Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Christmas Day Attack: Senate Judiciary Hearing





“Securing America's Safety: Improving the Effectiveness of Anti-Terrorism Tools and Inter-Agency Communication”





We almost missed this one.  The Senate Judiciary Committee held a full committee hearing yesterday related to the Christmas Day attack (January 20, 2010 | 10:00 AM | ROOM: Dirksen-226).  View Webcast





Witness Testimony:



The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III | PDF

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC



The Honorable David F. Heyman | PDF

Assistant Secretary for Policy

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Under Secretary for Management

U.S. Department of State

Washington, DC



Excerpt from U/S Patrick Kennedy testimony:



In the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on the day following his father’s November 19 visit to the Embassy, we sent a cable to the Washington intelligence and law enforcement community through proper channels (the Visas Viper system) that “Information at post suggests [that Farouk] may be involved in Yemeni-based extremists.” At the same time, the Consular Section entered Abdulmutallab into the Consular Lookout and Support System database known as CLASS. In sending the Visas Viper cable and checking State Department records to determine whether Abdulmutallab had a visa, Embassy officials misspelled his name, but entered it correctly into CLASS. As a result of the misspelling in the cable, information about previous visas issued to him and the fact that he currently held a valid U.S. visa was not included in the cable. At the same time the CLASS entry resulted in a lookout using the correct spelling that was shared automatically with the primary lookout system used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and accessible to other agencies.

[…]

The State Department has broad and flexible authority to revoke visas and we use that authority widely to protect our borders. Since 2001, we have revoked 51,000 visas for a variety of reasons, including over 1,700 for suspected links to terrorism.

[..]

In addition to revocation efforts, consular officers refused 1,885,017 visas in FY2009. We now are renewing guidance to our officers on their discretionary authority to refuse visas under section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with specific reference to cases that raise security concerns. No visa is issued without it being run through security checks against our partners’ data. And we screen applicants’ fingerprints against U.S. databases as well.

[..]

DHS has broad access to our entire CCD, containing 136 million records related to both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas and covering visa actions of the last 13 years. Special extracts of data are supplied to elements within DHS, including the Visa Security Units of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

[…]

We give other agencies immediate access to over 13 years of visa data, and they use this access extensively. In November 2009, more than 16,000 employees of DHS, the Department of Defense (DOD), the FBI and Commerce made 920,000 queries on visa records.

[…]

In 2009 we expanded use of facial recognition from a selected segment of visa applications to all visa applications. We now are expanding our use of this technology beyond visa records. We are testing use of iris recognition technology in visa screening, making use of both identity and derogatory information collected by DOD. These efforts require intense ongoing cooperation from other agencies.

[…]

In addition, we have 145 officers and 540 locally employed staff devoted specifically to fraud prevention and document security, including fraud prevention officers at overseas posts.

[…]

We fully recognize that we were not perfect in our reporting in connection with the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253. We are working and will continue to work not only to address that mistake but to continually enhance our border security screening capabilities and the contributions we make to the interagency effort.



Patrick F. Kennedy, a Career Minister in the Foreign Service, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Under Secretary of State for Management on November 6, 2007. As Under Secretary for Management he is responsible for the people, resources, facilities, technology, consular affairs, and security of the Department of State and is the Secretary’s principal advisor on management issues. He also provides regular direction to the Bureau of Resource Management, and the Chief Financial Officer serves as a core member of the Under Secretary’s senior management team. The Bureau of Consular Affairs reports to him, and he reports to the Deputy Secretary Jack Lew.



















Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Christmas Day Attack: Failure at the “Last Tactical Mile”



The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has a hearing today on “Intelligence Reform: The Lessons and Implications of the Christmas Day Attack.The three witnesses are: Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence, Michael E. Leiter, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center and Janet A. Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security.  Blair and Leiter had a joint statement for the record. No prepared statement from Secretary Napolitano has been posted online. Excerpts below from the Blair/Leiter statement:  


As I have noted, despite our successes in identifying the overall themes that described the plot we failed to make the final connections—the “last tactical mile”—linking Abdulmutallab’s identity to the plot. We had the information that came from his father that he was concerned about his son going to Yemen, coming under the influence of unknown religious extremists, and that he was not going to return home. We also had other streams of information coming from intelligence channels that provided pieces of the story. We had a partial name, an indication of a Nigerian, but there was nothing that brought it all together—nor did we do so in our analysis.

[…]

But without making excuses for what we did not do, I think it critical that we at least note the context in which this failure occurred: Each day NCTC receives literally thousands of pieces of intelligence information from around the world, reviews literally thousands of different names, and places more than 350 people a day on the watchlist—virtually all based on far more damning information than that associated with Mr. Abdulutallab prior to Christmas Day. Although we must and will do better, we must also recognize that not all of the pieces rise above the noise level.

[…]

We established the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the government’s hub for all strategic level counterterrorism intelligence assessments, which draws on collected terrorist intelligence from agencies across the U.S. Government with access to more than 30 different networks carrying more than 80 unique data repositories to produce integrated analysis on terrorist plots against U.S. interests at home and abroad.

[…]

The Intelligence Community is an adaptive, learning organization. We can and must outthink, outwork, and defeat the enemy’s new ideas. Our Intelligence Community is now more collaborative than ever before, knows how to operate as a team, and can adjust to conditions on the ground. We can and will do better, but I cannot guarantee that we can stop all attacks indefinitely. The integrated Intelligence Community as directed in the Intelligence Reform Act is essential; the basic elements of the system are sound; but we must be more flexible and anticipatory.



The hearing is on right now, catch it here.  This is not the end of the story. Part II of the hearing is scheduled for January 26th at the Dirksen Senate Office Building (room 342).  No word yet on the expected witnesses.



Related Item:











Sunday, January 10, 2010

McCain Delegation Visits Afghanistan





Photo from US Embassy Kabul /Flickr



 

A delegation lead by Senator John McCain which included Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator John Thune and Senator John Barrasso traveled to the Arghandab Valley in Kandahar, Afghanistan (above) to meet with troops and commanders of both the U.S and NATO military along with the ANA and ANP.  They were accompanied by Gen. Stanley McCrystal and U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.  More photos here from the Flickr page of US Embassy Kabul.



In Kabul the McCain delegation made remarks to the press. Excerpt below from Senator McCain: 



We believe we have the right team, the right resources, and the right strategy.  We are confident that if we stay the course that we can succeed here in Afghanistan as we have in Iraq.



As I mentioned, we just came from Baghdad.  The month of December, there was not a single United States casualty, an ample testimony to the success of the surge -- the same strategy that is being implemented here in Afghanistan with very different circumstances, but the same fundamental strategy.



We’re very proud of our team -- Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal, General Rodriguez and others -- who I think have provided outstanding leadership.

There are two concerns that I and my colleagues, who can speak for themselves, share.  One is, of course, the mid-2010 departure date… excuse me…2011 departure date.  That date, in my view, is artificial and should only be based by conditions on the ground.



I was pleased by the comments made here by Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton that this is an aspirational date and not a date that would necessarily mean withdrawal of U.S. troops.  We cannot send a message to al-Qaida and the Taliban that they can lie low for a period of time and wait for us to depart.



The other concern that we have is the issue of a sufficient number of trained Afghan troops.  Our view, and that of most experts, is that we need 400,000 trained Afghan troops to take over the security responsibilities of this nation.  So we will be seeking both the funding and the policy that would mean that the Afghan military can be built up to a total of 400,000 troops in order to fulfill the responsibilities and meet the challenges that they face.



Read the full text of the remarks to the press by Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, Senator Thune and Senator Barrasso (January 7, 2010).    



