Learn more about the Internet Censorship Bills (SOPA/PIPA)

House takes Senate's bad Internet censorship bill, tries making it worse
Protect The Internet
SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet
SOPA on OpenCongress
PIPA on OpenCongress

Contact Congress, join the strike, petition the State Department via http://americancensorship.org/



The Internet is going on strike on January 18th.  You can help by driving contacts and readers to Congress. The blackout is from at 8AM EST and end at 8PM EST.  You can read more and join the strike here: http://sopastrike.com/

ProPublica has put together an interactive SOPA Opera with a database that keeps track of where members of Congress stand. Findings are based on two factors: whether a member is a sponsor of the proposed bills, and each member's voting record on the current bills' precursors and alternatives. 

Related articles

• PIPA is the new SOPA (slog.thestranger.com)
• Current Community protests SOPA/PIPA - Are you In? (current.com)
• PIPA Weakens as SOPA Gets Hypocritical (forbes.com)
• Internet censorship looms large (piedtype.com)

Foreign Service Line of Duty Death Gratuity Act of 2011

On August 2, 2011, Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced S.1493 also known as the Foreign Service Line of Duty Death Gratuity Act of 2011 "To provide compensation to relatives of Foreign Service members killed in the line of duty and the relatives of United States citizens who were killed as a result of the bombing of the United States Embassy in Kenya on August 7, 1998, and for other purposes." Section 2 of the bill increases the death gratuity to $100,000. Section 3 of the bill increases the group life insurance benefits to those killed in line of duty to "$400,000 if such amount is greater than the amount for which such employee is otherwise insured." The bill has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. You may read the text of the bill here.

On September 9, 2011, Congressman Allen West (R-FL) introduced the Foreign Service Line of Duty Death Gratuity Act of 2011, along with Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and more than 20 other original cosponsors. The bipartisan legislation authorizes the Department of State to provide compensation for the families of fallen Foreign Service employees that is comparable to what is provided to the families of fallen military personnel.

Here is part of what Congressman West said during his introduction of the bill:

Under current law, the surviving family members of an American Foreign Service employee are entitled to one year's salary and the proceeds of their federal life insurance benefit. In contrast, the family of a fallen member of the military is entitled to an enhanced life insurance and death gratuity that was authorized by the United States Congress in 2005. This is a disparity that can no longer be overlooked.

The Foreign Service Line of Duty Death Gratuity Act would ensure that the families of Foreign Service employees receive, at a minimum, a death gratuity equal of $100,000, matching the benefit provided to military personnel. An enhanced life insurance benefit of at least $400,000 for Foreign Service employees serving at a recognized danger pay post also matches the benefit available to military personnel participating in combat operations or stationed in combat zones. Foreign Service employees with a higher yearly salary or life insurance payout will maintain their benefits as they exist under current law.

This legislation also recognizes our moral obligation to the families of the twelve Americans killed in the August 1998 Al Qaeda bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Many of the surviving family members of that incident have endured significant and continuing financial and personal hardships that serve as a poignant example of the burdens faced by such survivors. These families have been unable to seek damages through the courts as other families in similar situations have because such actions are limited to state-sponsored acts of terror.

Similar legislation has passed the House of Representatives in previous Congressional sessions, but failed to clear the hurdle of the United States Senate. Then-Congressman ROY BLUNT (R-MO) continually led this effort over the years, and I am honored to carry the torch during the 112th Congress.

Congressman West full remarks is here: [Page: E1574]  GPO's PDF and [Page: E1575]  GPO's PDF.  H.R. 2881 has been referred to House Oversight and Government Reform. Read the full text here.

Thirteen years after the East Africa embassy bombings, compensation for the victims is still an aspiration. Of course, similar bills have been introduced in the past and did not go anywhere. This is way, way overdue for the families of those victims. As for the rest of the Foreign Service, the danger posts and unaccompanied posts seem to get longer every day. Our folks have been working in the war zones for many years now, and recently have been inserted into places like Libya where there is an ongoing civil war, or in Syria where the government is killing its people without qualms. It looks like this is the new normal, particularly in the new Middle East.

