of the agency. Simply stated, I made a decision in 1995 to save $1.2 million in indirect cost and more than $2 million in direct cost in salaries, and I do not regret it.
When I entered in late 1994, USAID/OIG was looking at a budget and an appropriation in the Fiscal Year 1995, of roughly $39 million, a budget that had been going up. As you know in the current year we are operating with less than $29 million, and we have to make difficult decisions about how we fund and how we administer our program.
I can tell you that in those posts where language is essential, so-called language-designated posts, all of our auditors and all of our investigators are language-proficient.
With respect to your specific concern in Cairo, to the extent that we need external support on language, we have the full ability to get that support. That is very different than employing on a regular basis foreign service nationals as auditors or investigators.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Do you feel you have sufficient personnel then?
Mr. RUSH. No one has sufficient personnel. We have enough personnel to work the major issues that face our agency. If someone were to give me another 100 people, I could put them to work.
Chairman GILMAN. I am sure.
Mr. RUSH. But if you were to take away 25, we would find a way to continue to work on the important issues confronting our office.
Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rush, you noticed in your semi-annual report, page one, that ''Premature deployment of the New Management System increased the agency's vulnerabilities of fraud and abuse.''
After $96 million, how much longer and how much more money will it take to fix the NMS?
Mr. RUSH. We do not know how long or how much. What we have now is an improved process. We now have an agency that is saying openly, if you look at the letter from Administrator Atwood, that we have a problem and we are going to fix it. But better than that we have a process that now involves the very auditors with information technology experience working directly with program managers and developers.
I am also very pleased to see that the Administrator has made a decision to hire a senior official as the chief of the agency's IRM staff. And as I understand it, that person is going to report next week. We will welcome him at USAID and I believe we can move forward to get the system going.
Chairman GILMAN. Have you any idea of the amounts of money AID has lost through the funds paid by violating the Prompt Payment Act?
Mr. RUSH. I have provided a summary of that information earlier this year. I will update that for the record. I do not want to give you a bad number. Clearly, the amount is going up this year, and will be substantially more than the Prompt Payment penalties paid in either Fiscal Year 1995 or 1996.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman GILMAN. Can you give us some guesstimate of what that is?
Mr. RUSH. I hate to gives you guesses. We have a very capable audit staff and program. We can give you a detailed number.
You may recall I gave you a memoranda on this subject about 6 months ago, and the number came out of the agency's records.
[Ms. Williams-Bridgers submitted the answer following the hearing.]
According to the USAID Financial Management staff, interest penalties paid by USAID Washington totaled $462,772.08 as of July 31, 1997. And the overseas payment centers have reported interest penalties totaling $13,544.72, as of June 30, 1997.]
Chairman GILMAN. Ms. Williams-Bridgers, in your final report's discussion of work in Suriname you note that ''The United States was generally aloof during the cold war, leaving the field to the Dutch, the former colonial power.'' Then you state that ''A movement toward democracy in the early years of this decade offered an opportunity that the United States was unable to exploit coinciding as it did with retrenchment of most overseas programs.''
You stated something similar to this about Africa earlier today. You imply here that making additional resources available would have solved these problems.
How much more funding would you have needed to accomplish that?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Funding certainly is an issue. We are not in a position to say today how much additional funding would address some of the problems. But there are more fundamental problems that need to be addressed within the Department to respond to the types of staffing problems that we have at post. It is a combination of not exercising discipline in our assignments process to ensure that appropriate levels of staff are committed commensurate with foreign policy priorities at particular posts and in particular countries.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department is making great efforts in that direction now with development of an Overseas Staffing Model which will take into consideration the type of work that is done in each country, the mission of particular posts and what the appropriate levels of staffing should be. Hopefully, with movement and implementation of the Overseas Staffing Model and implementation of a new resource planning process that will attach people to the conceptual models, we will have better deployment of our resources commensurate with the policy priority and objectives in individual countries.
Chairman GILMAN. Could not the Department have found the money if it felt it was that important?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. There is a need to make regional and organizational realignments of resources. But currently that process is not working very well in the Department to allow it to make good, clear decisions.
Chairman GILMAN. Well, who has the responsibility of pinpointing that money and allocating it?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Currently that responsibility is dispersed throughout the Department. Geographic bureaus and functional bureaus have much more control over their resources now than I think the Department would like to ultimately have in the future. What they want is a well understood, objective process for making decisions to reallocate resources across regional and geographic lines, and they are moving in that direction.
Chairman GILMAN. Will that help the Department deal with new opportunities?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Absolutely. The Overseas Staffing Model has one of its four principal objectives to look at appropriate as staffing levels for new posts.
Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to raise some questions on the investigative procedures. I think you understand that my interest here is that I have been concerned that individuals have been denied due process rights, lack of fair notice and so forth, on criminal investigation interviews. And I know that Chairman Horn, in the Government Reform Subcommittee, had a hearing on this in which I participated and I think you did as well. And I believe that Chairman Horn asked you to come up with some legislative language at some date—I am not sure of the date—and that Senator Helms has made a similar request from the Senate side.
Now, we are going to go to conference next week on the State Department authorization bill, so this is a matter that is immediately before us.
Do you at this point have some proposals to give? What is your timeframe on all of that?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. At the conclusion of the hearing we had agreement with Mr. Horn that the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the professional association of Offices of Inspectors General, would collectively address the concerns——
Mr. HAMILTON. Yes.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS [continuing]. that had been raised during the course of that hearing.
We are in the process now of responding to a survey that Mr. Horn's office has developed, asking us to describe and explain the investigative processes and the types of information that we share with employees.
