[Senate Hearing 111-607]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-607
DEPLOYED FEDERAL CIVILIANS: ADVANCING SECURITY AND OPPORTUNITY IN
AFGHANISTAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2010
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-324 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Lisa M. Powell, Staff Director
Joel C. Spangenberg, Deputy Staff Director
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Sean M. Stiff, Minority Professional Staff Member
Aaron H. Woolf, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Kaufman.............................................. 13
WITNESSES
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management... 3
Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 5
Hon. Clifford Stanley, Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense.......................... 7
Janet St. Laurent, Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office.............. 8
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Berry, Hon. John:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Kennedy, Ambassador Patrick:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Stanley, Hon. Clifford:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 40
St. Laurent, Janet:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 62
APPENDIX
Background....................................................... 79
Responses to questions submitted for the Record:
Mr. Berry.................................................... 88
Ambassador Kennedy........................................... 90
Dr. Stanley.................................................. 99
DEPLOYED FEDERAL CIVILIANS: ADVANCING
SECURITY AND OPPORTUNITY
IN AFGHANISTAN
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka and Kaufman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. I call this hearing of the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and
the District of Columbia to order.
I want to welcome our witnesses and thank you so much for
being here today. I have heard from so many people and I was
really surprised at the interest there is in the subject of the
hearing today, and so I am so glad to have all of you here this
afternoon.
Today's hearing, ``Deployed Federal Civilians: Advancing
Security and Opportunity in Afghanistan,'' will review the
readiness of and support for Federal employees who serve our
Nation overseas.
I know that civilians serving in harm's way proudly answer
the call of duty and are motivated by a strong sense of
patriotism. We must ensure that they have the training and
support that they need.
Under President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan, as the
United States works to destroy al-Qaeda, the Nation also is
working to build the capacity of the Afghan government and
bring new opportunities to its people. The sharp increase in
Federal civilian employees in Afghanistan is supporting this
effort. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has testified
that almost 1,000 civilians would be in Afghanistan by early
2010. A further increase of 20 to 30 percent is expected by the
end of this year. In addition, nearly 1,600 civilians are
deployed there in support of the Department of Defense's
operations.
Civilians are essential to carrying out the mission in
Afghanistan. The long-term efforts to improve governance,
promote economic development, and fight corruption and the
narcotics trade are necessary to the success of the military's
mission of providing security and combating terrorism. The
State Department expects our civilians to continue their work
with the Afghan government and people after the departure of
our combat troops.
The State Department and the Defense Department (DOD) have
begun focusing greater attention on civilian readiness for
operations in combat zones. DOD has developed comprehensive
pre-deployment training for its civilian personnel who serve in
Afghanistan under the authority of United States Central
Command (USCENTCOM). Likewise, the State Department has
required courses for personnel from the State Department as
well as other Federal agencies who will serve under the
Ambassador's authority. This includes hands-on operational
training where persons of Afghan background orient trainees to
Afghan customs and where civilians get a feel of the
environment they will face in Afghanistan.
Military personnel also participate in the training to
educate civilians on the combined civilian-military efforts in
Afghanistan. I am pleased that DOD and the State Department
have made training a priority and are committed to ensuring
that civilian employees are ready for the challenges they will
face.
We also must support the civilians during and after their
service. In June 2009, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reviewed the compensation and benefits for civilians
serving in combat zones. GAO found that agencies should work to
ensure that compensation and benefits are appropriate and
comparable among civilians, that deployed civilians receive all
of the medical benefits and compensation to which they are
entitled, and that agencies maintain sufficient data to inform
civilians about emerging health issues that might affect them.
GAO's primary recommendation was for Office of Personnel
and Management (OPM) to lead an interagency effort to address
pay and benefit differences. I am eager to hear more about the
progress made since GAO issued its report, especially in
assisting civilians in receiving the medical support that they
need.
In my role as Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I
have been very concerned about the invisible wounds of war,
including traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Many civilians are exposed to the same hazards
our military personnel face while deployed to areas of
conflict. I believe that all Federal civilians need to be
screened properly for these wounds upon their return and
provided the benefits to which they are entitled.
I understand that OPM, working with the State Department,
DOD, and other Federal agencies, has developed a legislative
proposal to ensure that pay and benefits are more consistent
for deployed civilians, which I hope to learn more about.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
I want to again welcome our panel of witnesses to the
Subcommittee today: Hon. John Berry, the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management; Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, the Under
Secretary of State for Management; Hon. Clifford Stanley, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; and
Janet St. Laurent, the Managing Director of Defense
Capabilities and Management at the Government Accountability
Office.
As you all know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to
swear in all witnesses, so I would ask all of you to please
stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
before this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Berry. I do.
Ambassador Kennedy. I do.
Dr. Stanley. I do.
Ms. St. Laurent. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Let it be noted in the record
that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Before we start, I want you to know that your full
statements will be part of the record, and I would also like to
remind you to please limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. We
have looked at your written statements and look forward to
working together with you on some of the issues.
Director Berry, will you please proceed with your
statement?
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN BERRY,\1\ DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, it is always an honor and a
pleasure to be back here with you, and I send you much aloha
from your friends at the Office of Personnel Management. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
deployed Federal civilian employees in areas of armed conflict.
We have all been working very hard on this issue and we look
forward to sharing with you the results of our effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Berry appears in the Appendix on
page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any one time, there are approximately 6,100 Federal
civilian employees that are deployed to areas of armed
conflict, working directly in support of our warfighters.
Providing consistent, comprehensive, and competitive benefits
must be part of our overall effort to support our troops and
our mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as other combat
areas.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, GAO recommended that all of us
come together through an interagency process to find a solution
to some of the inconsistent compensation and benefit issues
that have plagued civil servants in combat zones for years.
Following that recommendation, OPM chaired a working group with
the Departments of Defense, State, and Labor, and we are very
pleased to say that we have developed a joint legislative
proposal that has cleared the Office of Management and Budget,
and after a few final tweaks, we will be sending up very
shortly to the Subcommittee that will, we believe, iron out
many of these inconsistencies.
We appreciate very much the contributions and hard work of
our partners and staff, and I want to thank all of them for
their diligence and leadership, especially Secretary Kennedy
and Secretary Stanley. They have just been outstanding to work
with, as well as our colleagues at the Labor Department. Our
proposal has cleared the interagency review process and we will
be getting it to you as soon as possible.
One of the biggest issues we faced in convening the working
group was that the compensation and benefits available to
Federal employees in combat areas were temporary and
inconsistent. Our goal was to change that. This led us to a
central recommendation in the proposal to convert temporary
legislation for a higher premium pay cap, waiver of the
aggregate pay cap, and use of certain Foreign Service Act
provisions into permanent legislation.
We further recommend providing locality pay to civilians
serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other zones of armed
conflict. Locality pay would apply to employees on temporary
duty as well as permanent assignment. D.C. locality pay would
be the floor, with employees on temporary duty being able to
receive higher locality pay if their current locality pay
should exceed D.C.'s. So, for example, San Francisco is higher,
Mr. Chairman. They would still be entitled to receive that
higher rate of pay. But everyone would at least receive the
D.C. locality adjustment if they were serving.
Along with a number of other provisions to enhance leave
and benefit options, we believe that this is a very
comprehensive solution that will make a real difference in
recognizing the hardships and sacrifices associated with
serving in zones of armed conflict.
We have addressed the biggest complaints about inequities
in the applicability of certain authorities, such as locality
pay, health assessments, and caps on premium pay and aggregate
compensation. We can't address all of the differences through
the legislative proposal.
For example, as in Washington, D.C. right now, we have
three basic pay systems. We have Foreign Service pay, military
pay, and civilian pay. There are always going to be those
differences. We are not pretending to have one pay system. So
there will always be differences, and this proposal will
recognize that.
In addition, we have tried to achieve an optimal balance
between the mandatory and discretionary provisions. All of the
discretionary authorities, such as extension of the Foreign
Service Act allowances, benefits, and gratuities, will be
subject to government-wide regulations issued by a single
agency as prescribed within the proposal. We believe that not
all of the provisions need to be mandatory in statute.
Discretion allows OPM, the State Department, and DOD to foster
consistency and fairness in implementation across agencies, but
also allow flexibility as things change over time.
