The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“REINTRODUCTION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVIEW BILL” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E2325 on Nov. 19, 2003.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
REINTRODUCTION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVIEW BILL
______
HON. MAC THORNBERRY
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, for some time, I have believed that it is essential to transform our military so that the United States is better able to deal with the enormous security challenges of the 21st century. Since my first term in Congress, I have worked to develop a more flexible, adaptable military with a ``culture of innovation'' that will ensure that our security is protected as the threats against us, our allies, and our values grow in number and complexity. But at the same time, I recognize that American national security does not rest solely on the shoulders of the U.S. military.
Based on my work in defense transformation, I became convinced that homeland security was a vital area requiring not just more money, but a major reorganization of the government agencies charged with protecting the American homeland. I introduced the first bill creating a new organization to better protect the homeland on March 21, 2001, and that new Department is now up and running.
I also believe that a transformation is needed at the Department of State so that it is better able to formulate and implement American foreign policy in the coming years. On September 18, 1998, I introduced H.R. 4065 in the 105th Congress to require that an independent, non-
partisan panel review all the facets and functions of the Department of State and to provide Congress with its findings and with a plan for reorganizing the Department. The bill was reintroduced as H.R. 106 in the 106th Congress and as H.R. 304 in the 107th Congress.
I believe that the events of the past two years only add a greater degree of urgency to the need for such a transformation. It is time for Congress to take action.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Snyder, has also been working on these issues for some time. He has suggested a number of improvements in my previous proposals, and today we are introducing the revised version of the bill. It does not prescribe in legislative language exactly how the Department of State should be reorganized despite the many studies and reports which have recommended various actions. It does establish the framework for a serious study of all of the recommendations and requires that a proposal be submitted to Congress. We would then have to act upon the legislation in the normal order.
There have been a number of outside studies which recommend reform in very strong terms. For example, in January 2001, a study cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies and chaired by former Secretary of Defense and career foreign service officer, Frank Carlucci, issued ``a scathing report,'' warning that ``the United States will soon face serious dangers and enormous costs because its foreign policy establishment has not come to terms with global changes a full decade after the Cold War ended.'' (Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2001). ``No government bureaucracy is in greater need of reform than the Department of State,'' the report found.
In March 2001, the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, found that ``The Department of State is a crippled institution that is starved for resources by Congress because of its inadequacies and is thereby weakened further. The department suffers in particular from an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional goals compete, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking (p. 47).'' Other studies and reports have reached similar conclusions.
This bill requires a serious study of the organization of the Department of State and our diplomatic structure. The Commission created by the bill will examine all levels of the Department, from the organization chart of bureaus and offices to staffing at embassies around the world. It will also look at issues such as public diplomacy--whether we are organized to wage the battle over ideas, which is so critical to the ultimate success of the war on terrorism--
and use of foreign assistance--whether we are prepared to use effectively innovative new programs, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.
There may be a variety of opinions on what the Department of State should be doing and on exactly what organizational and process changes should be made, but we should all be able to agree that how decisions are made, and especially how they are implemented, needs drastic improvement.
Mr. Speaker, change is always difficult, and we should not impose change without a good reason for doing so. We also have an obligation, I think, to seek better, more effective ways to advance American interests, and no Department should be exempt from penetrating examination in pursuit of those larger interests.
____________________