Mr. HAMILTON. Are you drafting any legislative language at this point?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Well, Mr. Horn's office specifically instructed us first to respond to this survey, so he could get a better sense of what the existing policies and practices are throughout the OIG community, and then I believe he was going to come back to us to request some help in specifically drafting legislation to be directly responsive.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. You understand my timeframe.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. I understand.
Mr. HAMILTON. We are going to be confronted with this in the next week.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. I understand, sir. Mr. Horn——
Mr. HAMILTON. Less than a week.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Mr. Horn had established a deadline for us, and I will ask my colleague here, I believe of this week to respond back to that survey. But I am not yet certain of the future deadlines that Congressman Horn established.
Mr. HAMILTON. Well, let me be very clear. We are drafting legislation on this next week, and I know it is a tough problem. I mean, I am not unaware of some of the difficulties you confront. But I have to address this next week. Mr. Gilman will have to address it next week. And I was hopeful that we would have some legislative language proposals in front of us. But you are saying that your time schedule is quite a bit different from that.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Our time schedule has been established by Mr. Horn's office, and so I am not quite certain of what the dates are that Mr. Horn has established for further refining any legislative proposal.
Mr. HAMILTON. Well, he is dealing with a lot broader playing field, of course, than I am because I am looking at the State Department OIG.
Well, let me just say to you that if you want some input into this process when this comes up, you are going to have to get it to me pretty quickly. Otherwise, I am on my own and you will never know where I may end up on this.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Well, certainly I would appreciate your input in this process, sir. So I would like for us to be responsive to the timeframes that you must be responsive to.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. Now, I was just informed a little while ago about some new FBI rules on internal investigations. These are administrative investigations, not criminal. My primary concern has been criminal, but these are administrative investigations. And they within the last few months have come up with a new procedure which includes, No. 1, the right to have an attorney present in an interview; and No. 2, a requirement that an investigation be defined as criminal or administrative at the start of the process. Criminal charges may not arise out of an administrative investigation. And No. 3, you have to do it in 60 days.
I think this is a very positive step forward on the part of the FBI. Now, this comes out of the Office of Professional Responsibility. I guess that is comparable to the IG operation for you. I like that kind of approach. So I hope you will be considering something similar to that very carefully. You know, the thing that really, really bothers me is to have a person under a criminal investigation and they go into that room and they do not know they are under a criminal investigation, and they do not have a lawyer present, and they have got a lot of sharp Inspectors General in there and all your lawyers, and possibly a Justice Department prosecutor. And let me tell you that is not exactly due process of law the way I define it. That is my big concern.
I want to raise one other question if I may with you, and I think you understand that concern. I know that you have investigations that involve undercover and intelligence-related investigations, and I know that is a problem for you in the context I am raising it. I also am under the impression, however, that most of the targets of your criminal investigations do not fall under either undercover or intelligence-related categories. You can comment on that, but that is my general impression.
Now, the other point I want to raise with you is a matter of records. One of the things we have noticed as we have gotten into this is there is a huge discrepancy between what the interviews—the persons being interviewed, the target of the investigation, allege was said and what the IG agent's report said. And the discrepancy is really quite remarkable.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, is there no record kept of these interviews at this point?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Yes.
Mr. HAMILTON. Do you not have a recording of it, a transcript of it?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Our practice is that our agents, and generally there are two in the room, take contemporaneous notes. Then they transcribe those written notes into a written record of interview. This is the common practice and that——
Mr. HAMILTON. But that is your employee, your person, right?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. That is the——
Mr. HAMILTON. I mean, why not just have a tape recorder or a stenographer present?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. In some occasions we do have a third person. That may be an interpreter, but that is a side issue, I think, from the central issue that you are talking about.
In the law enforcement community it is considered fairly problematic to have a tape-recorded interview, and let me explain why. For many of the same reasons that you have expressed concern about public disclosure of ongoing investigations, we would have that very same concern if the subject of a criminal investigation tape recorded a conversation and then had that tape recorded conversation available for their use, possible future alteration and publication to the public during the course of the investigation. It would jeopardize the integrity of our investigation. I think it would exacerbate some of the very same problems that you have mentioned about public disclosure.
Mr. HAMILTON. Well, would there not just be an official record kept?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. There is an official——
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. No, no, but you are talking about note taking. I am talking about a recorded transcript of it. That would be an official one.
I can understand your concern. Suppose I had a tape recorder hidden here in my pocket.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Exactly.
Mr. HAMILTON. And I can do anything. I can doctor that any way I want.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Certainly.
Mr. HAMILTON. That is fair enough. But why would there not be an official recording, a tape recorder or a stenographer present?
I mean, these hearings can become terribly important. You are not fooling around here. Somebody can go to jail.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Let me raise another point with you. In criminal investigations we have engaged the Department of Justice. Federal prosecutors do not like the limitation of flexibility of tape recorded conversations whereby they could not go back to the subject of an interview and pursue a particular point. The concern there is that once there is a record of an interview documented on tape that it then limits pursuit of certain issues that may have been raised during the course of that——
Mr. HAMILTON. That is very hard for me to understand. Now, either party can object to an accurate record of what was kept, what was said at the hearing. And I am very impressed by the number of complaints we have had about about the discrepancies that exist between what the targeted person says and what the IG report says. There are just too many discrepancies there. And it seems to me it is a simple matter to correct. It is a simple matter to correct; just have an official transcript kept.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. I too have heard some, not many, some——
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. How in the world can a prosecutor object to that?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. This is what they have told us, and we operate under their supervision when they are engaged in a criminal investigation.