For example, the cost of death benefits or movement, cost
of fuel or things like that are things that we ought to adjust
based on the market, and if we set those in the law, it will be
very hard to keep current with the situation. So we are
proposing in the proposal to maintain some flexibility, but we
want to ensure that it is applied consistently.
That is a brief highlight of what we have done, Mr.
Chairman. We look forward to working with you as we form and
shape up this proposal and look forward to answering any
questions that you or the Subcommittee might have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Director Berry. You
have touched on a number of the problems that have been
mentioned.
Ambassador Kennedy, will you please proceed with your
statement?
TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR PATRICK KENNEDY,\1\ UNDER SECRETARY OF
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Kaufman. Dedicated men and women from the State
Department are working around the world and around the clock to
advance our national interest. The safety and welfare of these
personnel are a top priority for the State Department,
Secretary Clinton, and me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ambassador Kennedy appears in the
Appendix on page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our global mission and operations have always required
people to live and serve overseas. However, the breadth and
depth of world issues continues to grow and our mission is
expanding. Two-thirds, or 184 of our State Department posts
currently are designated as hardships. More than 900 positions
are classified at posts that are unaccompanied or partially
unaccompanied because of dangerous conditions, an increase from
just 200 in 2001. In addition, civilians now serve directly
alongside their deployed military service counterparts in
numerous locations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Throughout the past 8 years, the Department has reviewed
its practices and constantly incorporated lessons learned from
Iraq and Afghanistan to refine our assignments, processes, and
programs, augment its training for deployed civilians, provide
additional support to family members, and established a more
robust medical support network. We explored alternative models
of addressing the expanding foreign policy mission, and with
support from the Congress, created Civilian Response Corps
(CRC) in 2008 that can deploy quickly to support reconstruction
and stabilization operations.
We appreciate the efforts of the Office of Personnel
Management in bringing together the State and Defense
Departments, and on key issues the Labor Department, to jointly
begin developing a standard benefit package that will enable
civilians from all agencies serving in combat zones to be
treated equitably.
Our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq have always been fully
staffed with volunteers. The Department is, in turn, focused on
ensuring that these volunteers are prepared, trained,
compensated, and supported before, during, and after their
assignments.
The package of benefits includes the maximum hardship and
danger pay allowance allowed by law, and with the exception of
political appointees or members of the senior services,
employees receive overtime or comparable payment for the long
hours that they work. Employees are also offered Rest and
Recuperation trips during their assignments. They can choose
either to come to the United States or to go elsewhere. And we
have supported legislation that increased the annual premium
cap and eliminated the aggregate pay cap.
We have established specific incentives for the Foreign
Service. For example, our Selection Boards take their service
in dangerous locations into consideration.
We are also very much mindful of the support we must
provide family members. Our Family Liaison Office addresses
these specific challenges and we have expanded that office in
order to assist families, including a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour
hotline that assists them.
Training is incredibly important. We offer courses at our
own National Foreign Affairs Training Center and we work in
conjunction with our Department of Defense colleagues. We
provide a 1-week mandatory security program, a 1-week Afghan
civilian familiarization program, and all employees who will be
outside of Kabul in the provinces or areas take an additional 2
weeks of training, including a course run in conjunction, as
you noted, Mr. Chairman, with the Department of Defense, this
at Camp Atterbury in Indiana. This integrated training ensures
that our personnel are able to work with their Defense
Department colleagues from the moment they hit the ground.
As you also noted, civilians serving in combat zones are
exposed to greater stress levels. We facilitate this by working
with the inherent conditions and we ensure that there are
mandatory pre-departure sessions. There are post-departure
sessions, as well. We engage in follow-up, and our Medical
Division, led by Dr. Thomas Yun, who is accompanying me, have
this as one of their primary missions, to make sure that our
employees receive all the care on scene and follow-up that they
need.
The Medical Director has established a Deployment Stress
Management Program which follows the individuals and also has
deployed psychologists, social workers, and backup
psychiatrists to service our personnel in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. And employees who are identified as possibly
suffering from stress-related disorders are treated in
Washington or near their home stations, if required. We have
excellent cooperation from the Department of Defense and access
to military medical facilities if they have specialized
training and treatment available that would not be available in
the normal civilian world.
We have also established a Civilian Response Corps that is
composed of specialists from the State Department and other
agencies around the government to be able to deploy personnel
to work in conjunction with our deployed troops around the
world.
Our civilian employees and their families deserve
comprehensive support before, during, and after their overseas
assignment. This need is particularly great for those serving
at our most difficult and dangerous posts. We recently
remembered at a memorial service in the Department a colleague,
Terry Barnich, who was killed when his vehicle struck an
improvised explosive device in Iraq, and we have also recently
mourned the loss of Victoria DeLong, who died in her country's
service in the earthquake in Port au Prince. Reinforcing the
Department's commitment to providing benefits and programs to
support our employees and their families as they serve our
Nation around the globe is our primary responsibility.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your
statement.
Now, I would like to call on Dr. Stanley for your
statement.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CLIFFORD STANLEY,\1\ UNDER SECRETARY FOR
PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Stanley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kaufman. I
want to thank you on behalf of the Secretary of Defense, Robert
M. Gates. I would like to really express our appreciation for
inviting us here to testify and to appear today to discuss the
Department's efforts to build an improved and reliable
capability with the Department of Defense's civilian workforce
that is ready, trained, and cleared to support DOD operations,
contingencies, emergencies, humanitarian missions, stability,
reconstruction operations, and combat operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Stanley appears in the Appendix
on page 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, let me emphasize that the Department of Defense has
a long and proud history of civilians supporting our U.S. Armed
Forces and military operations around the world. The structure
of the Armed Forces is based on the Total Force concept, which
recognizes that all elements of that structure are actually
part of our active duty personnel--reservists, defense
contractors, host nation military, civilian personnel, and
DOD's Federal civilian employees. They contribute to our
national defense.
My testimony today will focus on the Civilian Expeditionary
Workforce capability, the Department's initiatives to
effectively train and prepare the civilians for expeditionary
missions in Afghanistan, the support provided to our civilians
in Afghanistan, proposed legislation to codify and standardize
benefits for Federal civilian employees while serving in a
designated zone of armed conflict, and the Department's actions
to address the Government Accountability Office
recommendations.
I have submitted my written testimony for the record but
would like to highlight some areas to facilitate our dialogue.
As the Subcommittee has specifically asked about Afghanistan, I
will focus my discussion on the critical role our DOD civilians
have and continue to provide during Operation Enduring Freedom.
This year, we hope to obtain the most far-reaching and
comprehensive benefits package for Federal civilians to date.
Our Department, the Office of Personnel Management, the
Department of State, and the Department of Labor have worked in
partnership to develop an important legislative proposal which
will provide more uniformity and transparency to the pay and
benefits of our deployed civilians.
For example, the draft proposal would establish special
leave benefits, recuperation leave to provide employees respite
from working in a designated zone of armed conflict, and
readjustment leave following deployment to provide employees
time to rest and to attend to personal matters. It would also
establish a pre- and post-deployment health assessment program
in each agency for deploying civilians consistent with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of State.
The Department takes seriously its obligation to protect
the health of all deployed civilians. DOD civilians are
eligible for health care treatments and services in military
treatment facilities at no cost and at the same level and scope
provided to military personnel. The Department also recognizes
that it may be the only in-theater provider of emergency
medical care for non-DOD civilians, perhaps with the exception
of the Department of State, which may have some medical
capabilities. So the Department of Defense has clarified its
policy on access to military treatment facilities for non-DOD
Federal civilians, both while in theater and when following
deployment.
Simply stated, DOD provides emergency care in theater and
military treatment facilities until the employee is stabilized
and discharged, and as the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, I can under certain circumstances
allow for continuing care in our military treatment facilities
past the point of medical stabilization. Like our DOD
employees, however, other Federal employees must have an
approved Department of Labor, Office of Workers Compensation
claim for specific deployment-related illnesses, disease, or
injury to be eligible for continuing care in a military
treatment facility. Other factors that I consider include
whether the military treatment facility has special or unique
expertise in treating the injury, disease, or illness of the
employee, and if the military treatment facility has the
capability and capacity to treat the employee's specific needs.
