Goldman Decision Upheld in Brazil; GSP Bill Passes

Here is an update on the child abduction case that has turned into a child custody battle in Brazil that I last posted on Monday (Child Abduction Case Threatens Trade Bill):

The Christian Science Monitor reported that Brazil's chief justice upheld late yesterday a lower court order handing 9-year-old Sean Goldman over to his American father. The Brazil custody case has been dragging on for five years, reflecting the difficulty of international custody disputes.

More here and here. But no word yet when the boy will actually be turned over to his father in Brazil.

AP also reports that Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s hold on the renewal of the $2.75 billion trade deal that would remove U.S. tariffs on some Brazilian goods was lifted after Tuesday's ruling.

Last night, the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent H.R. 4284, legislation that will extend the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) duty preference programs until December 31, 2010. As soon as the President signs the bill, the extension will be enacted into law.

Related Post:Child Abduction Case Threatens Trade Bill

Related Item:EXTENDING GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES AND THE ANDEAN PREFERENCE ACT -- (Senate - December 22, 2009)[Page: S13792] GPO's PDF

Related articles by Zemanta

• Brazil Orders Boy's Return to American Father (nytimes.com)
• U.S. Dad Wins in Brazil Custody Battle (time.com)
• Senate passes trade bill stalled by custody fight (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

President Signs H.R. 3326 Defense Appropriations Act of 2010

Image via Wikipedia

On December 19, 2009, the President signed into law: H.R. 3326, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010,” which provides FY 2010 appropriations for Department of Defense (DOD) military programs including funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, and extends various expiring authorities and other non-defense FY 2010 appropriations.

Bill Total for Defense

FY2009 Enacted: $625.3 billionPresident’s Request: $640.1 billionHouse Passed: $636.3 billionSenate Passed: $636.3 billion2010 Total Bill: $636.3 billion

Some highlights:

• Military Pay: The bill provides a 3.4% military pay increase, 0.5% above the request.

• Supporting Military Families: $472.4 million for Family Advocacy programs and full funding for Family Support and Yellow Ribbon to provide support to military families, including quality child care, job training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach to families experiencing the separation and stress of war.

• Readiness and Training: $154 billion, $1.3 billion above 2009, for the Defense Operation and Maintenance Account to increase readiness and training of our troops. The bill rebalances funding from preparing for Cold War-era type conflicts to the highest priority readiness requirements for the hybrid operations that our military will be facing for the foreseeable future.

• Reining in Outsourcing: $5 billion, greater than the previous year, to allow defense personnel, not contractors, to perform critical department functions. The Department estimates that every position that is converted from contract to federal civilian saves on average $44,000 per year. Additionally, the bill reduces contracted advisory and assistance services by $51 million, and includes general provisions to stop further conversions by the Department of Defense from government functions to contractors.

• The bill also directs DoD to in-source the task of vetting and issuing Common Access Cards and report on planned improvements of access control because the Committee found that about 212,000 contractors had been mistakenly been given Common Access Cards, causing a potential security risk.

• Inspector General Oversight: $288 million, $16 million above the request, for the Inspector General to hire additional investigators to ensure proper oversight of DoD acquisition and contracting.

• No Permanent Bases: Continues a general provision prohibiting the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq or Afghanistan.

• Torture: Continues a general provision prohibiting the torture of detainees held in US custody.

• CERP: Provides $1.2 billion, a reduction of $300 million from the request, for the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP), and withholds $500 million in funding until the department develops and submits a comprehensive spending plan.

• Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility: Provides no funds for the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Naval base.

Related Items:

• Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 3326
• Summary: FY2010 Defense Appropriations
• Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.3326.ENR]

President Signs Omnibus Spending Bill

H.R. 3288, which provides FY 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, and other agencies, was signed by President Obama on December 16.

