óqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóqóq @@@@@@@ @@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@@ @@@@@ @@@@@@@ @ @@@@@@@

state department worldwide. so, our diplomats can advance u.s. interests. since the terrorist bombings of the u.s. embassies in kenya and tanzania in august 1998, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, diplomatic security's responsibilities have grown and evolved. the walls in iraq and afghanistan further increase the challenges of keeping our diplomats safe. last week president obama announced his new afghanistan strategy. 30,000 u.s. troops will be deployed in support of this effort. secretary of state clinton stated that the number of

civilians in afghanistan will triple by early next year. d.s. must be fully prepared to support and even a greater role in protecting our civilians. over the last decade, d.s.'s budget has increased almost ten fold to about $2 billion. and its direct staff has doubled. unfortunately these extra resources have not guaranteed d.s.'s readiness. in particular, i have concerns in three areas that i hope will be addressed today. first, the department, state department must address the ongoing staffing challenges. gao identified gaps that hindered d.s.s. in carrying out their duties.

less than half of security offices serving in language designated positions meet their proficiency requirements. more than one-third of diplomatic security positions are filled by offices below the appropriate grade. and personnel gaps at domestic offices and at key posts overseas. i believe that d.s. should invest more in its workforce by having enough people with experience and language skills necessary to fully support its critical missions. understaffing leads to an overreliance on contractors. gao found that there are 36,000 contractors at work in d.s. which is about 90% of diplomatic

security's notal workforce. according to gao, some d.s. employees are not prepared to manage this large contracted workforce. recent security lapses at the u.s. embassy in kabul have illustrated the need for better contractor oversight. second, the state department must better manage tension between fulfilling diplomatic operations, and providing strong security. today, state department employees serve in iraq, afghanistan and other posts where they would have previously been required to evacuate. these diplomatic operations are critical to u.s. interests, but providing security for such dangerous missions places a great burden on d.s.

because of these dangers, some of our overseas folks resemble fortresses and for security reason we're not in locations considered to be most appropriate and accessible for diplomatic operations. gao reported that some diplomats are concerned that security measures make it more difficult for visitors to attend u.s. embassy events, making person to person engagement less likely. we must be mindful that the way our diplomatic presence is seen and felt in other countries may reinforce or undermine our broader diplomatic goals. it is certainly critical that tuesday protect its personnel from threats, both on and off post. security, however, must be

carried out in concert with our diplomatic mission. finally, i want to emphasize the need for improved strategic planning efforts within d.s. i support gao's recommendation for the department -- state department to conduct a strategic review of diplomatic security. the department has already stated that d.s. will benefit from the diplomacy and development review. i'm looking forward to hearing more about this from our state department witness and how strategic planning for d.s. can become a part of its culture. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. senator voinovich, your opening statement. >> thank you, senator, akaka and

i appreciate you holding this hearing today. i've been concerned about the management of the state department not only as a member of this oversight government management and federal workforce but also as a former member of the foreign relations committee and now on the appropriations committee on the subcommittee on foreign ops, and i think that too often the management of some of our agencies haven't been given the consideration that they should have been given, and i know that secretary clinton has indicated that she wants to move forward and improve the management and there's going to be a large number of people that are going to be hired by the state department, and we're

anxious to make sure that they get the right people on board to get the job done. i think that's one of the reasons we're here today, because we're concerned about the issue of diplomatic security, and i move around the world and visit some of our embassies, and very impressed with some of what i've seen and in other instances after reading this report a little bit concern. and i want appears that the bureau lacks the strategic planning with little capacity, you know, to prepare for future security needs. i've talked this over with my staff and it seems that we just have too many people that are under contract, although from what we can tell, those under

contract do a pretty good job. i know when i was in iraq, i had with the black -- whatever the name of the group is. i asked who is security, i was in a helicopter i thought it was our guys. no it was the security operation. got out of the helicopter and got into an suv and i wanted to know who is the security and it's another private operation. and i wanted to find out who was training the iraqi government folks in the special unit and they were also hired people. and, of course, that was the department of defense. so, we would just like to look into how this is being looked at by the state department, and i think the thing that bothers me the most and i think senator akaka you did a good job of laying it out, it appears that the people that have been brought on don't have training