A determination is made on a case-by-case basis.
In conclusion, I want to thank you again for your
unwavering support of our Federal civilians who deploy in
support of our mission around the world. Deployed civilian
employees are essential to the Federal Government's ability to
meet its mission requirements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other
designated zones of armed conflict. With your help, we have
been able to offer critical incentives and benefits to our
Federal civilian employees serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So I look forward to your questions and am looking forward
to talking with you today.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Stanley, for your
testimony.
And now I will call on Ms. St. Laurent for her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF JANET ST. LAURENT,\1\ MANAGING DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Ms. St. Laurent. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Kaufman. We very much appreciate the opportunity to
discuss GAO's work on actions needed to better track and
provide compensation and medical benefits to deployed Federal
civilians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. St. Laurent appears in the
Appendix on page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As DOD has expanded its involvement in overseas military
operations, it has grown increasingly reliant on its civilian
workforce to provide support. Other Federal agencies also play
an important role in these efforts, particularly in light of a
needed whole of government approach. This has highlighted the
need for greater attention to the policies and benefits that
affect the health and welfare of deployed civilians.
The six agencies covered in our review included the
Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security (DHS),
Agriculture (USDA), Justice, and United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). We reviewed laws, policies,
and guidance, and interviewed officials at OPM and the six
agencies. Also, we conducted a generalizable sample of
civilians deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan between January 2006
and April 2008.
I would like to briefly summarize our key findings,
recommendations, and agency actions to date in three areas:
First, compensation policies for deployed civilians; second,
medical care; and third, tracking of deployed civilians.
First, although policies concerning compensation are
generally comparable across agencies, we identified several
issues that affect the amount and timeliness of compensation
received by deployed civilians. Specifically, we found that an
estimated 40 percent of the deployed civilians we surveyed
reported experiencing some problems with compensation, such as
receiving timely or accurate payment for items such as danger
pay or overtime. We also found that deployed civilians with
similar situations could receive somewhat different
compensation and benefits. For example, employees with
comparable salaries can receive a different rate of overtime
pay if they are on different pay systems, even though they may
be working side-by-side. Also, agencies have had significant
discretion regarding whether individuals are deployed in
temporary duty status or in a permanent change of station
status, and these decisions can lead to differences in
compensation, sometimes considerable.
We therefore recommended that OPM oversee an executive
agency working group to address differences, and if needed,
develop an action plan or make legislative recommendations. OPM
generally agreed with our recommendations and informed us that
an interagency group was in the process of developing proposals
for needed legislation. We are pleased to see, today, that the
Executive Branch has collaborated on a package of proposals to
enhance consistency in pay and benefits, although we have not
yet had the opportunity to review the details.
Second, we identified several issues with medical care
following deployment. For example, while DOD allows its
treatment facilities to care for non-DOD civilians following
deployment in some cases, the circumstances were not clearly
defined and some agencies were unaware of DOD's policy. Since
our report was issued, DOD has established and communicated
additional guidance on how non-DOD civilians can access DOD
medical services. This is a positive step.
We also found that DOD was not consistently implementing
its post-deployment medical screening process and that the
State Department, unlike DOD, did not have post-deployment
screening. We have found that documenting the medical condition
of personnel both before and after deployment is critical to
identifying medical conditions that may result from deployment.
Accordingly, we recommended that DOD establish procedures to
ensure its post-deployment screening requirements are fully
completed. DOD agreed with our recommendations and has
developed some additional guidance.
We also recommended that the State Department establish
post-deployment screening requirements. The State Department
agreed with our recommendation and we have not yet seen
documentation on the action it has taken, but we look forward
to seeing documentation as they develop their process.
Third, while each of the six agencies involved in our
review provided us with a list of deployed civilians, none had
fully implemented policies and procedures to systematically
track civilians. DOD, for example, had procedures to identify
and track civilians but concluded in internal memoranda that
its guidance was not being consistently implemented. Other
agencies had to manually search their systems to meet our
requests for data on the number of civilians deployed. Thus,
agencies may lack critical information on the location of
personnel, which could hamper their ability to address emerging
health issues.
We therefore recommended that DOD better enforce its
tracking requirements and that the five other agencies
establish tracking procedures. DOD and four agencies concurred
with our recommendations. However, USAID disagreed, stating
that its current system is adequate. We continue to believe
that all six agencies need to move forward with specific
concrete steps to develop and improve a tracking system.
In sum, our report made 10 recommendations for agencies to
take actions. Most agencies generally concurred with our
recommendations and have taken some steps. However, further
concrete actions are needed to promote greater consistency
across the agencies, and again, we welcome the package of
legislative proposals that will be forthcoming and look forward
to reviewing it.
Thank you very much.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. St. Laurent.
I will ask some questions here to our panel, and then we
will have Senator Kaufman make any statement he wishes to make
and have him ask you his questions.
Director Berry, I am looking forward to seeing more details
of the legislative proposal that you outlined in your
testimony, and I am pleased that many of the issues raised by
GAO will be addressed in this proposal. According to GAO's
testimony, at the time of GAO's review, DOD officials stated
that proposals from the working group would not represent a
comprehensive benefits package. Do you believe that the
proposal you outlined is comprehensive and will ensure
consistent benefits for all Federal civilian employees deployed
to combat zones?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it is my opinion,
and I will let Ambassador Kennedy and Secretary Stanley speak
for themselves, but the Administration believes that this is a
very comprehensive approach. We have tried to tackle each and
every issue in terms of pay and benefit inconsistencies that
were in existence and address them in the proposal that you
will be receiving. So I think it has been a great team effort.
There has been give and take, but we have all worked from the
perspective that all of these folks are putting themselves in
harm's way and we really need to treat them with fairness and
consistency, and this proposal will do just that, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Berry.
Ms. St. Laurent, let me ask, do you have anything that you
would like to add to this question?
Ms. St. Laurent. Well, first, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Again, we view it as a positive step that the
Administration will be forthcoming with a package of proposals.
We look forward to seeing the details of those proposals. Just
based on some of the information and the testimonies that you
are receiving today, it appears that some of the issues that
were outlined in our report and for which we made
recommendations are included in the package.
For example, establishment of a pre- and post-deployment
health assessment program of each agency would be very
positive, and if implemented would certainly help to address
some of the issues that we cited. In other places, for example,
the discussion about locality pay entitlements appears to be
somewhat consistent and deal with some of the issues we
addressed. For example, we pointed out that individuals who are
deployed in a permanent change of station situation are not
entitled to locality pay and therefore they have a lower base
from which danger pay and overtime and other sorts of pays are
calculated.
So again, we would like to see more of the details, but we
do see just from this preliminary information that we have
today that it appears the package would address some of the
issues that we have raised in our work.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Director Berry, according to GAO, many deployed civilians
have experienced problems with receiving the correct
compensation in a timely manner, in part because they do not
know what they are eligible for or where to go for assistance.
What has OPM done to ensure that this information is easily
accessible?
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I think part of that problem was
the existence of the temporary and often inconsistent
application of pay authorities depending on where the person
was coming from and what their agency was. And what we hope
this proposal will do is provide that level of consistency. So
though the base pay in terms of--there will still be variation
between the Foreign Service schedule, the General Schedule
(GS), and active military schedules. But now we will be
providing the locality pay adjustment consistently across the
board to all covered civilians and working through from there.
The other thing I can commit to you is there are
essentially four agencies in the government that provide the
payroll function--DOD, USDA, the Department of Interior, and
the General Services Administration (GSA). Once this proposal,
which we hope is adopted by the Congress and signed into law,
we will be able to have all of those pay systems consistent so
that the accuracy and the timeliness with which people are
paid, we believe will significantly increase.
Obviously, employees should be receiving the full benefits
they are entitled, and if somebody has been handled
erroneously, we will work to correct that with that payroll
agency. But I think this way going forward puts us on a very
strong ground, Mr. Chairman, because it levels the playing
field, makes it consistent, and it is a lot easier for those
payroll agencies to administer consistently.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Kennedy and Dr. Stanley, under the legislative
proposal, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense, could designate an area where there are
exceptional levels of armed violence as a designated ``zone of
armed conflict.'' This would trigger the availability of
certain pay and benefits to employees. Which areas do you
anticipate would be designated as zones of armed conflict and
how severe would armed violence have to be to warrant this
designation?