Related Item:Bills Signed by the President today, 12/16/09

Related Post: Omnibus Bill FY2010: State Gets 745 new positions, USAID 300

Federal Internship for Spouses, Military Spouses Only

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 on October 28, 2009 and it had become Public Law No: 111-84. Sec. 564 of the Act is a pilot program to secure internships for military spouses with Federal agencies.

(a) Cost-reimbursement Agreements With Federal Agencies- The Secretary of Defense may enter into an agreement with the head of an executive department or agency that has an established internship program to reimburse the department or agency for authorized costs associated with the first year of employment of an eligible military spouse who is selected to participate in the internship program of the department or agency.

(b) Eligible Military Spouses-

• (1) ELIGIBILITY- Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who is married to a member of the Armed Forces on active duty is eligible for selection to participate in an internship program under a reimbursement agreement entered into under subsection (a).

• (2) EXCLUSIONS- Reimbursement may not be provided with respect to the following persons:

• (A) A person who is legally separated from a member of the Armed Forces under court order or statute of any State, the District of Columbia, or possession of the United States when the person begins the internship.

• (B) A person who is also a member of the Armed Forces on active duty.

• (C) A person who is a retired member of the Armed Forces.

(c) Funding Source- Amounts authorized to be appropriated for operation and maintenance, for Defense-wide activities, shall be available to carry out this section.

(d) Definitions- In this section:

• (1) The term `authorized costs' includes the costs of the salary, benefits and allowances, and training for an eligible military spouse during the first year of the participation of the military spouse in an internship program pursuant to an agreement under subsection (a).

• (2) The term `internship' means a professional, analytical, or administrative position in the Federal Government that operates under a developmental program leading to career advancement.

(e) Termination of Agreement Authority- No agreement may be entered into under subsection (a) after September 30, 2011. Authorized costs incurred after that date may be reimbursed under an agreement entered into before that date in the case of eligible military spouses who begin their internship by that date.

(f) Reporting Requirement- Not later than January 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that provides information on how many eligible military spouses received internships pursuant to agreements entered into under subsection (a) and the types of internship positions they occupied. The report shall specify the number of interns who subsequently obtained permanent employment with the department or agency administering the internship program or with another department or agency. The Secretary shall include a recommendation regarding whether, given the investment of Department of Defense funds, the authority to enter into agreements should be extended, modified, or terminated.

* * *The defense appropriations act for FY 2010 is still in conference and has not been included in the omnibus spending bill that was just passed in Congress. Perhaps it's not be too late to tell AFSA and your elected representatives to include Foreign Service spouses in this pilot program? If it is -- there is always next year to lobby for a similar internship or fellowship. Contact AFSA here. Contact your elected representatives here.Based on statistics presented in FLO’s 2009 ―Worldwide Family Member Employment overview, close to 10,000 adult family members accompany a U.S. Direct Hire employee on his/her overseas assignment. According to the Family Liaison Office -- of this total, nearly two-thirds expressed an interest in working, while only a third was successful in finding employment. Unlike military spouses who may find employment inside military bases overseas, there are usually not enough jobs for diplomatic spouses overseas, inside the mission or in the local economy. And when jobs are available within the US missions, most jobs are clerical in nature and widely viewed by some 75% of family members with degrees (about half have advanced degrees) as not very challenging or interesting. A federal internship such as this would allow EFMs to obtain work experience for career advancement while accompanying the employee-spouse on a diplomatic assignment overseas. Which also means that returning home after years of being away would not put spouses and partners at a disadvantage when job hunting with their chequered and spotty resumes.

Omnibus Bill FY2010: State Gets 745 new positions, USAID 300

The conference report on the Omnibus Appropriations bill was agreed to in the House on 12/10/2009: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 202, 1 Present (Roll no. 949).

Today at 2pm ET, the Senate has scheduled a final vote on the $447 billion FY 2010 omnibus spending bill. [Updated 10:48 pm: Via Senatus: Senators have passed the 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 3288) by a vote of 57 to 35. This was actually a vote on a conference report worked about in House/Senate negotiations. The bill, passed by the House 221-202, was not amended by the Senate which means it will now go to President Obama for his signature].