that they need to to get the job done. i spent a couple of hours over the defense department with richard holbrooke and visiting with team that he put together to go over to afghanistan. he's taking his time and trying to make sure he gets the right people and not in a big rush to just get people on and they are trying to find the right ones. so i would like to know what percentages of the people that are going to be doing this taught be on the government payroll and not private contractors. are there too many that are on the private payroll? second of all, can't we do a better job of preparing those individuals that we're asking to do this job, i understand it takes about three years to train somebody up for one of these jobs. the other thing i'm interested in is who decides whether or not the private contractor is doing the job that you're paying them for. i found that too often you have private sector people on and the question is does the agency know

whether or not they are getting a return on the investment that they are putting in to that private sector? so i'm anxious to hear your testimony today and the other two witnesses to follow. >> thank you very much, senator voinovich. i want to welcome our first panel of witnesses to the subcommittee today. ambassador erik j.boswell the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. mr. jess t. ford. as you know, it is the custom of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses, and i would ask you to please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give this subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth, so help you god? thank you. let me note in the record that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. before we start, i want to know -- i want you to know that your full written statements will be part of the record, and i also would like to remind you to please limit your remarks to five minutes. ambassador boswell, please proceed with your statement. >> thank you, chairman. oops. thank you, mr. chairman and good afternoon to you, sir, and to the members of the committee, senator voinovich as well. i'm honored to appear before you today. i would like to thank you four continued support and interest in the diplomatic bureau of

programs. with your support we've been table safeguard american diplomats and facilities for the conduct of u.s. foreign policy and main tower our robust investigative programs which serve to protect borders of the united states. with your permission i'll make this brief statement. while diplomatic security continues to provide the most secure environment possible for the conduct of america's foreign policy, as you mentioned, mr. chairman in your opening remarks, the scope and scale of d.s.'s response and authorities have grown immensely in response to emerging threats and security incidents. increased resources were necessary for the bureau to meet the requirements of securing our diplomatic facilities in the extremely high threat environments of iraq, afghanistan, pakistan and other locations. the department currently operates diplomatic missions in locations where in the past we might have closed the post and evacuated all personnel when faced with similar threats. as you may know, mr. chairman, i

also served as assistant secretary for diplomatic security from 1995 to 1998. security from 1995 to 1998. this@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n@ @ r the strategic management of the resources available for our bureau to fulfill its mission both currently and in the future. two years ago diplomatic security created the threat

investigations and analysis directorate to enhance our analysis capability. this consent trants our threat analysis and intelligence efforts under one streamlined command struck purr and fofters closer working relationships among all our analysts. our next challenge is to sharpen our focus as you mentioned, sir, not only on predicting future security threats but on planning in advance for the security solutions and resources needed fortomorrow's crisis and foreign policy initiatives. over the coming months, we will begin working toward the development of a strategic unit charged that they're better positioned to support policy initiatives and manage global security threats. at the same time, we must balance our resources and security requirements to achieve an infective mix of highest skilled personnel while

controlling costs associated with requirements that have grown tremendously over the last 20 years. we are embarked on a new bureau wide planning process that will allow us to better measure the performance of our 120 plus existing programs and utilized data to make better and more informed resource decisions. having decisions supported data available will enable ds to determine how well current programs and resources align with the bureau's and the department's strategic goals. ds is actively participating in the state department's diplomacy and development review that the secretary, secretary clinton has focused on improferring the department's resources and training to insure the right people for the right job at the right time are in place to conduct diplomacy around the world. we are also participating in the qddr working group responsible for the foreign affairs communities activities and contingency response

environments. the department of state operates in increasingly in dangerous locations. and this requires extensive resources to mitigate the risk. although ds workforce has grown substantially over the past deca decade, the fluid nature of the security environments in afghanistan, in iraq, in pakistan presents an on going challenge to our program and staffing structures in those and other posts. to meet the challenge of securing u.s. diplomatic operations under wartime conditions in iraq, afghanistan, and other high threat zones, ds relies on worldwide personal protective services contract, wpps contract to provide protective security, aviation support and fixed guard services. these contracts allow the scaleability required for increased threats or new operational requirements and provides specialized services in extraordinary circumstances. in recognition of the early challenges ds experienced in contract oversight, specifically

in iraq, we improved contract officers representative training for all security officer personnel and increased agent staffing in iraq and afghanistan to directly supervise the personal security contractors. in addition, ds has established a new security protective specialist skill code, a limited noncareer federal appointment category, federal employment category designed to augment ds special agents by providing direct oversight of motorcades in critical threat locations where such resources are needed most. we are similarly evaluating other staffing options to adequately cover this important oversized function -- oversight function. although the bureau is experiencing a surge in new positions, uneven staffing taken in the 1990s has resulted in significant experience gaps in our agent and security engineering core. to limit the experience gap, we increased training and mentoring programs and carefully