Given the budget constraints these days, it is easy to imagine that these bills like the previous ones will die a natural death in Congress . But I think we owe it to those who died in the Africa bombings to keep trying until our country meets its moral obligation to the families of the victims. Please write to your congressional representatives to show you care.

Senate Bill Blocks Pay For Lawmakers and President During Govt Shutdown

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced S.388  on 2/17/2011-- To prohibit Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during Government shutdowns.  It was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs the same day.

Here is the text of the bill:

To prohibit Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during Government shutdowns.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAY DURING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

      (a) In General- Members of Congress and the President shall not receive basic pay for any period in which--

            (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution; or
            (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

      (b) Retroactive Pay Prohibited- No pay forfeited in accordance with subsection (a) may be paid retroactively.

Here is Barbara Boxer in ABC News:

“It’s absolutely the right thing to do,” she said. “Why should a small class of people be treated differently than anyone else especially since they’re the ones responsible for a government shutdown or not raising the debt ceiling?”

On March 1, 2011; 6:27 PM EST, AP reported that the Senate has unanimously passed this legislation. No similar action in the house as far as I'm aware. Ball in House's court right now, which will probably do a quickie one, or it might look bad. Then it'll go to the White House. Can't imagine a scenario where the WH vetoes this. But it's not done until its done.
    
Note that in the furloughs of FY1996, the feds eventually got retroactive pay. This one made sure lawmakers and the president won't even get retro pay if there is a shutdown. 

Related articles

• Potential GOP Presidential Hopefuls Cheer For Spending Showdown (huffingtonpost.com)
• Hit Them Where It Hurts: Senate Dems Say Lawmakers Should Not Be Paid If Government Shutdown Occurs (blogs.abcnews.com)
• Government shutdown to be averted - for now (cbsnews.com)
• Some signs of progress in avoiding government shutdown (capitolhillblue.com)
• Reid OKs House budget proposal avoiding government shutdown - USA Today (news.google.com)

No Govt Shutdown This Week? Okie Dokie But Check Back in Two Weeks

CSM has an update on a temporary measure to avoid the government shutdown this week:  

The Republican-controlled House on Tuesday passed a temporary spending bill that cuts $4 billion out of US appropriations while keeping the government running for another two weeks.

This “continuing resolution” legislation is almost certain to pass the Senate: Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid says he expects his chamber to vote on it within 48 hours. President Obama is likely to sign it, too, even though the White House really would prefer that the kicking-the-can-down-the-road period be lengthened from two weeks to a month.

Below are the details from the House Committee on Appropriations on the "Continuing Resolution" that would keep the US Government running until March 18:

The House Appropriations Committee today unveiled a short term Continuing Resolution (CR) to provide funds to keep the government operating over the next two weeks until a compromise can be reached on a year-long funding bill. The CR, which includes $4 billion in spending reductions, will prevent a government-wide shut down that would occur on March 4th – if no agreement between the House, Senate and White House is reached on a longer-term funding bill.

The CR contains funding to allow all government agencies and programs to continue operating at the current level of spending for the next two weeks, until March 18, 2011, except for several programs that will be terminated or cut.

A statement from Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers follows:

“A government shutdown would halt critical and necessary services and programs that Americans across the country rely on, and it is not reflective of the kind of leadership that the American people expect or deserve of their representatives in Congress. While I would have greatly preferred that the Senate act on the hard-fought and thoughtfully crafted funding legislation that the House passed last week – which saves the taxpayers $100 billion compared to the President’s request – it is clear that more time is needed. This short term, two week CR will provide more time, while cutting $4 billion in spending as a symbol of our continued commitment to getting our nation’s fiscal house in order.

You can read the summary of the $4 billion in cuts included in the two week, short term CR here.

Related articles

• Government shutdown may be averted ... for now (cnn.com)
• House passes short-term spending bill to avoid government shutdown (dailykos.com)
• House Votes To Avoid Governement Shutdown...For Now (alan.com)

Foreign Service "Cushy" Lives: 10 Ways to Help Debunk the Myth in Congress and Elsewhere

Via AFSA:

HR 1: The House of Representatives did pass a budget proposal for the FY11 budget late last Friday. There was a contentious debate surrounding this legislation in determining where cuts would occur.  The process surrounding this proposal was conducted outside the normal channels for appropriations and budget consideration, something that is highly unusual.  The bill (HR1) went to the floor of the House with significant proposed cuts from the FY11 request for international affairs, including approximately $1.1b for State, $205m in Operating Expenses for USAID, $83m for the Foreign Agriculture Service, and $93m for the International Trade Administration (part of Commerce). As AFSA understands, nearly six hundred amendments were presented and debated.