The McCain delegation also visited Baghdad on January 5.  No way to tell what the senators did in Iraq because the only thing the US Embassy Baghdad has on its website is this notice “U.S. Senators at the Press Conference at U.S. Embassy Baghdad.” Oh, yeah – it also has a “gallery” of the visit containing five thumb print sized photos. You need a magnifying glass to see who’s who in those photos, of course; so I can't tell if that is Big Foot attending the conference. Why even bother? Can't say.    



The four-member congressional delegation also made it to Islamabad late Thursday to meet with Pakistan's civilian and military leaders.  The trip must have been a secret; there was nothing on US Embassy Islamabad’s website to indicate they were even in town.  VOA and the Pakistani press, of course, confirmed the congressional visit. The bright side -- at least the embassy there did not pretend to give us news or utterly useless photos of the visit.













Monday, January 4, 2010

Watch out! This is going to get louder, folks...



This Week had Terry Moran with Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan and a congressional panel with Representatives Pete Hoekstra and Jane Harman, Sens. Susan Collins, and Joe Lieberman. Excerpted from the transcript.  



COLLINS: The problem with profiling is, if you take that approach, you're going to miss the Richard Reids, who do not fit the profile. But what we have in this case was a failure to act on a very credible report from the terrorist's father that should, at the very least, have caused the State Department to revoke his visa.



To me, that is the biggest question. Why wasn't this individual's visa revoked once we had such a credible report that he posed a threat? That, to me, is an even bigger failure than the failure to screen him effectively.



LIEBERMAN: We know from past experience that some of them will be back in the fight against us. The leader of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula broke out of a jail there until we killed him, apparently, in the raid Christmas week.



So we've -- we've got a lot to investigate. But I think we've learned a lot already about how to close some of the holes. I believe, incidentally, that we ought to take a look at taking that visa application and admission responsibility from the State Department. It doesn't really fit with foreign policy anymore. And in an age of terrorism, I think the Department of Homeland Security ought to be handling visas abroad.



I also think that we ought to be very much tougher about terrorism watch list. If somebody -- somebody's father comes in and -- and says he may be an extremist, he ought to go on a list that is -- is alerted any time he approaches, as Abdulmutallab did...



Vroom…vroom….











Wednesday, December 23, 2009

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

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

The Pentagon, looking northeast with the Potom...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:

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Child Abduction Case Threatens Trade Bill

Hague Convention Signatory CountriesImage via Wikipedia

On December 17, Secretary Clinton released this statement on the Sean Goldman custody case in Brazil:

"I was pleased to hear that the Appellate Court in Rio de Janeiro has upheld the lower court’s decision that Sean Goldman, a young American boy wrongfully retained in Brazil for more than five years, should be reunited with his father David in New Jersey. We appreciate the assistance and cooperation of the Government of Brazil in upholding its obligations under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. And it is my hope that this long legal process is now complete and that the Goldman family will be reunited quickly. They will be in my thoughts and prayers today and throughout this holiday season."

The next day, the US Embassy in Brazil released this State Department statement expressing disappointment after Brazil's Supreme Court stopped the father, David Goldman from picking up his son Sean and taking him home to New Jersey:

"The State Department is disappointed that Sean is still unable to be reunited with his father. A key intention of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the expedient return of children who are abducted or wrongfully retained to their places of habitual residence in order to minimize the human and social cost of international parental child abduction. This cost includes the risk of serious emotional and psychological problems for abducted children, and severe emotional stress and significant financial pressures for the left-behind parent that both Sean and his father will now continue to endure." (active links added)

The facts of this case are detailed in H.R. 2702 also known as the ‘Suspend Brazil GSP Act’. Excerpts below:

  • David Goldman, a United States citizen and resident of New Jersey, has been trying unsuccessfully since June 2004 to secure the return of his son Sean to the United States where Sean maintained his habitual residence until his mother, Bruna Bianchi Ribeiro Goldman, removed Sean to Brazil.

  • On September 3, 2004, Mr. Goldman filed an application for the immediate return of Sean to the United States under the Hague Convention to which both the United States and Brazil are party and which entered into force between Brazil and the United States on December 1, 2003.