identified personnel capable of serving in what we call stretch assignments. over the past ten years, the bureau has embarked on an ambitious recruitment and hiring program, we increased our outreach to colleges and university with an eye toward building a professional service that reflects america's diversity. in order to deploy highly qualified personnel into the field quickly, we have revamped some of our training programs and are evaluating our entire agent program to insure that the instruction provided to new and existing ds special agents is relevant to the new realities of our bureau's mission. ds continues to strive to meet the security needs of department in increasingly dangerous locations by anticipating needs and dedicating appropriate resources to accomplish our mission. through these changes ds remains one of the most dynamic agencies in the u.s. federal law enforcement and security community. thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to brief you on the

global mission of the bureau of diplomatic security and on our unique ability to safeguard americans working in some of the most dangerous location as broad and the taxing requirement that's we face. with your continued support, we will insure diplomatic security remains a valuable and infective resource for protecting our people, our programs, facilities, and interests around the world. >> thank you very much for that statement. we'll proceed with your statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to be here today to discuss the department of state's bureau of diplomatic security which is responsible for protection of people, information, and property at over 400 embassies, consolates and domestic locations. since the bombings in east after kashgs the scope and complexity of threats facing americans

abroad and at home has increased significantly. diplomatic security must be prepared to counter such threats such as crime, espionage, visa, passport fraud, technological intrusions, political violence and terrorism. my statement today is based on our report which we released two days ago which was requested by the subcommittee. i'm going to briefly summarize our findings. we found since 1998, ds' mission has grown considerably in reaction to the security threats and incidents i just outlined. the wars in afghanistan and iraq, the need to enhance the physical security of our embassies and our facilities domestically, the increase protection mission that's ds tho has to undertake, visa fraud have let to significant budget airy and personnel growth.

diplomatic securities budgets has increased tenfold since 1998 from approximately $200 million to about $2 billion today. in addition, the size of ds direct higher workforce doubled since 1998. the number of direct hire security specialists, special agents, engineers, techniques and kerriers has increased. at the same time, the diplomatic security bureau has increased the use of contractors to secure a security operations worldwide through increases in their guard force and use of contractors to provide protective details for american diplomats in high threat environments. as a consequence of this growth, diplomatic security faces policy and operational challenges. first, ds is maintaining missions in increasingly dangerous locations necessitying the use of more resources and

making it more difficult to provide security in these locations. second, although ds has grown considerably in staff over the past ten years, it still faces significant staffing shortages and domestic offices. it still has a number of language deficiencies of its staff, and it still has experience gaps as well as other operational challenges which need to be addressed. finally, the state has not benefitted from good strategic planning for the bureau which is an area that we made recommendations for in our report. we identified several challenge that's impede ds from effectively carrying out its mission. just to cite some examples, staffing shortages in its domestic offices. in 2008, about one-third of the officers operated with a 25% vacancy rate or higher. several offices reported that

this shortage of staff affected their ability to conduct their work resulting in case back logs and inadequate training opportunities. foreign language deficiencies. as you cited in your opening statement, mr. chairman, we found that about 53% of the regional security officers overseas do not speak or read at the level required of their positions. and we concluded that these foreign language short falls could negatively affect several aspects of u.s. i ddiplomacy. to cite an example, an officer at one post told us that because she could not speak the language, she had to transfer a sensitive phone call on an informant on a potential criminal activity to one of her locally engaged staff. experience gaps. 34% of ds' positions are filled below the position grade. for example, several assistant

regional security officers with whom we met with in the course of our work indicated that they did not feel adequately prepared for their jobs, particularly with the responsibility to manage large security contracts. we previously reported that experience gaps can compromise diplomatic missions. the desire to provide the best security possible to its staff overseas has at times resulted in tension within the department over its diplomatic mission versus its security needs. for example, diplomatic securities establish strict policies concerning access to facilities that are usually include both personal and vehicle screening. some public affairs officers that we met with indicated that they were frustrated that they could not operate as freely as they would like. and this continues to be a challenge within the department in terms of balancing appropriate security versus enhancing our diplomatic posture