The Reed Amendment: Of particular concern is an amendment offered by Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY 28th) designed to roll back the hard won progress we have made on overseas comparability pay. The Reed amendment was designed to restrict funds from being used to close the pay gap. Rep. Reed apparently misunderstood and mischaracterized the facts related to OCP. In the end, the Reed amendment was agreed to (without a recorded vote) and included in the final House bill.

Action with the Senate: Reliable sources in the Senate say that the House Bill (including the Reed amendment) is dead on arrival and that it is highly unlikely that there will be any backtracking on the 16% we currently have. However, the budget climate on Capitol Hill does lead us to conclude that it will be extremely difficult to secure funding for the final 8%, although we will still try.  

I have written previously about the proposed pay cut for Foreign Service Officers which passed the House last weekend. See Since you enjoy your jobs so much, Congress wants you to take a pay cut ....

AFSA has a template letter to Congress here.  A reminder if you work for Uncle Sam:

AFSA reminds active duty Foreign Service employees that it is illegal to lobby congress using official time or government resources.  If you write or call your congressional representative, do not use government time or resources (such as a government computer, letter head, telephone, etc).  If you meet in person with a congressional representative, you must take annual leave or schedule the meeting on your lunch hour.  In addition, make clear that you are writing or speaking in your individual capacity as a constituent and not as a representative of your agency.     

Donna of Email From The Embassy, currently in Jordan has a great blog post on the Foreign Service pay cut. A finger right on the button on this issue. She writes:    

Now, all you FSOs out there, are you ready for this? Here's what I think: This is all your fault.

Seriously. Your. Fault.

And she proceeds to describe what goes into a CODEL visit and why Important Politicians think FSOs have cushy lives.

Read Current Events (Or Why We Deserve This Pay Cut).

At the end of that post, she asks, "How can we change this?"

The truth of the matter is, as one writer puts it, even informed, engaged Americans know diddly squat about the State Department or what diplomats do overseas.  Read Ben Casnocha's post here.


DiploPundit offers the following magnifique suggestions (tongue clearly in cheek) that you may or may not like.

Foreign Service "Cushy" Lives: 10 Ways to Help Debunk the Myth  

1) Next time post gets a CODEL, reception should be at the apartment of a first-tour officer not at the Ambassador's villa with a pool. That will help them get a feel of real life in the service that is foreign to them. [Action: STATE/H; EMB] 

2) Since Congress wants to save money, every CODEL visitor should travel by commercial air, economy fare  even for trips beyond 14 hours (not military jets), and be offered accommodations in FSO govt-housing. EFMs may not appreciate this but pizza for dinner and CODEL guests pitch in with housework. If not possible, the TDY or Interns' quarters would do just as well.  No maid service and no wake up call. Just like life from middle class America. [Action: CONGRESS, STATE/H, EMB, FSO/EFM]

3) Every CODEL should be offered participation in "duck and cover" exercise at every diplomatic mission they visit. [Action: STATE/H; EMB] 

4) Congressional folks should be offered participation in Crisis Management Training exercise to all the hotspots. Start with posts in the Middle East and North Africa because the chances of the exercise becoming real is quite high. If they're in town for a real evacuation, so much the better. First attendees will get lots of press clips. [Action: STATE/H, FSI, CA, EMB]

5) State has always called its FSOs smart; logic follows, they are smart enough to know what not to blog.  Take the gag off FSOs.  Allow them to blog about their lives in vivid, true colors, warts and all without the threat of a career penalty. Not in DipNote, silly [Action: STATE All hands; FSO]
 
6) Educate bureau and post management that every quietly shuttered blog is one less advocate for the Foreign Service. [Action: STATE/HR, EMB, FSO/EFM]

7) Educate the public on the challenges of personal and official expenses and how the twine sometimes meet in the service of diplomacy.  Uncle Sam's money is all Uncle Sam's, but the FSO's personal funds oftentimes also covers Uncle Sam's shorts. [Action: STATE/A; FSO/EFM].