But, Mr. Hamilton, I too have heard some concerns expressed about the accuracy of reflection of our notes with what subjects of interviews have later said. And then upon further comparison and review of the notes we have found that our notes hold; that our notes have been substantiated; that our record of the interview is substantiated. So I would invite your office to sit down with my office on specific cases where those concerns have been raised so that you can——
Mr. HAMILTON. Look, if I were the target of a criminal investigation, and I go into that room and you are keeping all the notes, I am not going to be in a position to trust your notes. I want to see a transcript of what was said there. I mean, that just seems to me basic fairness. If I am the targeted guy, we are on opposite sides, and I think I am entitled to an accurate transcript, not somebody note taking. Note taking is a very different thing from what I am talking about.
And I must say if a prosecutor objects to that, I do not understand it, but maybe they have their reasons for it.
Well, in any event, you understand the point, and the point is that I think there are just too many discrepancies here between the different reports we get on what happens inside that room. That is the important consideration for me, but the major consideration is this one of notice. I just do not want that person walking into a room where he or she is going to be the target of a criminal investigation and not be alerted to it and not having opportunity to bring their counsel in there.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Might I respond to a couple——
Mr. HAMILTON. You keep in mind my time schedule now.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAMILTON. I am going to be writing this law without your help.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. No, you will have our help.
Mr. HAMILTON. Next week.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. You will have our help.
Mr. HAMILTON. OK.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Might I respond to a couple of points that you raise, though on the FBI guidelines?
Mr. HAMILTON. Yes.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. I have not had the benefit of seeing those, but I will look at those closely. It really did not sound from your brief read of it too far afield from where we stand in providing information or advice of rights to individuals that become subject of investigation, and clearly defining when they are subject of a criminal versus an administrative investigation.
With regard to the types of cases that we undertake, you are quite right. I do not think that we could characterize the majority of our cases as being either undercover or falling within the intelligence purview, although a considerable number do. But the concern that I always had about the legislation as proposed is that it would affect joint investigations. Clearly, between 30 and 40 percent of our investigations are conducted jointly with other Federal law enforcement entities. And therefore any legislation that was specifically focused at us would put us at odds in the more serious and more significant cases.
Mr. HAMILTON. I understand. We will work with you in trying to get a satisfactory arrangement here.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Right.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. I do not think we are all that far apart. The FBI document I am referring to is a March 5 document. It goes to all their special agents, and I am sure——
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. I will read that.
Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. ——it is available to you.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Mr. Hamilton, may I also make one point? And I want to talk a little bit about the effect of advance notice.
Within this past year, the period that much of my testimony focused on, we had two very significant investigative cases. Both involved Department of State employees. Both involved embezzlements. The total sum of monies stolen from the Department of accounts by these two employees reached a little over one-half million dollars. In neither of those investigations did we give advance notice to those employees and in one case we were conducting an interview with another investigative entity; nor did we give them advance notice that they had a right to counsel, nor did we give them advance notice of the types of rights that you have delineated there.
I would have been extremely concerned that we would not have been able to stem the flow of funds out of Department of State accounts and into those individuals' personal accounts had we been required to give advance notices to those individuals.
Certainly the types of cases that we do, 20 percent of our cases on average, are employee theft cases, another 20 percent——
Mr. HAMILTON. Look, the seriousness of the charge is not relevant. A person accused of a crime has due process rights in this country.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Yes.
Mr. HAMILTON. And your statement here makes me very uneasy. It suggests to me that because they are being accused of something that is very bad, stealing a lot of money, they do not have a right to be notified. I do not accept that.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Mr. Hamilton, due process as defined in law is specifically prescribed by the Constitution and the Supreme Court in case law. Due process is determined to attach to an individual at a certain point in time when an individual is taken into custody. Due process is defined by law, and it is generally characterized——
Mr. HAMILTON. You agree, do you not, that persons accused of crime have certain rights?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Yes, they do.
Mr. HAMILTON. They have a right to an attorney, do they not?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. They do. When they are placed in a custodial situation they have a right to be advised of their——
Mr. HAMILTON. Do you think it is fair to have somebody come into your room with a criminal prosecutor from the Justice Department sitting there, not be advised that the Justice Department prosecutor is there, not be advised ahead of time that they are a target of a criminal investigation? Do you think that is fair to that person?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. No, nor does my office operate that way.
Mr. HAMILTON. Neither do I. I think you have been acting like that.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. In the case that you have cited in the past, sir, we identified the other law enforcement official that accompanied us as soon as we walked in the room. We gave them our cards. We identified——
Mr. HAMILTON. They were not advised of their right to counsel.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Because it was——
Mr. HAMILTON. There was no transcript kept of what was occurring.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. It was no interview, sir. There was no interview of that individual at that time. That individual——
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAMILTON. My reaction to what you are saying here is exactly what I thought. Your office is not sufficiently sensitive to the rights of people that are accused of crime. That is my impression.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we have an understanding when Secretary Albright first started the tenure of her capacity as our Secretary of State that our State Department cannot afford to operate on the cheap, and that seems to be the going phrase now that is very popular, I am sure even among those who are with the State Department. But recently we had a very serious debate in the Congress concerning the total value given to our embassy offices that we have overseas. And I wanted to ask if there is any valuation given or taken by the OIG's office? What is the total value of our embassies that we have abroad?
We have a $70-million embassy in El Salvador; a $90-million embassy in Thailand. How does the State Department go around determining—what kind of evaluation do we put on the kind of embassies?