Below is the link to the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3288 – Consolidated Appropriations Act 2010 (Division F - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 | Legislative Text | Joint Explanatory Statement). The rest of the conference report broken up by relevant agency is posted by the House Rules Committee here.

Quick takes from the conference report on State Department appropriations:

The conference agreement includes $8,227,000,000 for Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), which is $2,300,000 below the House and the same as the Senate. Within the total, $6,640,786,000 is for ongoing operations, including public diplomacy activities, and $1,586,214,000 is for Worldwide Security Protection.

Enhancing Diplomatic Capacity and Readiness

Human Resources Initiative (HRI) .-The conference agreement does not include a provision specifying an amount for the HRI, as proposed by the Senate. Instead, the amount for the HRI is included in the table above.

The conference agreement includes $344,190,000 and a projected 745 positions to enhance the diplomatic capacity and readiness of the Department of State. Within the total, $118,279,000, and 565 new positions, is for phase II of the HRI, as proposed by the House and Senate. These additional funds provided in fiscal year 2010 will continue the expansion of the Department's training capacity, increase representation on interagency and Defense staffs, and augment the overseas diplomatic presence at strategic posts worldwide. The balance, $225,911,000 and a projected 180 positions, is to meet workload demands and resource requirements at posts in Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, the Near East, South Central Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, as well as to begin to address the vacancy rate in domestic Foreign and Civil Service positions. The conferees agree that the Secretary of State should give priority to overseas assignments in allocating these positions.

Locally Employed Staff(LES).-The conference agreement does not include a provision regarding LES, as proposed by the Senate. However, the conferees recognize and appreciate the invaluable contributions of LES to overseas operations and programs, and note that they often serve without adequate salary increases and/or at less-than-prevailing wages and compensation packages..

The conferees recommend $695,000,000 for salary and compensation (including awards and special benefits) for LES, and endorse the directive in the Senate bill regarding the review/database, guidelines, and the definition of LES in section 7069(b), (c), and (d), respectively, except that the Department of State shall consult with the Committees on Appropriations on the appropriate length of periodic reviews of salary and compensation guidelines.

Personnel Strategy .-The conference agreement requires the Secretary of State to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a strategy for projected personnel requirements for the Department of State over the next three fiscal years, similar to that proposed by the Senate. This strategy should describe the resources required for hiring, training, and deploying new personnel to domestic and overseas positions, including resources necessary for office and housing facilities. Concurrent with the submission of this strategy, the Secretary of State is directed to submit a report describing the hiring, training, and deploying of new staff since fiscal year 2008, including resources expended for such purposes to date, and to update this report on a semiannual basis.

Worldwide Security Protection

The conference agreement provides $1,586,214,000 for Worldwide Security Protection, which is $8,787,000 above the House and $8,786,000 below the Senate. The conferees note that $13,375,000 requested for fiscal year 2010 was included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), bringing the total available for Worldwide Security Protection in fiscal year 2010 to $1,599,589,000. Within the amount provided, $221,926,000, and a projected 200 security positions, are to strengthen the Department's capacity to respond to the growing security challenges at posts around the world, including the requested positions for the second year of the Visa and Passport Security Plan.

Embassy Security Constructions and Maintenance

The conference agreement provides $1,724,150,000 for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance, which is the same as the House and Senate, of which $847,300,000 is for priority worldwide security upgrades, acquisition, and construction and $876,850,000 is for other operations, maintenance and construction.

Buying Power Maintenance Account

The conference agreement provides $8,500,000 for the Buying Power Maintenance Account to manage exchange rate losses in the cost of Department of State operations overseas, which is $1,000,000 above the House and $1,500,000 below the Senate.