Ambassador Kennedy. If I might go first, I think at the
moment, Mr. Chairman, I would see Iraq and Afghanistan being
the two immediately designated zones of armed conflict. Under
the standardized regulations for government civilian service
abroad, which is administered by the Secretary of State, we
already have in place provisions for hardship pay and danger
pay. I think that will cover almost any other current situation
in the world. Whether it is Xanadu or Shangri-La, we can take
care of those specific circumstances. But it is the unique
conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where you have civilian
employees working alongside, literally, their military
colleagues which call for special consideration.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Stanley.
Dr. Stanley. Mr. Chairman, I was thinking about that even
as you were asking the question. I am not going to differ from
what my colleague is saying, but I would also like to take the
question for the record because I think that there are some
areas to that that I don't know where some of those exception
areas would be other than Iraq and Afghanistan. But our world
situation could be changing while we are sitting here and I
would just like to confer with not only our Chairman and
military, but also with colleagues to further refine that.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. We will certainly want
it for the record and we look forward to that. Thank you, Dr.
Stanley.
Ms. St. Laurent, GAO's June 2009 report on deployed
civilians included 10 recommendations to the agencies to
improve benefits. Your testimony today and the June report
raised many areas that need to be addressed concerning
compensation and medical benefits for deployed civilians. Of
your recommendations, what do you think should be the agency's
top priority?
Ms. St. Laurent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say there
are really three areas. The first recommendation that we
thought was extremely important was for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to work with the other agencies and
come up with a concrete set of proposals for potential changes,
and again, based on today's testimony, it appears that has been
done and the specific language will soon be forthcoming.
Second, we think it is very important to develop good and
rigorous tracking systems in each of the agencies to be able to
identify deployed civilians over time. Again, as we did our
work, we had to work very closely with the agencies and they
had to do numerous data calls to be able to identify deployed
civilians. We were able to eventually get a universe from which
we could pull a sample, but it was challenging at times, so we
recognize that there is a need for further improvements there.
It is particularly important if, in some of these regions,
health issues emerge and the agencies need to be able to
contact individuals that have deployed. So while some of the
agencies are making progress in that area, they need to further
refine what is going to be the data system of record to be able
to provide good, accurate data on deployed civilians and then
to implement that consistently.
And the third area would be in the medical post-deployment
screening. And again, the Department of Defense is doing that.
We surveyed individuals, though, and found out about 21 percent
of the individuals in our survey had not gone through a post-
deployment screening. And then the State Department at the time
of our review had not established procedures, so we believe
they and the other agencies also need to put those processes in
place.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Laurent.
I would like to now call on Senator Kaufman for any
statement and questions that he has. I know he has a deep
interest in the issues raised in this hearing. Senator Kaufman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAUFMAN
Senator Kaufman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for holding this hearing. It is really important.
I just got back from my third trip to Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and, when you go there and you see what a
great job our military and civilian folks are doing over
there--and they really are doing a great job--you have just got
to wonder about are we taking care of them and are we showing
them how much we really care about it.
And I know that especially at the State Department and DOD,
we have employees all around the world, not just in Iraq and
Afghanistan, who are in harm's way, who have to put up with
there isn't a mall on every street corner. You don't get to do
a lot of things. There isn't a 27-film metroplex. So this is
really important.
And I must say, the morale of everybody I met on these
trips has been great, but there is a question that comes up all
the time about benefits and how all that works and some concern
about those things. Mr. Chairman, the timing on this is great
and I am glad to hear we are going to have a report directly on
this thing because this is something that we have to make sure
that the people feel like they are getting the standard
benefits in uniform, they are not working side-by-side with
somebody.
I would like to start off and say, is there any
consideration at all--one of the things I do hear a lot about
is contractors working next to military and civilian personnel,
getting, X-times as much money and having this much benefits
and that benefits. Is there any discussion about--and again, I
want to say the accomplishment of having a proposal that works
to deal with this problem is great, so it is kind of like once
you get one thing, you are waiting for the next thing. But I
must admit, it is something you do hear a lot about, not
necessarily in a negative sense, just concern, these
considerations. Is there any consideration for the fact that
contractors seem to be getting much greater pay and benefits?
Dr. Stanley. I haven't heard any--I have not discussed
that, Senator, and I am going to have to look into that
question. I have been focusing primarily on DOD and, of course,
on the civilian personnel----
Senator Kaufman. Yes.
Ambassador Kennedy. If I could, Senator, in our contracting
procedure, we obviously try to drive the best bargain for the
American taxpayer.
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Ambassador Kennedy. That is obviously, though, depending
upon the bid. It is very difficult to compare them because many
contractors, or the employees of contractor companies will work
120 straight days----
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Ambassador Kennedy [continuing]. And they have no leave
built into that. So it seems that their salary is very high for
that 120 days, but when then they go off, they literally get
paid nothing----
Senator Kaufman. Yes.
Ambassador Kennedy [continuing]. For the month or two that
they are back in the United States on what would be paid leave
if you were a government employee. There is obviously, chow-
hall talk about that in many places----
Senator Kaufman. Yes.
Ambassador Kennedy [continuing]. And we do try to make sure
that the pay and benefits to contractors represent the best
value to the U.S. Government.
Senator Kaufman. And again, what you have done so far is
Herculean. If we can get that done, that will be enough. But I
am just raising it because, as you say, that is the perfect
thing--chow hall, that is where you hear it. You are sitting at
lunch with a serviceman--I visit with servicemen from Delaware
and others every time I go over there, and by the way, there is
a guy next to me, retired military, he has his pension and
everything else but he is getting X-number of dollars to do
what I am doing. So anyway, it was one of the things I am
concerned about.
Look, the other thing I am kind of concerned about is, it
is clear to me that what Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates, and
other leaders says, and as long as we maintain our capability,
no one is going to take us on in a conventional war, no one.
And so what is going to happen is people more and more are
going to take us on in battles--cyberspace is an example--
economically. But the main thing we are going to deal with is
these insurgencies, and we are probably going to deal with
these insurgencies for the rest of my lifetime.
And I think much smarter people than me have come up with a
counterinsurgency strategy which I am in awe of, not just that
we have a counterinsurgency strategy and people can figure it
out, but how successful it has been in Iraq and how successful
I think it is in Afghanistan.
And I also think, Ambassador Kennedy, this is an incredible
opportunity to deal with one of the problems I see, and that is
the imbalance between--no disrespect--but between how many
folks we have at the Department of Defense ready to straighten
things out once there is a mistake and how many folks we don't
have at the Department of State making sure we don't have these
things develop, and I think no one says it better than
Secretary Gates when he talks about the number of employees in
the Army bands and how many Foreign Service officers that there
are.
So there is an imbalance here and counterinsurgency is an
opportunity for us to do, like, shape, hold, clear, build, and
transfer. It gives an opportunity to do what I think all of us
kind of felt intuitively was the way to go on this thing, that
this is not just about--the insurgents have come up with this
incredible ability--going all the way back probably to General
Jaap and even before him, to figure out, how do you fight these
wars, and we haven't really come up with a solution, and I
think we finally have, and it makes sense.
So as I look down the road, I see military units showing up
in Afghanistan having spent months, if not years, training
together. Everybody has a specialty. Everybody knows what they
are doing. A big change in the last year and a half. A year
ago, the civilians would show up in Kabul or in Baghdad, meet
each other for the first time, and then go out, be in a
Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) or operating with the
military, and we made a big change. Camp Atterbury, great idea.
But we are still way behind, or, Ambassador Kennedy, I mean,
this is your opinion. We are way behind the thoughtfulness that
goes into what the military operation does. Is that fair to
say?
Ambassador Kennedy. I think you are correct, very correct,
Senator Kaufman. We are behind, and I think we are addressing
that in two ways.
One is the training dimension that you have. Thanks to the
support of the Congress, the State Department, which was almost
a hollowed out force for the last decade or two, has been given
additional positions that we can build up the complement of
people who have language training, and I know this is something
that both the Government Accountability Office and this
Subcommittee has looked at. We now have the training
complement, so we are pushing additional personnel to get them
the Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Urdu languages, so the training
complement.