I mean, I do not mean to suggest that our ambassadors should be living out in the ghetto, but at the same time if they are living in castles and palaces and given this kind of a recognition at the same time when Madame Secretary Albright is saying we cannot afford to live on the cheap, I just wanted to ask you has there been any valuation taken by the IG's office about balancing the overindulgence sometimes, in my observation, to why are we still having this $70-million pink elephant in El Salvador with a population of only 5 million people? What is the State Department doing about it? Are we going to sell it? Are we going to make it worth our investment and maybe reprogram the total value of that $70-million facility that is sitting there? What are we doing about tightening up the ship a little bit there and seeing that—I do believe that our ambassadors should live comfortably, but I think sometimes living excessively is not my idea of how the taxpayers' money should be spent.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. We have spent much time and attention looking at real property, looking at our inventory, looking at the systems that the Department has in place to account for the value of the property. We have done it as part of our financial statement audit work and we have also done it as part of our property and procurement audits.
What we found is that the Department is just now getting a good handle by way of a good management information system on its inventory, but it is quite difficult in many countries, in many locations, to place a value, to estimate the value of the real estate. Sometimes the property itself does not have a market in a particular country, so there it becomes quite difficult.
But you raise an interesting point and one that the Department has focused some attention on but it needs to do much more, and that is for those properties that are underutilized, for those properties that are no longer serving a useful purpose to the mission that we have articulated at post, then we need to dispose of those properties or find alternative uses for those properties, and therein lies the rub.
Last year Congress asked the Department to establish a real estate advisory panel to seriously consider those properties—a very long list of properties that both the GAO and OIG had identified over many years as being underutilized—as being no longer useful to the purposes that we have at that mission. That real estate advisory panel has met three times, I believe. They looked at a very short list of those properties that GAO had initially identified and decided on some action on about four of them. I think three of the properties they moved to put on a list to dispose of, and another one they wanted more information on.
We have also in OIG, not just focusing on ambassadorial residences and the like, but we have also looked at the general housing inventory for most of our foreign service officers there, and we found that the Department has made improvements in past practices of leasing housing that exceeded the standards established for U.S. Government employees overseas. So we have made some improvements there.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But, again, I do not know of a number, and I certainly will check and provide it for the record of a total value estimate of even that housing.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think that would be very helpful. I would appreciate if you could submit that for the record.
[The answer was submitted following the hearing.]
The Department's fiscal year 1996, Consolidated Statement of Financial Position presented the approximated historical cost of real property less accumulated depreciation at $4.4 billion (this includes $449 million of domestic real property) as of September 30, 1996. Real property includes land, residential units and functional use buildings such as embassies and consulates, other office buildings, and support facilities as well as construction in process.
Mr. Rush, you indicated earlier that the AID has made substantial efforts to cut the level of employment of our foreign nationals in our embassies or in our operations overseas. Is this also true of the State Department, Ms. Williams-Bridgers?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. I am sorry. I missed the question. That we have?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Cut the level of employment or the number of employees of foreign nationals overseas in the overall structure of the State Department. Mr. Rush commented on that with AID's operations.
My question is are we doing this overall with the State Department?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. The overall numbers of employees overseas has been reduced, but I will have to supply that information for the record as to the exact numbers of foreign service nationals that have been reduced.
[The answer was submitted following the hearing.]
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to the Department's Bureau of Personnel, Office of Resource Management and Organization Analysis, foreign national full time equivalent (FTE) has declined 16.4% (1545 FTE) since fiscal year 1993. The data for each fiscal year from 1993 to 1997 is as follows:
FY 1993: 9424
FY 1994: 9195
FY 1995: 8617
FY 1996: 8121
FY 1997: 7879 (FY 1997 data as of June 1997)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And what basically is the basis of hiring so many foreign nationals? Is it because of language or?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. There are many reasons. Language is one. Cost is another. Salaries or compensation for foreign nationals is much less than it would be for Americans assigned overseas. The cost of housing, there is no cost of housing basically for foreign nationals where the cost of housing Americans overseas is tremendously expensive.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is there a certain level that employees or the foreign service officers are allowed to do this very extensive 6-month language training program, or does anybody in the State Department, are they allowed that privilege of training before going overseas to let us say if I wanted to go to Central America and I apply for language training before going? But regardless of whether you are an ambassador, or what, are foreign service officers allowed that privilege pretty much discretionary or pretty much allowed very easily to participate in language training?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. There is some discretionary training available to foreign service officers. However, just last year we completed a study looking at the language incentives program, which is a fairly expensive multimillion dollar program, investment program that the Department of State makes in its employees that are going to language-designated posts. Mr. Rush mentioned that in his testimony.
What we found there was that there were excesses in the compensation provided to foreign service officers going to language-designated—certain language-designated posts. First, we found the list was too long. It needed to be reviewed for the relevance of designation of some of those posts but——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I know my time is up. I am sorry. I did not mean to cut you off. But, you know, one brief observation. When I was in Kuwait I ran into one of your foreign service officers who speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese, but he is out there in the Middle East.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. That is right.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And they call that diversity, or giving a person a better level of experience. But here is a guy trained Mandarin specialist, Chinese, but he is out in the Middle East.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. That is exactly one of the problems that we found; that people who are trained in very difficult languages where the Department may have invested thousands of dollars to train them 1 year for a very difficult language only served one tour at that particular post, and the Department does not get the benefit of that training——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And he is in Kuwait.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS [continuing]. ——on a recurring basis.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is that good management practice?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. No. No, it is not, and the Department has responded favorably to the recommendations that we have made in our report. They have reviewed the language incentive program. They are looking at reducing the compensation that was provided under the auspice of incentives to get people to go to certain countries. Among the foreign service officers we surveyed, we found that they did not even realize that they were being provided a financial incentive to take the language to go to that post. So this payment was not an ''incentive'' at all.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I just want to make an observation with what Mr. Hamilton has stated earlier, especially for those of us who served in the military. There is a different rule of law or due process as well. But I am just curious if the State Department also has a different rule among its employees when you talk about your constitutional rights or due process. I am concerned if the State Department does have a different level or different procedure as far as making sure that that person's constitutional rights are fully protected.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Let me assure you we do not have a different rule. We comply with the same law enforcement standards, the same laws that every other Federal law enforcement entity does. The discussion that we are having here about due process should not be confusing. Due process means advising someone of their right to remain silent, of their right to counsel, that counsel will be provided for them if they cannot otherwise afford it, of the assurances that if they provide information it can incriminate them or in those instances where we are no longer pursuing a criminal track or where a case has been declined by Justice——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to make sure that——
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. We comply with the very same standards.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [continuing]. whether your foreign service officer, whether you are a lieutenant, whether you are a sergeant in the army or the navy that that same standard or that same level of protection is afforded to all our citizens.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. The same level of protection is afforded to State Department employees.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My time is taken. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams-Bridgers.
Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Luther.
Mr. LUTHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was interested in your testimony, Ms. Williams-Bridgers, concerning these nonpresence posts that are retained by AID. And what occurred to me, and the question I would like to ask, is it possible that AID might be focusing its resources on countries to maximize results so that if in fact they would have more of these nonpresence posts that it would dilute the resources that are available? And perhaps that would be a question for AID also, but I would appreciate your comments.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. That is absolutely what AID is doing. They are looking to maximize their use of resources at posts. The point that we are making is that the decisions that they are making are having severe consequences for our ambassadors when our ambassadors believe, for example, that democracy or the self-help programs are essential to advancement of certain policy objectives at the post; and that ambassadors and the staffs that we have left with, because State has made some of the same decisions of downsizing our presence in Africa, for example, that we are disabled from achieving the goals that all of us want to achieve. So they are very difficult decisions that have to be made.
But what we are saying is first, we have to clearly understand between our agencies what the policy goals and objectives are, and then commit in a multi-agency fashion to attach our resources to those goals
Mr. LUTHER. OK. If I may follow up, Mr. Chairman.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are you then working on solutions to that——
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Absolutely.
Mr. LUTHER [continuing]. in a collaborative effort——
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Yes.
Mr. LUTHER [continuing]. ——with the various agencies?
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Yes. In fact, Mr. Gilman had raised early on in his opening comments the need for us to synthesize the results of our review. That is exactly how we communicated this concern about residual AID presence and USIA's presence in Africa. From the 18 inspections that we have conducted over the past 2 years in Africa, we synthesized what we learned from those inspections about attachment of resources to foreign policy objectives, about the communication, the coherence of attention to foreign policy objectives. We sent that memo to the Deputy Secretary. He then shared it with NSC, with the Africa Bureau, with Mr. Atwood, and they have engaged in dialog since to address the specific problems that we named in that memo.
Mr. LUTHER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. I thank the gentleman, his time has expired.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to address just one particular area, and that is that the Congress has made it very clear again and again that the U.S. embassies should be moved to Jerusalem. I have never seen so many bills all with the same effect. Every year Congress comes up with another way to say the same thing.
In your opinion, do you believe that the State Department is moving effectively to comply with those directives from Congress? And when do you believe that the U.S. embassy will be open for business in Jerusalem?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. I am not fully prepared to respond to your question. I would like to respond to it for the record. I know that there has been considerable discussion in the Department about cost of the move and propriety and timing of the move. But I would like to have the opportunity to respond more comprehensively for the record.
Mr. SHERMAN. Well, every excuse it has come up with, and a violation of the law with a fig leaf of an excuse should be subjected to review by the Inspector General as much as it is a violation of law and a fig leaf of an excuse that is a decision that is made at the highest levels as opposed to one made by one of the people at a lower level that is subject to the investigations you have discussed. And to talk about cost, the fact is that if the Ambassador himself, or in the future herself, were to simply have a few square inches and declare that to be the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, that might well satisfy many of us. That is to say, this is not a practical issue; this is a political issue. And I know that the State Department is working very hard to advance democracy around the world, and I would hope that the State Department would be equally responsive to the democratically elected official here in Washington.
So I do await eagerly a response on both questions. That is to say, when in your estimation will that embassy be open? And second, has there been any unwarranted or intentional delay in that process?
[The reply was submitted following the hearing.]
Let me respond to your first question as to when an embassy would be open. While I recognize the importance of this issue for many Members of Congress, I also recognize that no issue is more sensitive and volatile in the Middle East peace process than this one. It is for this very reason, I understand, that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to take this issue up in their permanent status negotiations and that the Administration's position is that the United States should not take actions that could be interpreted as prejudicing this or other final status arrangements. That being said, your question is directed at the Administration's compliance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. I understand that this Act requires a semi-annual report by the State Department on the progress made toward opening a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. I would therefore refer the Committee to this report for detailed information on this matter. Your second question asks if there has been any unwarranted or intentional delay in this process. I am not aware of any information that would suggest any failure to comply with the statute. I do not see any issue here that would warrant inquiry by my office.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CHABOT [Presiding]. OK, I thank the gentleman, and we thank the witnesses for their testimony here this morning. We do have some additional questions that we will be submitting in writing.
Ms. WILLIAMS-BRIDGERS. Thank you.
Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.
Mr. CHABOT. And our next and, I believe, final witness is Mr. F. A. ''Tex'' Harris, recently retired from two terms as President of the American Foreign Service Association to the position of its Secretary. He has a very distinguished record of diplomatic service, including work on matters ranging from the law of the sea to human rights in Argentina, to political change in South Africa where he was consul general in Durbin. Mr. Harris is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Texas Law School.