The following provisions are new, modified from the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8), or further clarified in this joint statement.

Sec. 7004. Embassy Construction.

The provision is modified by including subsection (c), which requires the Department of State to consult with the Committees on Appropriations prior to the obligation of funds to acquire property for diplomatic facilities in Kabul, Afghanistan, similar to that proposed by the Senate.

Sec. 7006. Local Guard Contracts.

The conference agreement includes a new provision which allows the Secretary of State flexibility to award local guard contracts on the basis of either lowest price that is technically acceptable or the best value cost-technical tradeoff (as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation part 15.101) when awarding such contracts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Current law requires that all local guard contracts must be awarded on the basis of the lowest price that is technically acceptable, and if other factors had been considered, the problems reported earlier this year involving the local guard contract in Kabul, Afghanistan may have been prevented. The conferees understand that providing the Secretary with authority to make awards through the best value approach can enhance the guard force's effectiveness and justify the additional cost, particularly in countries with dangerous or hostile environments.

Sec. 7008. Coups d'Etat.

The conference agreement changes the heading from "Military Coups" to "Coups d'Etat". While there is no substantive change to the provision, the conferees are concerned that the previous title implied an unintended limitation of the provision's application, and direct the Department of State's Office of the Legal Advisor to undertake a review of events necessary to trigger the provisions of this section and submit a report on such events to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 days after enactment of this Act.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Funds Appropriated to the PresidentOperating Expenses (Including transfer of funds)

The conference agreement provides $1,388,800,000 for Operating Expenses, which is the same as the House and Senate.

The conference agreement provides funding to support the hiring of an estimated 300 additional USAID Foreign Service Officers under the Development Leadership Initiative (DLI). The conference agreement includes a provision requiring the USAID Administrator to submit a strategy for projected personnel requirements over the next three fiscal years, similar to that proposed by the Senate. This strategy should describe the resources required for hiring, training, and deploying new personnel to domestic and overseas positions, including resources necessary for office and housing facilities. Concurrent with the submission of this strategy, the USAID Administrator is directed to submit a report describing the hiring, training, and deploying of new staff since the DLI began in fiscal year 2008, including resources expended for such purposes to date. This report should be updated on a semi-annual basis. The conferees intend that one of the outcomes of the personnel expansion at USAID will be increased oversight of programs and activities.

The conferees are aware of concerns with civilian capacity necessary to effectively administer programs in Pakistan and Afghanistan and have provided funds in this Act and prior Acts to support a civilian ·surge. The conferees direct the USAID Administrator to provide a report the Committees on Appropriations on a semi-annual basis that describes the USAID workforce in both countries, including geographical distribution, skill sets, and training, as well as the physical space and capacity to absorb additional personnel.

The conferees believe that USAID's increased reliance on sole source contract awards, indefinite quantity contracts, and large umbrella awards undermines competitive processes, inhibits the participation of small organizations with niche expertise, limits creative and innovative approaches to programming, and is neither cost effective nor consistent with sustainable development. The conferees endorse the notification requirements in the House Report and the reporting requirement in the Senate Report, and require the USAID Administrator to consult with the Committees on Appropriations on steps that will be taken to reduce reliance on these mechanisms in the future and increase support for building capacity of local organizations and institutions, including the training that will be provided to new personnel hired under the DLI.

The conferees endorse the small minority-owned and disadvantaged business enterprises reporting requirement, as proposed in the House Report.

The conference agreement provides up to $1,000,000 for special compensation for LES in section 7059(n), as proposed by the Senate, and requires the USAID Administrator to consult with the Committees on Appropriations on proposed guidelines for special compensation of these employees.

Read the Legislative Text | Joint Explanatory Statement

Updated: 12/17: The omnibus spending bill was signed by President Obama into law yesterday, December 16, 2009.