  • Pursuant to Article 12 of the Hague Convention, the judicial authority of Brazil was required to order Sean’s return to the United States ‘forthwith’, customarily defined under international law as within six weeks after an application for return has been filed.

  • On October 13, 2005, the Brazilian court refused to return Sean in contravention of Brazil’s obligations under the Hague Convention even though it found that Sean was a habitual resident of the United States and, pursuant to international law, had been wrongfully removed and retained in Brazil.

  • On August 22, 2008, Mrs. Goldman passed away in Brazil leaving Sean without a mother and separated from his biological father in the United States. Instead of returning Sean to the custody of his father David, Mrs. Goldman’s second husband, Joa.AE6o Paulo Lins e Silva, petitioned the Brazilian courts for custody rights over Sean.

  • On September 25, 2008, Mr. Goldman filed an amended application under the Hague Convention against Mr. Lins e Silva for the return of custody over Sean.

  • On June 1, 2009, a federal court judge in Brazil ordered that Sean be turned over to the United States consulate in Rio de Janeiro and returned to his father on June 3, 2009. The court further ordered that, following a 30-day adaptation period in the United States, Mr. Goldman be given full custody over Sean.

  • On June 2, 2009, one Brazilian Supreme Court justice suspended the order of the first level of the Federal Court on the basis of a motion filed by the Progressive Party, a small Brazilian political party, that objects to the application of the Hague Convention in Brazil. This suspension must now be heard by the full Supreme Court, could further delay the Goldman case for months, and could prevent the return of any other abducted children to the United States.

The bill also points out that Brazil is a primary beneficiary under the Generalized System of Preferences program. In 2008, Brazil received duty-free status under the GSP for United States imports totaling $2.75 billion. This bill was last referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means on 6/4/2009 but has shown no further development.

Early this year, the State Department issued its 2009 report of the Office of Children’s Issues on compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The report evaluated convention partner countries for compliance in three areas: Central Authority Performance, Judicial Performance, and Law Enforcement Performance. Seven countries are evaluated as “Demonstrating Patterns of Noncompliance:” Brazil, Chile, Greece, Mexico, Slovakia, Switzerland, and Venezuela.

Brazil acceded to the Convention on 10-19-1999. Its date of entry into force with the United States was on 12-1-2003. The 2009 report lists a pattern of non-compliance by Brazil in all three areas. Further the report states that:

"[T]he Brazilian courts continue to show a troubling trend of treating Convention cases as custody decisions, and often deny Convention applications upon finding that the children have become “adapted to Brazilian culture.” Six abductions from the United States initially reported prior to April 2007, three of which were initially reported in 2004, remain unresolved.[…] Our experience indicates that it takes many months before a court receives a case to analyze and many more months before a court issues a decision. The USCA observed during the reporting period that Brazil’s courts exhibit widespread patterns of bias towards Brazilian mothers in Convention cases.”

Last Friday, Senatus reported that Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey placed a hold on a bill that would allow Brazil and other countries to export some products duty-free to the United States.

I imagine that the bill reported here is the Generalized System of Preference that is set to expire in a couple of weeks. The 110th Congress extended the GSP for one year through December 31, 2009 (P.L. 110-436); so it remains a legislative issue for the 111th Congress.

H.R. 4284: “To extend the Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes” was introduced in Congress in early December. On Dec 14, 2009 the bill was passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote (a record of each representative's position was not kept). The bill was received in the Senate on the same day with no further action todate.

The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was established by the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465; Sec. 505) and provides preferential duty-free entry to more than 4,650 agricultural and non-agricultural products from 131 designated beneficiary countries and territories. In 2007, the top six beneficiary countries ranked by import value — Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, India, the Philippines, and Turkey — accounted for the majority of agricultural imports under the GSP. Brazil and India accounted for nearly one-fifth of agricultural imports under the program. (See the CRS Report on the GSP dated November 10, 2008).