Second, we have an additional complement to send additional
State Department people to the military training schools,
whether it be Leavenworth, Carlisle, or Montgomery. That
working with the military at the mid-career and at the upper
levels, as well, are incredibly important to build that
comprehension. It is almost a riff on Winston Churchill's quote
about the American and the English being two people divided by
a common language. Both our DOD and our colleagues speak
English, but it is certainly a different dialect.
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Ambassador Kennedy. In my service in Iraq, I saw that. So
by additional language training, by the additional training
with the military, we were also given additional positions. We
have expanded, I think it will be almost threefold the number
of political advisers, State Department personnel attached to
military units of all sizes. We are doing all that.
The second big thrust is the Civilian Response Corps that
we are standing up, a standing corps of individuals on the
payroll who will be in training, working with their military
colleagues, and prepared to deploy in units to places. We will
never be quite the same as the military because what we would
find in a Haiti suffering from a traumatic natural disaster,
what we find in a failed state, what we find after some kind of
other civil insurrection will be very different. So we will
never be the same. But I think these two efforts pulled
together have us moving in the right direction with, as you
noted, sir, great support from Secretary Gates----
Senator Kaufman. Absolutely.
Ambassador Kennedy [continuing]. And Admiral Mullen.
Senator Kaufman. And not only Secretary Gates. He is
absolutely incredible. I want to tell you, my hat goes off to
him. One of my hobbies has been organizational theory and how
you communicate. The way the military has been able to
communicate to everyone in the theater how important
counterinsurgency is, that the job is protecting the
civilians--it is absolutely extraordinary to see for me. Just
in a short time to turn from a counterterrorist strategy to a
counterinsurgency strategy and get everybody on the same page
is truly, in my opinion, remarkable, the ability to do it.
But I am concerned. The CRC, as you said, with 75 employees
at some time have been stationed in Afghanistan. I mean, we
have 100,000 military--we are going to have 100,000 when we get
fully deployed--100,000 military. Right now, we hope to have
1,000 civilians in Afghanistan, and I think 400 outside of
Kabul. It is hard for me still--and I know this is not what you
want, but I am just saying, we still have a long way to go in
my opinion when you see--and you are absolutely right about
speaking a different language. I mean, the kind of person that
is drawn to the military doesn't have the same kind of interest
as the person that is drawn into the State Department.
So that brings me to the next point, which is recruiting. A
lot of times we have been doing this by detailing people. My
favorite is Agriculture. I know a lot of folks that work in the
Department of Agriculture. They didn't pick the Department of
Agriculture because they wanted to go to a foreign country and
learn a foreign language. It is a totally different mindset. So
going to the Department of Agriculture to try to get somebody
to go to Afghanistan and work with the farmers in Afghanistan
is difficult.
And in terms of recruiting, let me ask this, especially to
Ambassador Kennedy and Mr. Berry. What are we doing in terms of
recruiting so that we can get folks who come with an aptitude
and an interest in serving overseas in tough areas? Is that
affecting how we are recruiting folks for these positions?
Mr. Berry. Senator, I will lead off, and then I will, if it
is OK, lateral to Ambassador Kennedy.
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Mr. Berry. We are fortunate in that so many men and women
come into the civil service motivated by the desire to do
good----
Senator Kaufman. Absolutely.
Mr. Berry [continuing]. And who do so oftentimes
recognizing the incredible risks they face--our colleagues, for
example, in the Internal Revenue Service who just suffered a
loss in Texas, as we all are sadly aware of. This risk is high
oftentimes whether you are in a combat zone or not.
And so the good news is that we have been very fortunate to
identify those areas that are of most need, of benefit to the
State Department and DOD in terms of addressing the issues that
nest within the strategy that you have been referring to. And
we have been very successful so far, to date, and I hope we
will always continue to be so, of approaching people with the
desired skills that fit in with that strategy and asking them
to step up and serve their country in this special way. And the
good news is we have been able to meet the need to date. We
recognize it is an extra burden. It is an extra imposition. But
fortunately, people have been willing to step up and accept
that responsibility.
But as to the specifics of it, I think it would be good if
Ambassador Kennedy explained a little bit more for you how that
goes.
Senator Kaufman. I am anxious to hear this, but if this
works right, what we have done now is just a mere pittance in
terms of the numbers that I think we are going to have to have.
We are faced with a counterinsurgency strategy for the next 10
or 15 years. We are going to need a lot of folks. And I am
concerned about the Standby Civilian Response Corps in terms of
the number of employees. I am concerned there are only 75. I am
concerned about and I know about the reserve. I am doing the
training, but I think we have to have some idea, some
recruiting thing that goes beyond the numbers they are
recruiting right now, and that is the only point I am making.
Mr. Berry. I think one of the key points why this
legislation will be so important, Senator, is certainly working
against us--I think the willingness to serve their country----
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Mr. Berry [continuing]. And even put themselves at
additional risk was not as big a concern as the financial
hardship that their family was going to be placed under. And so
this proposal, I think, will take that off the table.
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Mr. Berry. And so it will allow our recruitment efforts to
go forward in a much stronger way and it removes one of the
greatest barriers we had, quite frankly, which was not only
were we asking them to put themselves in greater harm, we were
going to financially disadvantage them.
Senator Kaufman. I totally, absolutely agree.
Mr. Berry. And so I think that is why I believe sort of one
of the most important things in this proposal is ensuring that
they can retain their locality pay and not lose that. So that
is going to, I think, be a great relief to a number of civil
servants as they are considering and making this decision.
But you are exactly right. We are going to have to wrestle
with this recruitment issue because the numbers are going to
grow. We are probably going to be looking at a significant
increase in these numbers over the years, and that is really
determined and set by the State Department and the Defense
Department and we will work, to the extent that we can, to help
them in terms of that recruitment outreach.
Senator Kaufman. Great. Ambassador Kennedy.
Ambassador Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. I think there are
sort of three dimensions I would like to quickly address. The
first is that the Civilian Response Corps (CRC) just received
its full authorization funding----
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Ambassador Kennedy [continuing]. Just a mere 18 months ago.
We are in the process of building it up to the authorized
strength of over 2,000, 2,250 for the active and the Standby
Corps, and we are continuing to seek Congressional approval and
funding for the Reserve Corps, as well. So we are building up
the Civilian Response Corps to do exactly what you say and we
believe will have to be done in the future.
In the interim, we have already deployed--I think we had
the other day 1,074 civilian employees of the State Department
and related agencies, excluding those who are directly
supporting. We managed to put that together and we are planning
another several hundred to be deployed this fiscal year. We
know we can do it. So we are going that way.
The other agency that has to be addressed is USAID.
Senator Kaufman. Absolutely.
Ambassador Kennedy. A year and a half ago, USAID was down
to 1,400 Foreign Service personnel, which is a shadow of what
it once was in the Vietnam era. Thanks to the efforts of
Secretary Clinton supported by the Congress, we are en route to
doubling the size of USAID, getting them up to 2,800 people. We
believe that will present us with an incredibly more robust,
deployable, trained, interested, capable cadre to partner with
the U.S. military in these areas.
On the State Department side, we still have the diplomatic
mission, but it is interesting that we see the recruitment of
the State Department morphing to an older population, average
age now in the young 30s, large numbers of former military
starting a second career, individuals who had worked at non-
governmental organizations, as former Peace Corps volunteers,
and former AmeriCorps volunteers. I think, also, giving the
State Department a new inherent capability from the strength
and the skills that these individuals are bringing to the
Department. So one day they are a diplomat in a nice
assignment----
Senator Kaufman. Right.
Ambassador Kennedy [continuing]. And the next year, the
next day, they are part of a contingent of individuals deployed
either with or in support of the Civilian Response Corps or
working with our DOD colleagues on a district team in
Afghanistan.
And last, though I know that individuals from the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Interior, or
Department of Energy did not join those agencies to be deployed
overseas, as Director Berry has said and as I have seen it in
my own experience in Iraq, their willingness to step forward
and answer the call and bring those specialized skills, whether
it be in agriculture or forestry, fisheries, electricity, to
the U.S. call is truly heartwarming and truly essential to get
the mission done that you rightly cite.