outside the embassy walls. in our view, the increasing growth in expanding mission ands operational challenges facing the bureau require a strategic review of the department. while ds has undertaken some planning efforts, we found that they had not adequately addressed the resource needs or management challenge that's we outlined in our report. several senior diplomatic security officials indicated that ds remains largely a reactive in nature stating that several reasons for this is for lack of long-term planning was that they had to react to policy decisions made elsewhere in the department or in the white house or in congress. finally, past efforts to strategically plan at ds have not resulted in a good solid strategic planning. we cited an example in our report in fiscal year 2006 that ds indicated that it needed to develop a workforce planning strategy to recruit sustained

efforts and find highly skilled personnel and that they needed to establish a training flow which i can discuss later to help deal with staff shortages. we found as of 2009 that these issues had not yet been resolved. in our report we recollect the secretary of state as part of the diplomatic review conduct a strategic review of the bureau of diplomatic security to insure that its missions and activities address the department's priority needs and address the challenge that's we outline in our report. mr. chairman, that concludes my statement. i'd be happy to answer any of your questions. >> thank you very much. last week secretary of state hillary clinton testified that u.s. is on track to triple the number of civilian positions in

afghanistan to 974 by early next year. how will this large increase impact ds operations in afghanistan? and how much additional ds staffing will be required? >> mr. chairman, that will be a great clalg tohallenge to ds as surge in iraq was some years ago. we have the advantage this time of having a little more advance notice. we are going to be doubling the staff of our security office in kabul. and we have, shall we say, a large resource package included in the discussions that will go forward regarding the budget for 2011. but it is a very significant change.

ds agents largely protect the mission in kabul. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ r@ @ @ the civilians are under the @ protection of the military. >> ambassador, the state department just announced its intention to find a new contractor to provide security at the u.s. embassy in kabul after reviewing the allegations

of misconduct and security lapses by the current contractor. the prominent government watchdog group questions whether embassy security in a combat zone should be handled by the private sector instead of by government employees. has the state department considered whether these positions in combat zones should be performed in house? >> yes, sir, we have. that -- that contract which is, as you mentioned, we have -- the department has decided not to exercise a renewal, an option year in that contract. it is going to be recompeted. it's going to be recompeted among guard companies. i have to clarify that what we're talking about here are the guards that provide the static security around the embassy in kabul. they man the guard posts around

this embassy in kabul. they check the vehiclesment they man the checkpoints. they screen the people that are admitted to the compound. these are not the people that provide bodyguard services, that protect our people when we move. these are the fixed post guards. around the world, those -- that function has been provided by contractors for many, many, many years. i don't see any real chance that they could be provided by direct hire u.s. government employees or military simply because there are so many. out of the 34,000 people you mentioned, 32,000 are these fixed post guards. just like the fixed post people

that stand around the capitol or around the state department. and that has been a successful program for many years. >> ambassador, according to the gao report, ds is planning to replace some contractors with federal employees. >> please tell us about reducing the number of contractors. >> yes, sir. i think it's fair to say that the civilian surges in afghanistan and pakistan and iraq and also if pakistan which we haven't mentioned quite yet, severely challenge ds from the point of view of stretching us and making very, great demands on our resources.

we could have done better in providing the military tale that supports the teeth, the agents in the field. and this was pointed in and out a recent state department inspection also of ds that we had underresourced the administrative management end. mostly in the states. we are increasing the number of people that have been filled by contractors in the past. by contractors, i don't mean guards. i don't mean bodyguards. these are administrative and technical positions, secretaries, analysts, this sort of stuff. >> mr. ford, you said when the

united states removes the remaining forces from iraq by the end of 2011 it will impact diplomatic securities operations. what specific challenges do you foresee? >> we haven't seen the plan yet for how it's going to be impacted in terms of the civilian side. as the military with draws, ds already has a very large presence in iraq. we believe that it will effect ds because some of the protective service that's the military may be providing currently could be transferred over to ds. we don't have any specific information with regard to what the staffing implications of that might. in our report we had indicated that i believe it was last year ds had, i believe it was 81 special agents in iraq which is by far the largest number of any

overseas post. there is likely to be some implications as we surge into afghanistan. so we don't -- we have not yet been briefed on what the actual numbers will be and what the resource implications might be for providing protective services in iraq once our military starts to withdraw. >> ambassador, do you have anything to add? >> it is a major case facing us. we, the department, will take over certain functions that are now performed about it military. i can give you an example. the police training function which is currently done by the military will be handled by the department. that will mean a significant increase in the number of direct