In a statement last year, the American Chamber of Commerce in Brazil supported retaining Brazil's eligibility status as a GSP beneficiary country: “The program has allowed businesses based in Brazil to become reliable suppliers of eligible duty free products for use in the United States. This mechanism grants a limited tariff exemption to US companies on 3,357 products from Brazil. In 2007, US companies imported from Brazil over US$ 3.4 billion of GSP covered products. As a result, US companies saved over US$ 100 million – an amount they would otherwise have had to pay if Brazil was not a beneficiary of the program.” It points out that “GSP has contributed positively for the development of Brazil by means of export promotion.”

An AP report quotes Sergio Tostes, attorney for Sean's stepfather Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, as saying that the case should never have become a political battle. "This is not a fight between two countries," Tostes said. "This is just the pursuit of the truth and the pursuit of what is in the best interest of the boy."

How much more complicated can this get? The stakes are high: a nine year old boy separated from his natural father since 2004, 131 countries with duty free tariffs until end of the year, billions in trade, and the reputation of one country that refuses to abide its international obligations pursuant to the Hague Convention.

Related Items:

Monday, December 14, 2009

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.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

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.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

SFRC Website Finally Gets a Make Over, Sort Of

Screen Capture of New SFRC Website

The much awaited make-over of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee page is finally here. The new website looks classy, has a better layout than the previous one and much better photos (except that they’re still using Senator Lugar’s old photo). The main page includes a welcome message from the SFRC Chairman, photos of both the chairman and the ranking member on its landing page, as well as the names of committee members and the list of subcommittees. It has links to the hearings page, and the press sites for both the chairman and the ranking member. The “About” page includes links to Committee History and Committee Rules and Jurisdiction.

There is a link to the contact page at the very bottom of each page. But don’t get your hopes up because it looks like a “cut and paste” thingy from the previous website:

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations446 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510-6225

Majority Phone: (202) 224-4651 Minority Phone: (202) 224-6797For internship information with the Majority Office,please send email to democrat_interns@foreign.senate.gov.For internship information with the Minority Office,please send email to katie_lee@foreign.senate.gov.

Back in February Brian Young, the new webmaster on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff had a piece on TPM about updating the SFRC website. Part of what he posted at TPM below:

Because we're not just looking to spruce up the website, drag it into the 21st century with links to press releases, video of hearings, etc, etc. We want to do more than that; we want to create a website worthy of the Committee. Of all Committees in Congress, this is the one most suited for a powerful, interactive website.This is a priority for Senator Kerry. He hired me with this in mind. He wants a site that creates a portal into the foreign policy deliberations this nation needs to have to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

This site will be designed to involve people in a conversation about the future of this country's foreign policy.

I don’t know if this site has been officially rolled out. My old link just went dark and so I had to look this up. I can find the links to the prepared testimonies but can find no links to the hearing videos at this time nor any of the promised “interactive” thingies.

Something that would also not make the general constituents happy is the absence of a a real contact page for the committee staff. I hope this is still a work in progress.

Recently somebody wrote to us about a certain ambassadorial nomination. When told to contact the SFRC, the writer complained that he/she had already contacted the senator representing his/her state. And that trying to contact the chairman or the ranking member of the SFRC was almost impossible. The offices wanted to know if you’re a constituent before they talk to you. I can understand the need for this when it comes to the individual offices of the senators. But the Committee has its own staff; can’t they – you know, assign a catch-all email or a fax number for the interested public?

Related Post:SFRC Website Make Over - When?

Monday, November 23, 2009

Quickie: Senator LeMieux, Brazil is Waiting

Today’s editorial of The Miami Herald calls on the state’s newbie Senator LeMieux to release his hold on the nomination of Thomas Shannon to be US Ambassador to Brazil. Excerpts below:

Unblock ambassador nominationOUR OPINION: Sen. LeMieux should allow Senate vote on nominee for Brazil postWhen George LeMieux was appointed three months ago to replace retiring U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, the 40-year-old former chief of staff to Gov. Charlie Crist vowed to focus on making government more efficient and effective. He has a strange way of going about it.