Dr. Shah, USAID and the Hanging “F”

President Obama officially announced his intent to nominate Rajiv Shah as USAID Administrator on November 10. At that time, I did wonder in this post about the “F” bureau. According to the State Department, the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (“F”) is charged with directing the transformation of the U.S. Government approach to foreign assistance. The Director holds a rank equivalent to Deputy Secretary and serves concurrently as USAID Administrator, ensuring that foreign assistance is used as effectively as possible to meet broad foreign policy objectives.

The last two USAID Administrators had served concurrently during their terms in office as Director of Foreign Assistance. Dr. Shah’s nomination, however, made no mention about the “F” bureau.

In Dr. Shah’s written answers (from The Cable) to the Questions for the Record Submitted for the Nomination of Rajiv Shah to be USAID Administrator, the first two pre-hearing questions from Senator Kerry’s asked precisely about the “F” bureau. Q&A reprinted in full below:

Question: Reporting Relationships

Please provide further information about the role, responsibilities and lines of authority to the position you have been nominated for. In particular, which official will you directly report to – the Secretary of State or Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources? If confirmed, will you occupy the same position as Henrietta Fore – serving concurrently as the Administrator of USAID and the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, with the rank of Deputy Secretary of State? Will you retain operational control and authority over the State Department’s “F” bureau, also like those predecessors?

Answer:

Under current law, and consistent with conversations prior to my nomination, I will report to the Secretary of State. If confirmed, I am confident Secretary Clinton and I will have a strong and productive working relationship. I also welcome the opportunity to work closely with Deputy Secretary Lew, who has made clear his commitment to elevating development and working to rebuild capacity at USAID.

In terms of the “F Bureau,” as you know the Presidential Study Directive on Global Engagement (“PSD-7”) and joint State/USAID Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy (“QDDR”) are reviewing the question of the best way to organize State and USAID to execute policy effectively. The issue of resources and management is very much a part of these discussions, and I look forward to being an active participant in this conversation if confirmed as Administrator.

Question: Relationship to F

If you do not assume jurisdictional authority over the F Bureau, which official will continue to oversee it? Do you think USAID can effectively run a cohesive and coordinated development program without oversight of the F Bureau and without broader oversight over the budgetary and policy functions that guide its development programming?

Answer:

I believe USAID needs the capacity to plan budgetary requirements and monitor and evaluate performance to support the Secretary’s goals of formulating and executing programs that focus on sustainable outcomes and align with country-owned strategies. The specifics of resource management, budget and structure will be addressed through the QDDR process. I look forward to working with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary Lew to ensure that USAID has the resources it needs to become the world’s leading development agency.

The Kerry pre-hearing questions also inquired about a proposal reportedly circulating about the establishment of “a second “Deputy Chief of Mission,” reporting through the State Department, who would be responsible for all development activities in a given country.”

Have you heard about this proposal being floated about?The whole thing is worth reading although one comes away without the answer to the questions we really want answered. The only thing that seems sure from this and from the hearing is that we won’t really know how much change there will be for USAID until the roll out of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review next year.

In a related note, in case you missed it -- the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act cleared the SFRC on November 17. At that time, Senator Lugar also released a statement excerpted below:

Clearly, the State Department will have ideas about development assistance that will be expressed in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. This Committee will be eager to review the State Department’s ideas when they are ready. But Congress also should be offering proposals on how to improve development assistance. The bill we passed today should be seen as an essential input into this process. It is the product of well over a year of research and analysis by Senators and their staffs. It has attracted the support of most development groups, led by the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network. It is co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of 19 Senators, twelve of whom are members of this Committee. This level of backing for a bill related to foreign assistance structure is extremely rare. It provides an opportunity to build something approaching a consensus on this issue.[…]Although the State Department declined to participate at our hearing on this bill last July, I am hopeful it will recognize that a bill co-sponsored by a majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should be given substantial weight in their review process. Congress will be making decisions about resources for development programs, and those decisions will be effected by our confidence in how funds are managed and coordinated.