Like Lee Hamilton, he got his start in public life as a distinguished high school basketball player. He was an All-State basketball player at North Dallas High School. And also, Mr. Harris, it is our understanding that one of the members of your staff, Ken Nakamura, is a former member of our staff, and we understood he is hospitalized but doing better. Please give him our regards and wishes for a speedy and full recovery.
Mr. Harris, your written statement will be entered into the record in full, and you may proceed orally as you wish.
STATEMENT OF F. A. ''TEX'' HARRIS, SECRETARY, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION FOR USAID, AND SHARON PAPP, ESQ., GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that welcome. I will pass on the regards of the Committee to Ken Nakamura who will greatly appreciate the get well message.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CABOT. Thank you.
Mr. HARRIS. With me is the Vice President of the American Foreign Service Association for USAID, Frank Miller, who would like to make at a later point, a few remarks regarding what we see as decline in the capacity of the Office of the Inspector General for USAID.
On my right is the General Counsel of the American Foreign Service Association, Sharon Papp. She has been working with her staff very diligently in advising the men and women of the Foreign Service around the world with respect to their rights in investigative matters as they arrive.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to start with the bottom line. What the American Foreign Service Association very much would like to see coming out of the conference which is taking place during these days between the House and the Senate with respect to the Authorization Bill for the Statement Department, ACDA and USIA is that Foreign Service employees around the world would have, in terms of investigative practices, the same rights and same obligations as those which members and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have.
Let me go through those very briefly because I think they are critical.
First, when an FBI employee is under investigation and when there will be an interview with that FBI agent, that employee is advised if the procedure is administrative or if it is possibly criminal, up front. The meeting starts with that indication.
Then there are two separate documents which are provided to the FBI employee: one detailing his or her rights and responsibilities in an administrative procedure, and the other detailing his or her rights and obligations if it is a criminal matter.
What happens in the State Department is different; there is a ruse that goes on. We understand that criminals are not friendly people. Criminals flee. We need to use a lot of skill in order to get criminals, and therefore when a policeman knocks on the door he does not say, ''This is Sergeant Jones. I have come to arrest you.'' He says—tap-tap, ''Special delivery letter, sir. You have won the sweepstakes,'' and the door is opened. They grab the suspect and they take him away.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When you are dealing in a situation where you have an Office of Inspector General investigator, they are dealing with an employee. The Office of Inspector General is a group that State Department employees see regularly doing their normal inspections and audit work. So what we have essentially is a disguise. Employees do not know whether the inspectors are there with their investigatory hats on or whether they are there in a more benign audit or other responsibility. There is confusion. That confusion is used to deprive the employee of his or her rights.
Second, in the FBI procedure employees are told of their rights. They are allowed to have counsel present in any interview, whether it is a criminal procedure or an administrative procedure. This gives them the opportunity to marshal their thoughts. The investigatory meeting is not held that same day because the FBI employee has an opportunity to be represented by counsel, and so they meet on the following day or the following days.
Third, if it is an administrative procedure, the investigation must be finished within 60 days. One of the major problems that we have with the Office of the Inspector General investigations is that the inspections go on for months and months and sometimes years during which a person's assignment and promotion is blocked. This is unfair to an individual. An employee should be presumed innocent until he or she is proven guilty.
I would like very much to submit my prepared remarks for the record, and also to attach to it, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, the AFSA Guidance for employees involved in Inspector General investigations. Also, we have some examples of IG investigators requesting interviews under false pretenses. We represent Foreign Service people around the world, and these are some cases that have come to our attention which we thought would be useful for the Committee to have for its information. And last, an article from the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin of May 1993, dealing with compelled interviews of public employees. This is a very extensive review dealing with the issues. The recommendations in that article are those that the FBI, in fact, has followed. Those are the ones that we think make sense for the men and women of the Foreign Service.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last, we would like to put into the record a written submission by Frank Miller entitled ''A Troubled Office of the Inspector General'', and if I may with your kind permission, sir, just ask my Vice President for USAID, Frank Miller, to say a few words.
Mr. CHABOT. OK. Without objection, so ordered. And we would be happy to hear from Mr. Miller at this time also.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris appears in the appendix.]
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF FRANK MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION FOR USAID
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The AFSA is deeply concerned with the decreased overseas presence of the USAID Office of Inspector General. This decreased presence has seriously eroded the Office of Inspector General's capacity to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse, and to make constructive suggestions for improving USAID programs overseas.
The Office of Inspector General has cut the U.S. direct entire overseas presence by over 40 percent since taking office. All Foreign Service National (FSN) professional auditors and investigators have been dismissed. The only FSNs kept overseas are secretaries and administrative support staff. And other U.S. senior investigators have been recalled to Washington. More than 40 FS positions have been converted to low-grade Civil Service positions, severely limiting the ability of the Office of Inspector General to provide audit and oversight services overseas.
In addition to this decrease in presence, we have had a decrease in productivity. Civil and criminal convictions have dropped from twelve in Fiscal Year 1994 to six in Fiscal Year 1996. Similarly, monetary recoveries resulting from investigations have fallen from $5.6 million in Fiscal Year 1994 to $2.6 million in Fiscal Year 1996. Audit results are also languishing; there was an alarming drop in the number of audits conducted from 546 in Fiscal Year 1994 to 263 in Fiscal Year 1996.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This drastic decline in audits has also led to a striking productivity decline. The cost questions in audit reports has dropped from approximately 68 percent, from $52.8 million in 1994, to $16.7 million in 1996.
