Senator Nelson's Reasonableness Test: US Should Bill Iraq for US Embassy Security

Last year, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, the 12th term Republican congressman from California's scenic 46th District and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee made the news when he called for Iraq to repay a portion of the "mega-dollars" that Washington has spent since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.  Mr. Rohrabacher for the record did not actually say we should ask for a repayment now but once "Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country..."

This past week, it was Nebraska's retiring Democratic Senator Ben Nelson turn at bill collection (TSB has a post on this here) Below is a letter sent by Senator Nelson to Secretaries Panetta and Clinton telling them that the Iraqi government should be responsible for shouldering the cost of US Embassy security in Iraq:

Dear Mr. Secretary and Madam Secretary:

As you know, the United States concluded its military mission in Iraq in 2011. With that end, the U.S. Department of State now assumes responsibility for the civilian mission, which I understand will be heavily reliant on private contractors for security. I support ensuring the success of our efforts in Iraq, but am concerned about continuing to provide assistance to Iraq’s government, with the total cost being borne by the United States.

As a nation, our government continues to look for ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies within the U.S. Department of Defense. Therefore, I believe it is completely reasonable and in line with our agreements with other nations for the Government of Iraq to pay for the security of our remaining State Department personnel.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in November 2011, General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the costs of retaining an American presence in Iraq. He noted that “in any nation in which [the United States is] present diplomatically, the first responsibility for security is the host nation.” Thus, if Iraq is unable to provide security for U.S. personnel, then the Iraqi government should pay for the cost of doing so – rather than our nation’s taxpayers. Therefore, I encourage your departments to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government to underwrite the costs associated with our continued diplomatic presence there.

During that same hearing, I also asked General Dempsey whether it was possible to enter into an agreement with the Iraqi government for cost-sharing in order to continue providing for the security training of Iraqi troops and every other mission we might accept to help the country secure, stabilize and self-govern. General Dempsey responded that such agreements are possible and that there is always a negotiation on the cost and who will bear it.

I want to ensure that the burden of such operations is placed primarily on Iraq, in line with those agreements we share with other nations when we conduct multilateral or bilateral exercises around the world. The Iraqi government is more than capable of sharing or underwriting costs associated with a U.S. advise-and-assist presence, as the Iraqi economy continues to grow and government revenues are beginning to increase to that of pre-war levels.

While I understand there are many challenges facing the Government of Iraq, it is important for the United States to make it clear that we expect the new government to be responsible for shouldering the cost of security in their nation. I would, therefore, greatly appreciate learning from the Administration what agreements are being made with the Government of Iraq for further missions and how the cost of those missions will be covered. Thank you both for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

E. Benjamin Nelson
United States Senator

It is true that the host country is responsible for providing protection to diplomatic personnel and missions, as established by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 22(2) says that "The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity."

One could argue that Syria did not lived up to its responsibility to prevent "impairment of its dignity" when it allowed a mob to attack our embassy in Syria in July last year. But other times, the local police protecting diplomatic and consular premises can pay dearly with their lives. During the February 2003 attack of the US Consulate in Karachi, for instance, the gunmen killed two police officers and wounded five other policemen in front of the consulate.  The 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen resulted in 19 deaths and 16 injuries including six Yemeni policemen. 

Iraq is responsible for the protection of the US Mission in Iraq, just as the United States is responsible for the protection of all diplomatic premises within the United States. But while the host country is expected to provide the outermost security of diplomatic missions, it cannot be expected to provide guard services for the embassy compound. 

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, of course, is like no other diplomatic mission in the world.  According to Stratfor's assessment of diplomatic security after the troops withdrawal,  there are some 16,000 personnel, 5,000 of whom are security contractors working inside our heavily fortified embassy and consulates in Iraq.  The remaining 11,000 include diplomats, intelligence officers and analysts, defense attaches, military liaison personnel and aid and development personnel.

If the Government of Iraq decides that it should have a corresponding number of personnel - 16,000 Iraqis -  attached to its embassy in Washington, D.C., how would that work?  Congress would be up in arms!

But perhaps the more tricky part is Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which says that "1) In the absence of specific agreement as to the size of the mission, the receiving State may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the receiving State and to the needs of the particular mission; 2) The receiving State may equally, within similar bounds and on a nondiscriminatory basis, refuse to accept officials of a particular category."

With that number of personnel, there probably is a specific agreement in place. But let's just say that there is none and Senator Nelson gets his way and bill Iraq for the cost of diplomatic security in Iraq.  The Iraqi Government may just decide that 16,000 diplomatic, security and support personnel at U.S. Mission Iraq is a tad too much. Due to ongoing security challenges in the country, it may just decide that a, say 150-member US staff is all it could support. Which would actually save the US Government money, and would allow the State Department to reallocate its tight resources to other areas not considered the center of the bureaucratic universe.

 

Related articles

• Turmoil in Iraq Raises Concerns over American Withdrawal (usnews.com)
• UN: Kuwait will receive one billion dollars from Iraq this month (thecurrencynewshound.com)
• Analysis: Iraq's plight imperils US goals (sfgate.com)
• More Than $1.5 Million Wasted On Him (huffingtonpost.com)
• Why Ben Nelson Is Leaving the Senate (usnews.com)

 

 

 

Slash Non-Fiction: There Goes Diplomacy 3.0 But They Sure Ramps It Up in Iraq

Via WaPo's Walter Pincus on the State Dept. reeling from budget cuts

The Senate committee on Sept. 21 approved $44.6 billion for the core State, Foreign Operations budget for next year, which was $6 billion below the original request and $3.5 billion below the current level. The House subcommittee approved $39.5 billion, slashing the administration’s request by $11.2 billion, or 22 percent.