I would underscore that our bill is a relatively modest proposal. There are more than a few members of Congress who would like to see USAID become an independent cabinet level agency.

A warning in soft gloves, but a warning nonetheless, hmmnn?

S. 1524: USAID Reform Bill Scheduled for Mark Up

The Kerry-Lugar foreign aid reform bill is scheduled for mark up today at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John Rogin of The Cable has some background on this here. Rogin reports that the State Department leadership “has been asking Kerry to slow-walk the bill, not wanting the legislation to preempt State's Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).” But apparently, Senator Lugar wanted this to move along and "It's important for Kerry to maintain his arm-link with Lugar, so he pushed back." Rogin quotes one development expert close to the discussions.

S.1524 also known as the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009, amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to establish in the United States Agency for International Development (USAID):

(1) an Assistant Administrator for Policy and Strategic Planning to assist in matters related to policy planning, strategic planning, program design, research, evaluation, and budget allocation and management;(2) a Bureau for Policy and Strategic Planning whose primary duties shall include policy and long-term strategy development, evaluation of program effectiveness, and establishment of resource and workforce allocation criteria. Establishes:

• (1) in the Bureau for Policy and Strategic Planning an Office for Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis in Development;

• (2) the Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign Assistance and the Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign Assistance Advisory Board.

The bill directs the Administrator of USAID to: (1) develop a comprehensive workforce and human resources strategy and a related task force to support the objective of promoting development and reducing global poverty; and (2) establish career guidelines for Foreign Service officers and civil service officers that incorporate interagency, intergovernmental, or international organization rotational assignments.

It also directs the President to require all federal departments and agencies to make publicly available on their Web sites comprehensive and accessible information about U.S. foreign assistance on a program-by-program and country-by-country basis. Sets forth USAID program fund guidelines.

If you are currently with USAID, you might want to read Section 7 of this bill as it relates to workforce planning requirement for the agency. Section 8 covers rotations, promotions, including promotions into the senior ranks and external training and educational opportunities for USAID personnel.

SEC. 7. COMPREHENSIVE WORKFORCE AND HUMAN RESOURCES STRATEGY FOR THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Comprehensive Workforce and Human Resources Strategy for the United States Agency for International Development- The Administrator shall develop and implement a comprehensive workforce and human resources strategy for the Agency to support the objective of promoting development and reducing global poverty.

(b) Scope- The strategy required under subsection (a) shall be a strategy for modernizing the workforce of the United States Agency for International Development in support of foreign assistance and policy priorities, and shall--

• (1) determine long-term Agency personnel priorities, including priorities over 5- and 10-year time periods;

• (2) identify career professional development programs for all personnel, including training, language, and education, interagency and intergovernmental rotations, and assignment opportunities outside the United States Government;

• (3) include an assessment of future development and foreign policy priorities and the implications of such priorities for technical and policy expertise, including how to meet future unanticipated demands brought about by manmade and natural disasters;

• (4) include an overseas facilities and security assessment examining the implications of such facilities and security for personnel increases;

• (5) include the appropriateness of regional platforms to perform necessary Agency functions and to provide services to other donors and organizations;

• (6) consider structural reform options to professionalize the human resource capacity of the Agency, including options to outsource the entirety of the human resource capacity of the Agency; and

• (7) address the means to enable the Agency to access cutting-edge technical and managerial expertise.