Senator Kaufman. The Chairman and I will put our record up
against anyone in terms of our high esteem for Federal
employees. I mean, we both believe that one of the most
misunderstood things in America is the absolutely incredible
quality of our Federal employees. They are absolutely great.
And I think that this is a system that will work.
I am not from the State Department or USAID, we are going
to do fine there, I think. We have people. We have to get more.
As I said, Secretary Gates is a big help in this. We have to
get USAID back so we don't have as many contract employees and
we have full-time employees. Absolutely right.
I am thinking more about the specialties in terms of we are
going to have to ramp up a lot. Now, I am not saying the
Department of Agriculture, they are any less--that they are
more risk averse or anything like that. It is just in your DNA,
kind of self-selecting, just like the difference between the
United States and England and just the same between DOD folks
and Department of State folks.
And one of the things I think we really have to do--General
McChrystal talks about government in a box, and I know a lot of
people are offended by that, but it is a good word. He talks
about, well, when we get in Marja, we drop government in a box.
When we get to Kandahar City, we are going to drop government
in a box. And I know it, and I know why people have said it is
a good thing. It is a good way to kind of approach the problem.
When you say, OK, what is going to be in the box? Now, we
are going to have some State folks that are in historic State
roles. We are going to have some USAID folks with historic
State roles. We have to get more of those if you are trying to
fill up the boxes. Then we have all these specialties.
One of my personal things that we have to get straight--and
there are people at the State Department that can do this--but
I think it takes a different state of mind. Right now in
Afghanistan, the governors have no staff. If you are the
Governor of Helmand Province, Mengel, you have no staff. They
send you out there. You are appointed. You go.
Well, if you are trying to be a governor in a state like
Helmand, you need some political advice. I mean, you need
somebody whispering in your ear that has had some experience or
has some training or has some interest in the kind of the
unique problems of trying to run this. During the Second World
War, we sent groups as we moved across Italy and we moved
across Europe. We would leave behind civilian government in a
box. We would go to these little towns and we would say, OK, we
are moving on, but here are a bunch of folks that know how to
run every thing. They know how to set the water coming in. They
know how to do the agriculture. They know how to do the police
department. They know how to do the fire department. That is
really the way it worked.
And I am just saying, we are talking about a whole
different size of this thing. The size of this thing is going
to be gigantic, and I see the day when it is not going to be
one-for-one with military and civilians, but it is going to be
a lot more civilians now. And that is all I am just saying.
In terms of recruiting, in terms of training, we have done
a lot over the last little bit. I am just saying, I think we
have to turn our eyes to that, and I want to thank the four of
you for your service and what you are doing. I think America is
truly fortunate and I think that it shows the quality of
America in the quality of people that are willing to serve for
America, so thank you.
Mr. Berry. Thank you.
Ambassador Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kaufman. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Kaufman.
Director Berry, the Federal Employees Compensation Act
(FECA), was designed to provide compensation for occupational
injuries but may not be well suited for the types of traumatic
injuries that workers could receive in conflict zones. Your
legislative proposal would provide for a new payment for
traumatic injuries similar to what service members receive and
would amend FECA to allow a longer period of salary payments
for employees who suffer traumatic injuries.
Will you please discuss the proposed changes and any other
recommendations you may have to ensure that workers with
traumatic injuries get the services they need.
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and that is a
critical element of this package. The proposal that you will be
soon receiving does provide for a traumatic injury gratuity. It
mandates the payment similar to the military benefit for
traumatic injury that is received while serving in a designated
zone of armed conflict. And so we will be proposing amendments
that would accomplish and ensure that any civilian that would
suffer that would be treated consistently.
Mr. Chairman, part of this proposal waives the premium pay
cap and aggregate pay limitations. And so now sometimes where
on the civilian side, if you had suffered an injury, even if
you were entitled to payments, the pay cap would prevent you
from receiving them. What we are doing is lifting that pay cap
to do that.
Finally, I would like to recommend or bring to your
attention, Mr. Chairman, a continuation of pay in that we will
provide 45 days to file a claim after you have terminated your
assignment into the zone of armed conflict or returned to the
United States, whichever occurs last. Thirty days is the
current standard. We will be extending that under this proposal
to 45 days. The continuation of pay will be furnished for a
period not to exceed 135 days. That is an increase over the
current limitation of 45 days.
So you can see we have tried to significantly enhance these
benefits, recognizing the importance of this issue, and Mr.
Chairman, we appreciate the leadership that you and Senator
Kaufman have provided on this issue time and time again, not
only here but in sick leave for Federal employees in dealing
with an injured service member in the active military. You just
time and time again step up to the plate on these issues.
So I am hopeful, and I am very pleased that the Departments
of Defense, State, OPM, OMB, and Labor have reached agreement
on recommending to you these enhanced benefits and I hope the
Congress can expeditiously put them into law so that we will be
able to get them into play.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Ambassador Kennedy, DOD civilian employees are currently
required to undergo both pre- and post-deployment health
assessments to identify conditions that may have resulted from
deployment. The State Department has required only pre-
deployment assessments and has indicated that post-deployment
screenings would be implemented this year.
Have these post-deployment screenings been implemented, and
what are you doing to ensure that civilians who serve under a
Chief of Mission's authority complete this assessment?
Ambassador Kennedy. I am pleased to report, Mr. Chairman,
that the post-deployment medical screening process has begun.
We started out at the post as part of their departure from the
combat zone. The State Department follows it up with its
employees for those employees who might have, in effect,
escaped that screening. We follow it up to their next post.
And for the majority of our employees who are deployed in
these areas, Mr. Chairman, who are Foreign Service employees,
we have a regularly scheduled series of medical exams that you
take before you go on to subsequent assignments. And so we have
that built into the process so that Dr. Yun and his colleagues
then pick that up before a subsequent assignment or between
assignments to make sure that we do it. We send the screening
out. It is called the Primary Care PTSD Screen. It is a
standard practice we have adopted from the Veterans'
Administration and we push it out to the employees and then we
attempt to get that screening back from them, sir.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Stanley, DOD has identified some
requirements for post-deployment health assessments. I
understand that a unit deployment manager is responsible for
notifying deployed civilians when they are due to complete
their post-deployment health reassessment. How are these
managers ensuring that all DOD civilians complete this
reassessment?
Dr. Stanley. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the caseworkers
that are assigned, what their responsibilities are. The
operative word is ``all.'' I am confident that the process is
in place. It is supposed to be working. I am going to have to
lean back here and find out. But the question of ``all'' has
always been a problem for me personally, because when you start
saying ``all,'' that is like it is absolutely perfect, and
there are some aspects of what we are talking about here, even
as we work on doing this uniformly with our State Department
and Federal employees in general that I would certainly have to
take some time to look at and make sure that all are being
administered properly as they go through post-deployment. I
hope that is clear to the Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Well, I, too, look forward to your
attempt to try to get all of them.
Dr. Stanley. Yes.
Senator Akaka. Hopefully, we have a process where we can
try to do that.
Dr. Stanley. Yes.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Stanley and Ambassador Kennedy, Japanese
Americans serving in the U.S. military were critically
important in reconstructing Japan in the aftermath of World War
II, and when I mention that, I am thinking of General MacArthur
and his leadership of U.S. forces in Japan during that period
of time. They were able to use their background and knowledge
of Japanese culture to build trust with the people and the
government of Japan.
Such an approach may also be useful for, in this case,
Afghanistan. Are your departments deploying civilians of Afghan
descent to Afghanistan to support the reconstruction and
stabilization efforts? Dr. Stanley.
Dr. Stanley. Mr. Chairman, I know that we have people of
Afghan descent who are deployed. We are required to base in
terms of how we determine who goes, it is expeditionary nature
and who we pick to go, and the mission you are talking about
would be something that we would be focused on. How many we
have, how far that goes, I would have to get back to you, but I
know we have Afghan descent.
Ambassador Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would have to also get
back to you on gross numbers, but two things, if I might. The
State Department makes a great effort as part of its recruiting
effort around the world to attract Americans who speak the
languages that we are most in need of--Dari, Pashto, Arabic,
etc., and so we are out there recruiting individuals.