In his first foray into foreign affairs, Sen. LeMieux has placed a ``hold'' on the nomination of President Obama's choice to become ambassador to Brazil, putting a freeze on the Senate confirmation process. This ensures that U.S. relations with the largest country in Latin America are neither efficient nor effective.[…]``I feel like I have a role and a responsibility far greater than other senators do in terms of anything that deals with Latin America,'' he said.

If that's the case, he would not stand in the way of this nomination. Brazil, the fifth most populous country in the world, is the most influential nation in our region, an economic powerhouse and Florida's No. 1 trading partner overseas -- by far.[…]Sen. LeMieux has an obligation to either raise specific, serious questions about Mr. Shannon or allow the nomination to go forward. The U.S. relationship with Brazil is too important to be undermined by domestic political squabbles.

Read the whole thing here.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Confirmed: At Last - Arturo Valenzuela to WHA!

Arturo ValenzuelaImage from OAS

Nominations of Shannon and Solomont still on hold

One of the two administration nominees for the Western Hemisphere has been confirmed. Arturo A. Valenzuela, President Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) bureau was confirmed by the Senate on November 5. He would succeed Thomas Shannon, whose nomination to be Ambassador to Brazil has also been on hold. Both nominations were reported out of the SFRC last July 28 but were subjected to a Senate hold over the administration’s policies on Honduras.

In its October 31 editorial WaPo calls the U.S. brokered deal A win in Honduras and also says: “[T]he leader of the U.S. delegation in Honduras this week, outgoing Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, is one of the State Department professionals abused by Mr. DeMint. Having recorded the Obama administration's biggest diplomatic success so far, Mr. Shannon ought to be allowed to take up his new post as ambassador to Brazil.”

Barely a week later, Reuters reports: “The collapse of an accord to end a four-month political crisis in Honduras leaves egg on the faces of U.S. and regional diplomats who had engineered the deal and puts the November 29 presidential election in jeopardy.”

How much longer the Honduras crisis is going to last, who knows? But it is doubtful that the recent news is going to help much in prying Shannon’s nomination from DeMint's hold. [This one via Senatus on 11/7 - it seems like Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) has also put a hold on Shannon's nomination over Cuba on migration and direct mail service. I don't know if DeMint has actually lifted his hold on this nomination, or if two senators now have a hold on Shannon's nomination -updated 11/9/09]

Still stuck in Senate holds and jams are the following:

Thomas Alfred Shannon, Jr., of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federative Republic of Brazil.

This nomination was reported out of the Committee on Foreign Relations on July 28, 2009; hold placed by Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC over Honduras.

Alan D. Solomont, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Spain, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Andorra. This nomination was reported out of the Committee on Foreign Relations on September 17, 2009; hold placed by Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA over the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin.

CONFIRMATIONS -- (Senate - November 05, 2009) [Page: S11237] GPO's PDF

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Who's Storming Which Office to Sink Al Franken’s S.Amdt. 2588?

I have a crush on old beach trucks the way Che...Image by dpstyles™ via Flickr

Sam Stein at Huffington Post has just posted an update on Al Franken’s Senate Amendment that has now been called the Anti-Rape Amendment.

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.

Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.

Inouye's office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up. The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.[…]The second-longest-serving member of the United States Senate, Inouye is a veteran of WWII. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he has received $294,900 in donations from the defense and aerospace industries over the course of his career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

According to the report, "[t]he defense contractors have been storming his office," said a source with knowledge of the situation.”

Read the whole thing here.

Ugh!!! I’ve just thrown my shoes at my computer screen. But that won’t help.