(c) Factors To Consider- In developing the strategy required under subsection (a), the Administrator shall, among other things--

• (1) examine the objectives the Agency is mandated to fulfill, and assess whether its current workforce model effectively supports the goals of the Agency;

• (2) review the Agency’s workforce evolution and identify the additional program demands that have been placed on the workforce in the past 10 years;

• (3) examine different personnel and workforce management models from other United States Government agencies, international organizations, and the private sector and determine the comparative advantages the models might offer and whether they would allow the Agency to better structure its workforce to carry out its responsibilities and meet the challenges of a changing environment;

• (4) examine different bureaucratic and legislative constraints facing the Agency in implementing a comprehensive workforce planning and management system and how these constraints can be addressed, including--

• (A) which limitations, if any, currently exist that prevent the Agency from hiring the right people for the right positions in a timely manner, including mid-level hires and reentry of mid-level professionals into the Agency; and

• (B) how this compares with other organizations, such as the Department of State and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and how the Agency compares to the Department of State and the MCC in its ability to attract and retain high caliber professionals;

• (5) examine the advantages and disadvantages of the Agency’s use of contractors in the last 10 years to carry out its core mission and management responsibilities;

• (6) assess the scope and effectiveness of training, including the availability of language training, for Agency personnel, and the extent to which available trainings support carrying out Agency objectives; and

• (7) present a cost analysis for using a contracting model versus a direct hire model and determine the cost savings and consequences that could result from the elimination of institutional contractors and the hiring of the same professionals as personal services contractors.

SEC. 8. PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES.

(a) Career Professional Development- Chapter 2 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2381 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 630 the following new section:

SEC. 630A. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ROTATIONS.

(a) Rotations-

• (1) CAREER GUIDELINES- The Administrator shall establish career guidelines for Foreign Service officers and civil service officers that incorporate interagency, intergovernmental, or international organization rotational assignments. The guidelines established under this paragraph shall include--

• (A) selection;

• (B) professional education and training;

• (C) types of relevant interagency, intergovernmental, and international organization assignments; and

• (D) such other matters as the Administrator considers appropriate.

• (2) PROMOTIONS TO SENIOR RANKS- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish additional guidelines that consider participation by relevant officers in at least 1 interagency, intergovernmental, or international organizational rotational assignment of at least 6 months as a factor for promotion into the ranks of the Senior Foreign Service or Senior Executive Service.

• (3) PROMOTION POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR ASSIGNMENTS TO INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS-

• (A) QUALIFICATIONS- The Administrator shall ensure that promotion precepts and promotion panels do not penalize officers who have been assigned to interagency, intergovernmental or international organizations.

• (B) REPORT- The Administrator shall provide an annual report to the appropriate congressional committees that--

• (i) specifies the aggregate number of officers and the promotion rates of officers who are serving in, or have served in, interagency, intergovernmental, or international organization rotational assignments; and

• (ii) details efforts to meet the objectives described in paragraph (1).

(b) External Training and Educational Opportunities- It is the sense of Congress that--

• (1) the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development should augment and expand external training and educational opportunities for Foreign Service and civil service personnel and expand opportunities for work assignments to entities outside the United States Government;

• (2) a strong development agency should have a knowledgeable and capable workforce that is familiar with and has access to cutting edge development practices, methodologies, ideas, work experience, and programs; and

• (3) the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development should ensure that personnel of the Agency have opportunities during their careers to obtain a range of knowledge-building work experiences and advanced education and training in academic and other relevant institutions in the United States and abroad to increase the capacity of the Agency to fulfill its mission.’.

Read the whole text of the bill here.

In a related item -- Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department's Director of Policy Planning Staff and one of the leads in the QDDR process at State was over at the Center for American Progress yesterday as keynote speaker for its event on "Integrating the Instruments of National Power." She was quoted as saying that "the overall aim of the QDDR is to integrate and elevate development and diplomacy across the spectrum of the American foreign policy." [...]"You still need to integrate the power of development professionals, the ideas and the expertise, with the political clout and strategy and reach of diplomacy. That seems to me to be the perfect example of integrated power ... and that is what Secretary Clinton would like to see as one of her legacies." Rogin reports that she had the "whole development world scratching their heads."

Sorry, brain freeze here; I don't know how to translate what she said. I must point out that she was previously on the record with the "M" word as in -- "no merger," so I imagine integrate means incorporate, mix but ...