The State Department also has a bidding system based upon
assignments, and so anyone who is interested in serving in Iraq
and Afghanistan, we welcome that service. We have filled every
single requirement in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the very
beginning with volunteers, and so the ability for us to attract
and welcome heritage speakers into the situation is something
that we most--and we do get volunteers.
A recent example is we have dispatched a number of Creole-
speaking Americans of Haitian ancestry to bolster our team in
Port au Prince, and that is the figure and example that comes
most readily to mind because it is the last major crisis I was
working on. But we have trained Afghan Americans at our Foreign
Service Institute and we have deployed them to both Kabul and
field positions, sir.
Senator Akaka. In asking this, I want to get to this
particular question, Dr. Stanley and Ambassador Kennedy. I
believe that it is very important that U.S. personnel who work
overseas have a strong understanding of the culture they are
working in and the ability to speak that language. How are your
departments addressing or assessing and improving the cultural
language training that deployed civilians need to be effective?
Dr. Stanley.
Dr. Stanley. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we don't look
at it just at the deployed civilians, obviously, because we
have our military that we are using, too. We also are fortunate
to have probably over 40 percent of our military personnel who
have now become DOD civilians. We are fortunate that some of
those are actually native language speakers, so we benefit that
way, too.
I would like to take for the record to get back to you with
specifics on the numbers, the specifics in who we are using in
different places. We do have deployed civilians who are, in
fact, trained, who are, in fact, used, but we use them and
tailor their placement actually based upon the requirements
that have been determined of how we actually place them. Where
they are right now in Afghanistan and even Iraq has been--these
are requirements that are determined by our joint staff as we
work to support our commanders who are forward deployed. So I
will get back to you with specifics.
Senator Akaka. Fine.
Ambassador Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have at Arlington Hall
Station, Virginia, the National Foreign Affairs Training
Center. Before we deploy personnel to Afghanistan, and I might
include Iraq in the report, as well, we do a familiarization
course taught by individuals who are expert in the area before
we deploy the personnel there. Additionally, if they are being
deployed to the field outside of Kabul in Afghanistan, we send
them to Camp Atterbury in Indiana to work jointly with the
military there, but also, I think you referred to it, Mr.
Chairman, in your statement, sort of a familiarization course
built around a mock-Afghanistan city/town where the population
is actually Afghan American, so to help people understand the
cross culture. And this is something the State Department has
been doing for many years--East Asian studies, African studies,
Latin American studies. It is in our DNA, and we certainly
agree, sir, that it is absolutely essential to incorporate.
The second piece is obviously language. As the GAO has
noted in the past until recently, the State Department has been
deficient in language training. We simply did not have
sufficient resources to pull people off of the line. I mean,
every State Department person, in effect, up until recently,
was assigned to a job, and to pull someone off to study
Chinese, Arabic, Dari, or Pashto, the 2 years that it really
takes to learn those languages was a price we almost could not
afford to pay. But thanks to the actions of the Congress
starting in the fiscal year 2009 authorization bill, we have
been able to increase significantly our training complement for
hard languages at the National Foreign Affairs Training Center.
For example, in Arabic in 2005 and 2006, we were training
80 to 90 people. This year, we are training 139, which is a
significant almost doubling that increase. In Dari, it has
almost doubled, from 15 to 28. In Farsi, doubled from five to
10. And Urdu, from six to 16. And currently, we have 35 State
Department employees in Dari training and 21 in Pashto.
Do I wish it was more? Do I feel that we are doing
everything we could today in the field? Absolutely not, Mr.
Chairman. But since it takes at least 1 year and really 2 years
to get someone fluent in those languages, we are starting way
behind, but thanks to the assistance of the Congress, we now
have the resources that we can put people into that language
training so that we are growing the cadre for the future, and
then we push them out into those difficult assignments, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Director Berry, in the past, the circumstances under which
non-DOD civilians would be eligible for care at military
facilities following deployment has been unclear. I understand
that on April 1, 2010, DOD sent a letter to agencies clarifying
these policies. Do you believe this letter adequately explains
eligibility for this care, and are there any additional actions
needed to facilitate non-DOD civilians' access to military
facilities when appropriate?
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the
specific details of that letter, so if I could, we would get
back to you and the Subcommittee on that. And we will
coordinate with Secretary Stanley to make sure it is up to date
with your question, sir.
Senator Akaka. Fine. I would appreciate that.
Dr. Stanley, the 2010 DOD report to Congress on medical
care available to deployed civilians states that the Department
is supporting a presidential memo directing all agencies that
deploy civilians to a conflict zone to establish an ombudsman
and FECA advisory programs. What is the status of this
presidential memo?
Dr. Stanley. Mr. Chairman, I have to get back to you, to
take that question for the record.
Senator Akaka. Thank you so much for that.
Ms. St. Laurent, GAO found significant shortcomings in
agencies' ability to identify and track their deployed
civilians. Would you please elaborate on your findings on this
issue, as well as why they are significant?
Ms. St. Laurent. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Again, we had
challenges working with each of the agencies to get a complete
and accurate list of civilians that had been deployed from 2006
to 2008, and in the process of working with the various
agencies, we have learned that many of them had to do special
queries or manually try to reconstruct who had deployed
overseas. So it was clear to us that there was no one accurate
tracking system or database that you could easily go to to find
out how many individuals were deployed.
DOD did have some processes in place, but again, what we
found was that they weren't being consistently implemented, and
we know that DOD is trying to make some further improvements
and go to a system where they would be relying on basically
their personnel system to be able to accurately identify
deployed civilians.
I think the important thing is that each agency take some
specific steps to think through what is the most appropriate
and practical way to develop a reliable, accurate database, and
it is extremely important in the event that future health
issues emerge and individuals need to be contacted to deal with
any potential medical or other issues that could arise as a
result of deployments.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Ambassador Kennedy, the issue of tracking civilians also
applies to the Department of State. Since a large number of
civilians serve in a country under a Chief of Mission's
authority, how does the State Department currently identify and
track all employees deployed to Afghanistan or serving under
this authority?
Ambassador Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The State
Department has implemented what we call an Electronic Country
Clearance System. That means that civilian employees of any
government agency going, as you know, sir, out to serve under
the Chief of Mission prepare this system. They register
themselves. The e-mail transmission is registered at the State
Department. It goes out to the post and becomes part of the
post roster. They make sure that they can be registered for
housing and for ID cards. So they can literally be met at the
airport.
So we use this E-Country Clearance System, and then there
is a Departure System at the back end to make sure that we have
what we believe an accurate tracking of everybody who is going
in and out. I would hesitate under oath to swear that it
functions at the 100-point-zero-zero percent, but we believe
that because of the multiple layers we built into it,
everything from where you sleep to the pass to get into the
dining hall, that we have done everything we can to track the
personnel who are traveling to Afghanistan.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Dr. Stanley, DOD relies on the Joint Personnel Statistics
System to provide information on its deployed civilians. This
system provides the most accurate information available for the
location of deployed civilians when they swipe their
identification cards. However, if employees do not swipe their
cards, they are not tracked.
Have you had problems with civilians not swiping their
cards, and how are you ensuring that all DOD civilians deployed
to a conflict zone do swipe their cards so the Department knows
where they are?
Dr. Stanley. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have had problems with
civilians not swiping their cards. The manual system that you
have alluded to, the Joint Personnel Statistics System, we are
actually in the process now of transitioning to an automated
system. But the operative word here is ``in the process.'' It
is not there yet, but we are getting there, and so it is
improving, but it is not perfect yet.
Senator Akaka. Well, let me ask my final question to
Ambassador Kennedy. Last December, this Subcommittee held a
hearing on the challenges facing the State Department's Bureau
of Diplomatic Security (DS). One particular concern has been
providing security to our civilians who are serving in areas of
increased danger. I understand that the military provides
security for civilians in the field. However, when the military
begins to leave Afghanistan, a greater security burden will be
placed on DS.
How is the State Department planning for this transition?
Ambassador Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, if I could, let me cite
the example of Iraq, because at the moment, whereas the
withdrawal of the Department of Defense personnel from
Afghanistan is a future event, active planning and withdrawal
is actually underway in Iraq now and the State Department will
be staying behind at a number of installations in Iraq after
the military leaves.