8) Keeping a stiff upper lip as part of the old culture is just that. Old and sooo 19th century. You can be the change you want to see, but for that -- folks need to speak up. Or blog about it [Action: FSO/EFM] 

9) Connect with the American public about real life in the Foreign Service.  As long as the misconception remains that the Foreign Service is an exclusive, elitist institution full of rich people rolling around in the galaxy, there won't be any sympathy for pay cuts or for any other issue. [Action: STATE: All hands; FSO/EFM]    

10) Advocate for the official change of name for the U.S. Foreign Service to the United States Diplomatic Service. That will stop getting diplomatic folks confused with the other USFS - the Forest Service. [Action: STATE/H, FSO/EFM]  

A note on the acronyms: "H" is the legislative bureau of the State Department and works with Congress; "CODEL" stands for congressional delegation when members of Congress makes trips overseas, "A" is the administration bureau, "FSO" is Foreign Service Officer, "EFM" stands for eligible family member, normally spouses and under 18 year old dependents of diplomats. 


Most items on my list above only works in a parallel universe.  Feel free to  come up with your own list this side of the universe. Whatever you do, you need a better plan because things will not get any better or any easier. 

Related articles

• The (Charity) Work of Diplomats (ben.casnocha.com)
• See The World On Your Boss' Dime (forbes.com)

Since you enjoy your jobs so much, Congress wants you to take a pay cut ....

In case you did not see this -- Rep. Thomas Reed, R-N.Y sponsored an amendment that cut the locality pay for Foreign Service officers serving overseas. Mr. Reed's press release touts the removal of the "automatic 24 percent pay raise for foreign service officers," his third successful amendment apparently. And it passed the House over the weekend.

There is locality pay for all CONUS states. Why Congress is only targeting the 11,500 Foreign Service workforce is not clear. About 70% are not in the Senior Foreign Service and could be affected by this cut when deployed overseas.  I mean really, that's about 7,600 federal employees serving overseas in over 260 posts. Mr. Reed's state is home to some 69,000 federal employees (not counting the feds working for CIA, DIA, NSA and the other "A"s who may be assigned in the state of New York). Look - that's 9 times the Foreign Service number. Imagine the savings there?   

Makes you kinda scratch your head, huh?

Could it be because you have "foreign" in your job title? Or it it because you work overseas and is not in real America?  And by the way, who knows if you even vote when you are so far away!?!

I think of this as a simple fairness issue.  Of course, nothing is ever simple when it comes to money, or politics.    


WaPo's Ed O'Keefe had an item on the House spending bill that cuts the locality pay for overseas diplomats.  And this: "The president's bipartisan fiscal commission also recommended canceling locality pay for overseas diplomats. Though proponents believe the payments are necessary to address recruitment and retention concerns, "the foreign service career field remains highly competitive with 25,000 applicants competing for 300 to 900 positions annually," the commission concluded."


Perhaps, the commission looked at those numbers but certainly did not calculate talent loss. There will always be more applicants than jobs. The question is -- can the US government afford to spend $$$ for recruitment, training and particularly, language training, year in and year out only to see that talent walk away before it gets back the return of investment? If State and AFSA pushes this as a "retention concern" as the commission calls it, I think it would be really helpful if the State Department can run down the numbers and have solid  retention and ROI numbers. How much does it cost to recruit and train an entry level officer, add 6-12 months of language training, 1-2 post assignment, and how many years before the government's investment pays off. It is unfortunately that it would come down to numbers but I think that's the way it goes in this difficult budget environment.           



In any case, as Ed points out "the House bill as enacted has no hope of Senate passage or earning President Obama's signature, so this proposal -- while interesting and certainly controversial -- may not survive."

May not survive this time, that is not to say it won't happen ever.  

All that did not preclude folks from slinging around their ignorance online -- 

You folks working overseas apparently do not pay the first $80K of your income overseas. Did you know that? Hah! That IRS has been cheating on FS folks again! It collected every tax penny from your salary including self-employed spouse's annual income of less than $700. If you believe everything you hear, that IRS did not have to collect anything from your $56K + $700 income?  Really.