hire usg employees and contractors that will be assigned to the embassy in baghdad and also around the country. and that will be a big challenge for us because they will have to be protected. this is a significant staff increase. and these folks, business is not in baghdad. it's out in the countryside. and we'll have to protect them. and we will -- we are seeking the resources necessary to do that. there is a very, very active planning operation regarding iraq in 2012, it's department wide. we're very much a part of it. and that aspect is one of the things that we are -- that we are considering very closely. >> thank you. senator whitehouse? >> one of the things that always bothered me is the lack of planning, the fiasco and a few

others. and lucky that toward the end we got our act together. it seems to me that we're doing a much better job of preparing for our mission in afghanistan. do you have a critical path in place? you mentioned that in terms of iraq that who's going to leave say in the green zone and how much is being provided by the military there gone and how are those people going to be taken care of? i don't think very much is said about the number of people that are going to leave in iraq may continue with what prts that we got going there. has somebody really sat down with a piece of paper and scoped it out so that you have confidence that once this takes place in '11 that you're going to be taking care of your folks? >> yes, we are, senator. as i mentioned, there's a very, very actsive planning program that is going on that is going

on not only in the department but involves ambassador chris hill's staff in baghdad. i think it's reasonable to say here that we will have a significant presence in -- we, the department, will have a significant presence in the countryside. it's likely that we will open up new consolates which do not exist now. and it's also likely that there will be somewhat we're going to call enduring presence posts which are -- where state department employees will be in the countryside. and we're very, very actively planning one for that and, two, how we're going to protect them. is there any paper anywhere that we could look at that would kind of give us the long range plan and a commitment in iraq so that we have some idea of where folks are going and how long we anticipate their being there? >> i'm not aware of any paper

that exists. this is a planning process that is going on. i don't think i could tell that you there is a formal road map out there yet. but i do know that planning is going on. it is being factored into the president's 2011 budget request. >> mr. chairman, i think it will be a good idea for us to talk maybe with foreign relations to really get an idea of just what the commitment is going to be made in iraq once the troops leave there. the other thing that i think hasn't been underscored in the president's presentation or quite frankly been brought up -- i've seen some of the other hearings. what are the plans that we've got to move folks out to do the prts and the government infrastructure building and so forth that we have in afghanistan? and, you know, how long do we think that we're going to need to do that in order to stabilize

those communities? it's a big part of that. we'll talk about the military side of this. but i think that we may not be in -- as candid as what we should be, in other words. and from the information i got was that we're probably going to have to have folks there for a longer period than what was presented by the president. i wholeheartedly support the idea of putting the praur on him to do the things that they're supposed to be doing. but this recent comment by karzai about the fact that, you know, that we're going to have to be there for a long time. one of the things we're not talking about is if we have an afghanistan army, we're going to have to pay for it. we're going to have to pay for it. they don't have the money to pay for it. it's different than iraq. beyond that, forget about the subject, is you're going to have a lot of people over there, and i'd be very interested in

knowing because of this very, very good plan that was shared with me, what are goug do to make sure when they get out in the boonies that they're being taken care of? now i did hear you -- you're going to initially rely on the military. is that right? >> yes, sir. the arrangement that has been made is that -- is that we, the diplomatic security, are responsible for the staff that are at the embassy in kabul and associated missions in kabul. and also our two kons lats. the two future consolates. and as you said, sir, i think we're going to be there quite a long time. but the protection for the civilians that are imbedded with the military in the field is provided by the military. there are -- i think the rule of thumb is something like about ten civilians per battalion out

there. eight to ten, something like that. i'm sure it's not cookie cutter. but that's roughly the number. and those people will be protected by the military. >> you indicated that you have done an analysis of the people that should be governmental and replacing contractors. do you have that anywhere written down about what somebody did to some -- essence fought into what this was like and you made some decisions to say we're going to have people that are going to be on the federal payroll rather than contractors. >> yes, sir, i want to clarify that is not wholesale replacement of a lot of contractors. what's been kind of the subject of controversy is the degree to which the u.s. government relies on contractors largely in the field. and that, i'm afraid, is not going to change from a security point of view. we really have no alternative to

using contractors as both as our fixed post guards and i don't think really any substantive reason to use contractors for that purpose. but also as a sort of force multiplier for us in which -- so that we can deal with protecting our people when we get surges like this. for example, there is something like 1,000 bodyguards, including the ones who protected you when you were there, in iraq right now. that number can go up and down and change. there's -- i don't see any way that those contractors will be replaced by direct hire people. the commission on wartime contracting is looking at that among other things. and i don't imagine that they're going to come up with an alternative. >> may i ask you something? >> sure.