The bottom line is we believe that this capacity is being seriously eroded and something needs to be done to reverse this trend.
Thank you very much.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
Ms. Papp, did you want to testify this morning at all?
OK, thank you.
And, again, we want to thank all the panelists for testifying. I just have a few questions before deferring to Mr. Luther.
Mr. Harris, would it be fair to say that you are not asking for any protection beyond that which other private citizens or Federal employees get when confronted by an IG or an FBI agent?
Mr. HARRIS. That is correct. What we very much would like to have is the best practices. The best practice in the Federal Government today in terms of the rights and responsibilities—I want to emphasize there are responsibilities attached—are those followed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That practice takes clearly into account the rights that employees have as citizens. That is the standard. Those are the best practices. That is what we would like to see for the men and women in the Foreign Service.
Mr. CHABOT. Would you feel better about the IG investigation process if it were subject to independent review?
Mr. HARRIS. That is absolutely necessary. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you in Congress are the review. About 6 years ago we had some major problems with USAID IG investigations, certain extreme abuse of rights there. And, the only guardian of the guardians, in fact, was Senator Glenn and his staff on the Governmental Oversight Committees in the Senate. I think that is really cumbersome.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we really should have is a small operation appointed by the Secretary of State which would review any charges—allegations—of abuse which are made against the operations of the Office of Inspector General. That is my understanding of the procedure within the Department of Justice. If there are such allegations against the IG's office in the Department of Justice, the Attorney General does in fact appoint a small task group—which reports directly to her—to assess the validity of those allegations and to make recommendations to her for action. We need that, sir, very much in the Department of State and in USAID.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you.
Do you recognize that a surprise interview is a technique that is very commonly used by law enforcement personnel as they deal with witnesses or suspects?
Mr. HARRIS. I do, and we have no difficulty with a surprise interview if the nature of the interview is made clear at the beginning. The problem is the confusion; it is the ruse. There is a surprise interview and the employee is led—we have a number of cases which we have submitted for the record—to believe that this is an investigation of another event or an investigation of another person. They are misled in terms of the fact that they are the target of an investigation. In some cases, they are misled that the investigation is administrative and not criminal.
Law enforcement officers may use ruses in order to capture criminals. They may use ruses and misdirection, but you cannot as a law enforcement investigator—in my understanding of the constitutional protections use a ruse, or use a trick to essentially force a person to abrogate his or her constitutional rights, and that is what is taking place today.
Mr. CHABOT. Let me follow up because I am almost out of time myself.
Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHABOT. Would it be OK if they found out when they got into the room so that, for example, they do not destroy evidence in advance?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HARRIS. I will let my counsel answer that.
Ms. PAPP. Yes, if it were clear from the outset. The situation we have, is that the person sometimes gets a form which is very confusing. The written testimony that we are going to put into the record discusses that it is better to have two separate forms: One that says this is just criminal, you do not have to answer, you have the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Or another form that says this is administrative only. You have to answer our questions, but we cannot use your answers against you in a criminal proceeding but you could be disciplined. That is what the Bureau of Diplomatic Security does. They have two different forms.
The IG has one form that combines the two types of warnings and it is very confusing to people when they read the form to figure out what this inquiry is all about.
Also, there is confusion when people go in to an OIG interview. Sometimes they think that the IG is just doing an inspection, as Tex said, an investigation of an event that is in their job duty. They talk to the person for an hour and then all of a sudden the agents become very hostile and it becomes clear that the person in the room is the target of an investigation, and could be disciplined. That is not fair and I do not think that that affords the person due process rights.
So if the OIG made clear at the outset in the beginning of the interview what the subject matter is, yes, that would afford people, I think, more rights than they are getting right now.
Mr. CHABOT. OK.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, we have one other concern, and that is that 80 percent of the work of the Department of State's Office of the Inspector General is on other non-investigatory matters. The good name of that office is really declining because of these increases in abuses during investigations. So we have 20 percent of the operation which is giving the other 80 percent a bad name. This is an issue that really could be solved by the introduction of the same procedures as provided for by the employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We believe it should be done, sir.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHABOT. OK. I thank the witnesses for their answers, and my time has expired.
Mr. Luther is a very distinguished Member of this Committee. I am not sure if he has any questions or not at this time.
Mr. LUTHER. Well, thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. First of all, if you did have another question, I would be glad to yield you the additional time.
Mr. CHABOT. I think I have had sufficient time. Thank you.
Mr. LUTHER. No, I appreciate this is a very, very good discussion because I come from a state government where we had, of course, a legislative auditor. We had a state auditor and then a legislative auditor that was effectively our instrument to review various expenditures of agencies. And I guess I am interested in the comments that you made that once there is something that is found, that then you suggested, I think, that there be some kind of a committee or some kind of a group reporting directly to the Secretary of State in order to respond to those comments.
Now, there would also have to be a role for the congressional committees themselves, would there not, in that process? And perhaps you can play that out so that you can more fully explain to me how matters would be handled once the deficiencies or problems are determined by the office.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, sir.
''Who guards the guardians?'' is the question. And I think, as you correctly point out, we need both. We need both internal reviews, which are responsive to the responsibilities that the Secretary of State has, or the Administrator of AID, and we also need the oversight work and efforts of the relevant responsible committees of Congress.