Go ahead and believe that crap, and you might end up sharing a jail cell with whatshisname actor and tax evader.

Foreign Service folks are not/not exempt from paying full federal, state, and Medicare/SS tax on salaries just because they live in Burkina Faso or whatever the name of the hellhole they're presently assigned to. They pay their taxes happily and willingly, 'cuz if they don't, they could get written up for atrocious unlawful uncivic unprofessional behavior, then they won't get promoted, then they get kick out, then they're just part of the 9% unemployment stats. The end. 

Now, if your spouse (who is not employed by Uncle Sam) writes a bodice ripper and earns -- I think the foreign earnings figure is actually $92,900 for 2011 -- he/she may actually get an exclusion. But best check with Uncle Sam on that. Anyway, despite prevailing belief to the contrary, Uncle Sam's employees overseas are not exempt from paying taxes (unless they're civies at Gitmo). The foreign earned income does not include amounts paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof. Congress wrote that up. It's the law of the land. And we know that US diplomatic missions are part of that land, even if they are located all over the map, right? 

You also -- supposedly ride around town in a $50,000 Cadillac with diplomatic license plates on the bumper like -- let me get this right -- "like you are better than the very citizens you are supposed to be serving." Ouch! Such sparkling prejudice. Really, a Cadillac? That must be the low level Qatari diplomat riding around in his regular car in DC streets.   Have not seen any Cadillac at US overseas posts, not saying there's none, just haven't see any from the embassy compounds I've been to.  Saw lots of armored Chevy where you can't roll down the windows. In case you think its armored for decoration, I can assure you it's not. It is armored from front to back and have bullet resistant glass because driving/riding around in a USG vehicle overseas is like driving around with a target mark on your back.  What?  Um, sorry, not target, they're called cross-hairs now. And in case you think this is vehicle security gone mad, it's not that either. See, the US ambassador to Lome got carjacked recently. And the ICE agents in Mexico who were recently killed/wounded in Monterrey were also using an armored SUV. If not for armored vehicles, not Cadillacs, mind you --- there would be many, many more names up on that memorial plaque on the wall.

So thank heavens for non-Cadillac armored SUVs overseas! 

Here are a few comments from Ed O'Keefe's piece:

Brewer1056, an FSO writes:

"We pay taxes on 100% of our salary, even if serving in combat zones (and lots of us are), whereas our military colleagues are tax exempt in combat zones no matter the job or distance from combat."

Well, there is that. We have unarmed diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in Pakistan where they hate/hate the USA terribly and now think all diplomats are spies. And you don't ever get a tax break for service in those posts. 

Somebody else writes:

"Also, please note that COLA only exists at posts with high costs of living. The US dollar doesn't go very far in many parts of the world these days."

Doesn't go very far, I can attest to that. I've watched a friend in a European post make her own ice cream for four kids not because she is a domestic diva but because she could not afford to buy the local ice cream. And her husband was not even an entry level officer. 

Bevinbell, another FSO who work 70-hour weeks writes:

"I took a 35% pay cut to become a Foreign Service Officer - I did it because I love my country and wanted to serve overseas. However, this is not a volunteer job - I expect a salary and benefits to compensate me for the 70 hour workweeks that I routinely put in. I do not get overtime, my pay is frozen (like all federal employees), I serve at a very high hardship post (though not the highest), and I want to be treated fair."

Yep, you get brownie points for working in excess of 40 hours, but brownie points can't pay the mortgage.

unagi posted a question:

"Yes, there are hardship payments -- so, for example, an employee could work in Libya or DC and make the same amount. What will they choose?"

Take a guess.

wenteast on the spouse unemployment track:  

"One other thought on our "extravagant" salaries -- 98% of the time, your spouse can't work overseas, OR he/she makes a fraction of what he/she could at home. So that's a huge financial hit there."