We can help! Please make time to contact Senator Inouye and tell him not to strip or water down the Franken Amendment, S.Amdt. 2588, from the defense appropriations bill. Call him in DC at Phone: 202-224-3934, Fax: 202-224-6747; in Honolulu at Phone: 808-541-2542, Fax: 808-541-2549; in Hilo at Phone: 808-935-0844, Fax: 808-961-5163. If you’re a HI voter, you can email him here.Call Capitol Hill and tell your senators to keep the Franken Amendment in the bill. Capitol switchboard phone: 202- 224-3121 to contact your senators. Here is Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Office contact numbers: Phone: 202-224-3542, Fax: 202-224-7327. If you’re a NV voter, you can also email Senator Reid here.

Related Post: Who Will Sink Al Franken's S. Amdt. 2588?

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Who Will Sink Al Franken's S. Amdt. 2588?

Work of the United States Senate, Credited to ...Image via Wikipedia

The H.R. 3326 Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2010 bill was passed by the House on July 30, 2009, and by the Senate on October 6, 2009. GovTrack’s last update on Oct 19, 2009 12:11pm indicates that the bill may now proceed to a conference committee of senators and representatives to work out differences in the versions of the bill each chamber approved. The bill then goes to the President before becoming law.

There were about 85 amendments proposed in this bill. One of those that has attracted a greater share of attention is Senator Al Franken’s S.Amdt. 2588: “To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.” The Franken amendment passed: Yea-Nay Vote 68 – 30 with these Republican legislators voting “no.”

The amendment was prompted by this victim who was gang-raped in Baghdad. The victim according to Mother Jones was “forced into mandatory binding arbitration, a private forum where Halliburton would hire the arbitrator, all the proceedings would be secret, and she'd have no right to appeal if she lost.” It took three years just to get the court to agree that she can sue. Read more here.

Mr. Jefferson Sessions [R] of Alabama says, “The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, in validating employment contracts without due process of law. It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That is just not how we should handle matters in the Senate, certainly without a lot of thought and care, and without the support or at least the opinion of the Department of Defense.”

As if by speed mail, DOD came through with an opinion. Ryan Grim reports in the Huffington Post on the Department of Defense’s position on Franken’s anti-rape amendment:

"The DoD opposes the proposed amendment," reads a message sent from the administration to the Senate on October 6, the day the amendment passed by a 68-30 vote. "The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract," reads the DoD note. "It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse."

What? That sounds like a cracker bonbon!

RfR asks, “Whats the big deal?” and writes: “The 2010 Franken Senate Defense Appropriations Amendment overreaches into the business of private enterprise. Defense contractors are a part of the functioning free market; not the Federal Government. A handful of isolated assaults is no reason to summon the interference of the Federal Government and Congress. This amendment interferes with the privacy of companies and the ability of our defense contractors to effectively conduct the business of protecting America from terrorism.” Read here why RfR exists.

Yeah, right, of course. This is nothing but a political amendment and has nothing to do with protecting working people. Yes, enforcement would be problematic, wouldn't it? And expensive. They may have to add a few more millions on the government's tab. Oh, heavens! They may have to spend more time screening people before they send them off to work in the red zones!Holy mother of goat and all her crazy uncles!

The business of America is business, but at what cost? See that’s actually 30 out of 100 United States Senators who voted in favor of business interests over the rights and dignity of individual victims. Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to States which didn’t raise their drinking age to 21 but some legislators don't want to do anything about this because well, what if these companies don't want to work for the taxpayers anymore? Then what? Yep, where would they be if they can't bid on our lucrative contracts?

This makes me want to weep and throw my shoes at the somebodies. Really.

* * *

If Liz Were Queen posted yesterday that there is talk that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) may allow this amendment to be stripped out or watered down. She also has a list of talking points in her site when talking to your representatives. Go, please call 202-224-3542 and tell the Majority Leader not to strip or water this down. Call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and tell your senators to keep the Franken Amendment, S.Amdt. 2588, in the defense appropriations bill.

Related Post:Oct 22: Who's Storming Which Door to Sink Al Franken's S. Amdt 2588?Congressional Record