We are engaged, I think, in that level in three dimensions.
First of all, we will deploy additional Diplomatic Security
Special Agents to Iraq as required. We have created and are
recruiting a new category under the Foreign Service Act,
Special Protective Services Personnel. These will not be
Federal Special Agents, but they will be State Department
employees, military or law enforcement background, who go
through special training, and they will be deployed to Iraq and
then obviously to Afghanistan at the time that arrives to
oversee the contracted workforce.
There are only some 1,700 Diplomatic Security Federal
Special Agents in the entire world and we simply do not have
the capability with Federal employees to match the 82nd
Airborne or the Fourth Infantry Division. So our plan, Mr.
Chairman, is to use contractors overseen very specifically and
very directly by the Diplomatic Security Special Agents or the
Diplomatic Security Special Protection Personnel.
The third dimension is we are expanding our aviation
capability, both rotary wing and fixed wing, in Iraq and in
Afghanistan to be able to move personnel around the country in
a safe and secure means using aviation assets in Iraq, at
least, that today are owned by the U.S. Government, but which
are crewed by contracted personnel. So this is something that
Eric Boswell, the Director of the Diplomatic Security Service,
has on his plate. He and I must talk at least once a day about
our efforts in Iraq, and we see the model that we are putting
in place in Iraq will be, with obviously changes from the
lessons we learned, the model that we will put into place in
Afghanistan when that time comes, sir.
Senator Akaka. Well, let me ask a few more questions. Dr.
Stanley and Ambassador Kennedy, both the Department of State
and DOD run their own pre-deployment training programs for
civilians who will participate in contingency operations,
reconstruction and stabilization efforts, and other key
overseas operations.
To what extent do your departments coordinate in developing
and executing this training in order to maximize its efficiency
and effectiveness? Dr. Stanley.
Dr. Stanley. Mr. Chairman, I believe we coordinate. I know
we work together. Even the legislation that is proposed
enhances that, or works toward better coordination with that.
Our training is open to State Department and other Federal
employees, in general, and Federal employees basically go
through our training.
Now, having said that, I am a kind of person that always
believes that whatever you do, you can do better, and so by
working together, as we work together, I believe that we move
in that direction.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Ambassador.
Ambassador Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree
with my colleague. Anything one can do can always be done
better. I think there are two dimensions to this.
We are very pleased with our joint efforts with our
Department of Defense colleagues at Camp Atterbury, Indiana.
This is a major step forward. It has the facility of creating
the environment of Afghanistan, very important, coupled with
the ability to work with members of the Indiana National Guard
on that all-important State and Defense Department cooperation
in the field. So that partnership exists, I think, to a high
degree.
On the other side, we have large numbers of Department of
Defense personnel, usually from the Defense Intelligence
Agency, but also from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
(DSCA) and others, who come to the State Department's National
Foreign Affairs Training Center at Arlington Hall to take the
cross-cultural courses we offer, to take the language courses
that we offer, to take a course that we just call ``Working at
an Embassy'' to acquaint the Department of Defense personnel
about what it is like to work at an embassy if they are
assigned closely to work with those people.
We also run on our own, because the security training that
we give civilians is different from the security training that
the military gives its personnel. I will train a civilian to
shoot. I am not going to give him or her a gun unless they are
a qualified law enforcement professional. But we train them in
driving skills for an emergency. We train them in the use of
firearms in extremis, if their security personnel are down. We
train them in first aid so that they can act as sort of a first
echelon emergency medical technician or trauma, so that they
are prepared for that regard.
So we do have these packages and we work very closely with
the Department of Defense, and, as I said, our National Foreign
Affairs Training Center is open to any State Department
employee, and we are also open to any U.S. Government civilian
employee from the Defense Department or any other agency. And
our National Foreign Affairs Training Center works very closely
with OPM and the Department of Defense--regular consultations
and regular planning to make sure that we are going forward in
the right direction.
I guess the last point I might make is we also send both
active duty and retired State Department personnel to a variety
of military training exercises so they can bring the
ambassadors' perspective, the country team perspective, and the
overseas perspective to exercises that the 82nd Airborne or
U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) or USCENTCOM might be doing,
again, to build the common structures that we need to go
forward.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Ambassador, you testified that your Family Liaison Office
provides families of employees serving on an unaccompanied tour
with a single point of contact for information, emotional
support, and assistance. Does a Family Liaison Office provide
support to the families of Federal civilians who are not State
Department employees but serve under a Chief of Mission's
authority?
Ambassador Kennedy. Our Family Liaison Office does help the
personnel of other agencies, and we are, in fact, in discussion
with and we will continue that discussion with other agencies.
As more and more civilians from other agencies are deployed
overseas, we need to beef up that office, and so we will be
engaging in discussions with them about helping contribute to
that effort. But our Community Liaison Office at post and our
Family Liaison Office in Washington is very much involved in
outreach to other agencies. Could we do better? Absolutely,
yes. Is the foundation there? Equally, yes.
Senator Akaka. Ambassador Kennedy, the State Department's
Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy calls
for creating a cadre of civilian experts on Afghanistan and
Pakistan with personnel who have completed tours in those
countries. Could you please comment on how the Department will
assemble and sustain this group of experts?
Ambassador Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to get
back to you for the record, sir. I know that the State
Department makes every effort to convince State Department
employees who have served in a region of the world to return to
that region of the world. In fact, we offer language incentives
for people to keep that up. So we have internal to our
processes an effort to recruit people to go back again at
successively higher levels of expertise.
I think what you may be referring to is a program that we
have been in discussion with Special Representative Ambassador
Holbrooke, about creating this corps of specialists, and
particularly in Afghanistan. Let me get the details of that for
the record. It is a program that the State Department is
supporting.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Ambassador, I understand that some
agencies will have to greatly increase their presence in the
Standby CRC to meet the fiscal year 2010 goals. For instance,
the Department of Homeland Security has zero participants in
the Standby Corps and a fiscal year 2010 goal of 28. What
actions will the State Department take in cooperation with
other agencies to meet these staffing goals?
Ambassador Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, John Herbst, who is the
Director for the Secretary of the Civilian Response Corps, is
in, I would almost say, daily consultations, communications,
task forces, and other working groups with every agency across
the government. Obviously, this is something, Mr. Chairman,
that is very new to the government, the idea of pooling
civilian resources in the way the military can assemble a task
force composed of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine, and as
appropriate, Coast Guard service members.
This is something very new. We just received the
authorization to establish this only 18 months ago. Some
agencies have been faster than others in signing up and
contributing personnel. So it is very much a work in progress
and is something that Mr. Herbst spends all day long working
on.
Senator Akaka. Well, I would like to thank all of our
witnesses for being here today. Our Federal civilians have a
vital role in supporting the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as
well as other areas facing crises around the world. I am
encouraged by the efforts of DOD and the State Department to
strengthen training for these civilians. I am also pleased that
your agencies have worked so diligently to bring about greater
consistency for benefits and compensation for deployed
civilians.
The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks for additional
statements or questions other Members may have.
Really, this has been a great hearing for me and for the
Subcommittee and I look forward to working with you in case
there is legislation that is necessary to bring these
improvements about. We can work together to do that. We are
doing all of this to try to help our civilian force to continue
to provide the kind of service they do for our great country.
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, if I could, before we end----
Senator Akaka. Director Berry.
Mr. Berry. With your indulgence, sir, I would just like to
call on and recognize one person who has done an incredible job
for which we could not have brought you the successful proposal
we did without him. He is our White House Fellow. He is an
active Major in the U.S. Army. His name is Ken Robbins. He is
with me today. He has done an incredible job working with our
career people at the Office of Personnel Management, Jerry
Mikowicz and others. But I believe it was his leadership that
helped to really bring this home, and I want to personally
thank him, not only for his service to our country and in
active duty military, but in his incredible leadership this
year as our White House Fellow.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Mr. Robbins, will you
please rise?
[Applause.]
Again, let me also thank you for your service to our
country. We look forward to your further service as we try to
improve the quality of medical benefits and compensation that
we owe our civilian workers. So thank you very much.
With that thank you, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