I should add that if you are a diplomatic spouse and have not worked in the last oh several months overseas, most states won't even consider you for unemployment benefit. Which is fine if your husband/wife is still employed but not so fine if you have suddenly become separated/divorced with a lot of hurt in your pocket and kids to feed. One separated spouse told me she could not even afford a Big Mac for her kids when her husband dumped them and she and her kids had to return to the US.  

rbsher, another FSO out of Asia and Africa:

"I went through 5 coup d'etats in Laos (real bullets, real morters) with weather temperatures on many days exceeding 125 degrees, one small bedroom air conditioner, packs of wild (and mostly) rabid dogs running wild, meager medical facilities, and I was very comfortable driving my 6 year old Volkswagen. I went through 3 coup d'etats with postings in Africa with many of the foregoing comments applicable. Despite the dangers and (mostly uncomfortable) living conditions, I loved my foreign service career! Those who now see a 'great savings' by eliminating post differentials should have some of these experiences."

If folks are arguing again on the post differentials, please send them to Sudan during harmattan or heck, why not have them spend their vacay in Beijing with its crazy bad air.

Of course, it's not a complete line up of this United States of America unless you have some really wacky ideas thrown in like this one:

"Close the State Department. Hire mercenaries."

Oh! What a gem, dat! I bet the writer would not suggest that if he/she were ever evacuated out of Abidjan, Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, etc. etc.

But just in case Congress takes in that suggestion (because, hey, why not, huh?) -- close the State Department and Uncle Sam somehow hires 'em mercenaries -- here is my simple advice if you're an American in search of an adventure: Do not/do not go to Yemen. What's neat on paper is not always neat in real life. Mercenaries will not arrange an evacuation to bring you back home, they will not notify your next of kin of your welfare or whereabouts, they will not have spouses to cook meals and help check on you in jails or hospitals.  And this one is really important -- they will not search morgues to ID your body and ship it home.

I'll get off my soapbox now, thank you... thank you ....


On a more serious note, LAJ has posted an AFSA item here on this issue. You can contact your representatives here.  The problem is (yes, I'll be a party pooper) I just don't think the FS has the numbers.  Even if the entire Foreign Service, and spouses and kids write to their congressfolks and senators, that may not really matter when push comes to shove. The diplomatic service needs to tell its story better. You need more than employees and family members to step up and say -- it's unfair to single out a small group of people for a pay cut. 

  
   


 

Corporation for Travel Promotion Signed into Law

On Thursday, March 4, 2010 the President signed into law:

H.R. 1299, the “United States Capitol Police Administrative Technical Corrections Act of 2009,” which establishes a Corporation for Travel Promotion to encourage international travel to the United States; and makes miscellaneous amendments to authorities of the United States Capitol Police.

Related Post:
Coming Soon – a Corporation for Travel Promotion...

Quickie: Startup Visa in the Senate

Erick Schonfeld of TechCruch reported on Feb 24, 2010 about a new bill introduced in the Senate by Democrat John Kerry and Republican Richard Lugar proposing a new type of visa for immigrants who create startupsand jobs in the U.S.   

Quick excerpt: The Startup Visa has been controversial and will no doubt draw fire from anti-immigrant forces and xenophobes. But if we are going to be giving away visas, giving them to people who will help build the U.S. economy and create jobs is hard to argue against.

The Startup Visa Act of 2010 would create a two year visa for immigrant entrepreneurs who are able to raise a minimum of $250,000, with $100,000 coming from a qualified U.S. angel or venture investor. After two years, if the immigrant entrepreneur is able to create five or more jobs (not including their children or spouse), attract an additional $1 million in investment, or produce $1 million in revenues, he or she will become a legal resident.

The bill would carve out a new “EB-6″ class of visas from the existing “EB-5″ class of visas which has a higher threshold for becoming a legal resident. So it’s not really that radical. The EB-5 requires immigrants to invest at least $1 million in the U.S. and employ ten people.

Read the whole thing here. Check out the Startup Visa website here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Startup Visa update (startuplessonslearned.com)
• Silicon Valley Delegation To Go To D.C. To Rally Support For Startup Visa Act (techcrunch.com)
• Startup Visa Act officially introduced in the Senate (venturebeat.com)
• VCs Push StartUp Visa Act (businessweek.com)

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 billion President’s Request: $640.1 billion House Passed: $636.3 billion Senate Passed: $636.3 billion 2010 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 President Operating 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 ...