What happens now is that if there is an alleged abuse by a member of the Office of Inspector General, that charge is reviewed by the head of that office, but there is no outside, executive process for reviewing that alleged abuse which employees cam avail themselves to. What they do is they come to congressional staffers—to your staffers and to staffers on the Committee—to seek redress. This is a very inefficient way of doing it. It is a necessary part, but it is an inefficient way. What we need is some process that is internal, which can look at these allegations in terms of fair process and procedures in the work of the investigating officers, employees of the Office of the Inspectors General.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LUTHER. OK. And just to follow up, Mr. Chair. And in that process you would assume that the respective committees, congressional committees, would be fully apprised of developments and whatever response there is to the various charges or findings, I take it.
You are not suggesting, for example, this is going to be handled within the agencies without involvement of congressional committees.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you for that clarification. Absolutely not.
Mr. LUTHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. CAMPBELL [Presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Luther.
We are prepared to close. I had one or two quick questions which I will ask. I apologize. I did not have the benefit of hearing the earlier testimony, and making accommodation for that. If answers have already been given, I will be happy to purview the record and find it out in that manner.
Two specifics: First of all, I understand that there is a proposal in the Senate version of the authorizing bill for a reorganization whereby the IG functions on broadcasting would be separated out of the IG functions otherwise for State Department. If you had a comment on that, I would be interested. If not, we will just pass to the next question.
Mr. HARRIS. I am not familiar with that specific issue. I think within the analysis being done by the Task Forces within the Department of State, the Bureau of Broadcasting is seen as being a dotted line entity in its relationship with the Secretary of State and with the Department of State. So, the kind of reporting relationships that it would have in the future would be comparable to those dotted line, weak reporting relationships that it now has with the Director of USIA.
Clearly, I think the IG function would have to take that into account, and that seems to be the direction in which the Task Force is thinking of moving.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CAMPBELL. OK. I found it then to be consistent with the reorganization otherwise.
And then the last specific inquiry, do you have or does AFSA have a comment on the reorganization plan in general? And this is a little off the IG topic for a moment. And have you been consulted in the reorganization proposal discussions that I understand are going on at the agencies?
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, yes, we have. We are participating in most of the Task Forces currently considering the merger of USIA and ACDA into the Department of State. That process is a complicated one. What happened was that at the beginning certain major decisions with respect to the role and authority of the Under Secretaries were not made. So consequently the work of a number of the task groups was limited because they did not have direction from the Secretary of State in terms of what the lines of authority would be and the responsibility of the various Under Secretaries. So consequently they could not complete their work.
My understanding is that as of Monday this week Under Secretary Pickering has put forward a series of recommendations as the Department of State's views. Those views, along with the views of the Director of USIA and the Director of ACDA, will soon be considered by the Secretary of State in setting the terms of those fundamental governance questions for the Department of State. Then the Task Forces can get back into the ''nuts and bolts'' work of putting together ''your'' locksmiths with ''my'' locksmiths, and making the operation work. This certainly is the spirit of Congress and the directions from the President.
Mr. CAMPBELL. So if I may, you have no complaint presently as to the inclusion or failure to include AFSA in the process?
Mr. HARRIS. We are there.
Mr. CAMPBELL. All right.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HARRIS. We are there in the Task Force process; but not at the higher levels of deliberations. I would be happy to provide for the record some of our latest reports to our Members on the operations of the mergers.
Mr. CAMPBELL. To tell you the truth, it is not necessary. Thanks.
Mr. HARRIS. OK.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I just wanted to give you a chance to raise a problem if there were problems. If there is no problem, there is not.
Mr. HARRIS. I think the major problem is ''Where is re-invention?'' Speaking for the men and women of the Foreign Service, we realize that we need both resources and better management. We are very pleased that the Secretary of State at the onset has come into office with a full understanding of the importance of reversing the declining resource base that we have had over the past years, and has also expressed an interest of revitalizing and focusing the way we do our business.
The problem is that there are a lot of good words, but we have not seen the action. The re-invention task force has not met. If we fail to do our work better, we really disappoint the many dedicated and talented people who make up the Foreign Service and make up the Department of State, USIA, ACDA and USAID. We need better systems. We have terrific people. We need systems that are as good as the people that work in those agencies.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Very fine. Thank you.
I have only one last question, which is to give each of you an opportunity, since I did not hear the opening testimony, sometimes it occurs that there is testimony you are just anxious to have a comment upon. So you were here, I assume, for the Inspector General for State and the Inspector General from AID.
Ms. Papp, Mr. Harris, or Mr. Miller, is there anything that you would like to say for the record in response to that testimony? This is your chance. You can also supplement it later if something occurs to you. But I do not want to close the hearing without giving you a chance if there was a subject that you would like to discuss for which an opportunity has not yet arisen, this is it.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. The only comment I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the whole issue of the needs for foreign service nationals overseas needs to be revisited both by the Office of the Inspector General and I think the Committee. I believe that we cannot be as effective in providing the oversight responsibilities of the Office of the Inspector General without foreign service nationals.
We do have some foreign service nationals, but they are not professional auditors or inspectors, and I think we need them. So I would hope that that issue could be revisited.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, we have some concerns over the characterization by the State Department Inspector General over investigatory practices. We would like to, when we see the record, to provide some additional specific comments to help the Committee in its deliberations.
And we thank you very much, sir, for your courtesy in asking this last question. We would like to review the record. There may be some other things that we have additional information on which we would be most pleased to provide to the Committee for your deliberations.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Why do I not do this, with no objection from the minority, that we will leave the record open for the expected usual amount of time, which is what, a day? We have decided to say the usual amount of time. So work quickly, and we would be more than happy to have your comments. Thank you.
And, Ms. Papp, do you have anything else to say?
Ms. PAPP. No, thank you.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you all.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Then the meeting of the Committee on International Relations is adjourned.
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, sir.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."