In describing the cut, the Republican draft report on the bill said it preserves national security priorities while making “necessary reductions in spending.”

Among the largest House subcommittee reductions was a nearly 20 percent cut in the funds that pay for Foreign Service officers and the civilians who support them. In justifying this action, the subcommittee report said it eliminated funds sought for 184 new staff because since 2008, some 1,622 Foreign Service officers and 1,001 civilians had been hired above attrition.
[...]
The House panel took an even bigger cut from the personnel budget for the Agency for International Development (AID), which saw its fiscal 2012 request dropped from $1.5 billion to $900 million. The report notes that 820 new Foreign Service officers have been added to AID since 2008.

Read in full here.

Diplomacy 3.0 is the State Department's ambitious multi-year hiring program that recognizes diplomacy as one of the three essential pillars of U.S. foreign policy: diplomacy, development, and defense.  But since most in Congress only recognizes the third pillar of U.S. foreign policy, I was just waiting for the other two shoes to fall.

And now there they are.

Tell me again -- how are we going to have a US Consulate Basra with 1200 employees  or a US Consulate Erbil with 1400 staffers the way this is going? (which would make these two diplomatic posts larger than most embassies anywhere in the world).  With less money available, State maybe forced to shuffle the deck, which probably means post-closures in other parts of the world not called Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Expect a new mothership cable to ALL POSTS urging posts and mission personnel to do more with less given this newest budget constraints. Unless you're in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, of course. But fear not, the way this is going, there will come a time when you'll me able to do everything with nothing.  Except on a diplomatic reception.

The Pulitzer Center on Crisis reporting recently had this update on the State Department's ramped up presence in Iraq:

The ongoing expansion of the diplomatic facilities—including two smaller outposts in Mosul and Kirkuk—is deeply controversial in Washington, where many lawmakers have questioned whether it makes sense for the U.S. to devote such an enormous percentage of the State Department's total budget to one country.

A Jan. 31 report from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, for instance, estimated that the State Department will spend $25-$30 billion in Iraq over the next five years. The panel said that U.S. diplomatic operations in Iraq in fiscal year 2012 will spike to at least $3 billion, roughly a quarter of the State Department's global operations budget. Other State initiatives here - like the large and growing Office of Security Cooperation—will push the fiscal 2012 numbers even higher.

It's far from clear that Congress is willing to spend that kind of money on Iraq, given the war's deep unpopularity at home. Lawmakers slashed State's fiscal year 2011 budget request by almost 20 percent, to $2.1 billion from the $2.6 billion originally requested. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont told The Huffington Post earlier this month that he doesn't "know why [Iraq] has to be one of our highest priorities."

"I think we've reached the point in Iraq where whatever we're spending money on, we're throwing good money after bad," he told the Web site.

The Senator had a point, no sense throwing good money after bad.  Most especially if we don't have a lot of money, good or bad.  Anyways, perhaps Congress should write that in the appropriation bill -- the money for the State Department that must not/not be spent on Iraq. Of course, that's like the prohibition clause of no permanent bases in Iraq, Afghanistan  and elsewhere that we regularly see in those bills.

Related articles

• "Diplomats do Development" - we might have meant well, but we obviously were not very serious (africommons.wordpress.com)
• Obama's "smart power" plan risks death of 1,000 cuts (huffingtonpost.com)
• Op-Ed Contributor: Long Before 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I Suffered and Won (nytimes.com)

Foreign Affairs Group Urges Expansion of Foreign Service, a Week Later, House Appropriations Committee Slashes State Dept/USAID Funding

The Foreign Affairs Council is a non-partisan umbrella group of eleven organizations concerned about U.S. diplomatic readiness. It recently released its fifth biennial assessment of the stewardship of the Secretary of State as a leader and manager.  The report which was released a week ago includes a notation that says "not all signatories agree with everything contained in this report, although they unanimously concur with all conclusions and recommendations."  Excerpts below:

An increase of 1,069 State positions during the tenure of Secretary of State Colin Powell (2001-2005) was more than absorbed by the civilian surges in Iraq and Afghanistan plus substantial increases in consular officers (more intensive scrutiny of visa applications to protect our frontiers) and in security officers (to protect others being deployed). Inaction on staffing during the tenure of Secretary Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) left the foreign affairs agencies with huge deficits in the human resources needed to do what was asked of them in the post-9/11 international landscape. Secretary Rice did propose a robust budget for FY 2009 asking for about 1,000 new positions for State and 500 for USAID and obtained OMB approval for these increases. However, given that FY 2009 was a “lame duck" period for the Bush administration, it did not appear at the time that the budget request would prosper in the Congress and, in any case, would not be acted upon until well after Rice’s departure.
[...]
The FY 2009 appropriations bill added 992 new Foreign Service positions at State and 300 positions at USAID.
[...]
...[S]oon after taking office the Administration submitted a FY 2010 budget request that succeeded in adding 764 Foreign Service positions at State and 350 positions at USAID.
[...]
The FY 2009 and FY 2010 staffing increases that achieved a 17 percent expansion of the Foreign Service were a remarkable accomplishment for Secretary Clinton, President Obama and Congress. Yet, with most of the new employees being sent out just to fill existing vacant positions, Foreign Service staffing levels still fell far short of that needed to fully restore America’s diplomatic and development capacity.
[...]
[T]he Administration’s FY 2011 budget request (forwarded to Congress in February 2010) sought 410 new Foreign Service positions at State and 200 at USAID. One year later, with the FY 2011 budget still pending before Congress (and opposed by the Republican majority in the House), the Administration submitted its FY 2012 budget request seeking an additional 150 Foreign Service positions at State and 165 at USAID. Thus, as of May 2011, the combined FY 2011 and FY 2012 unmet Foreign Service staffing requests totaled 560 at State and 365 at USAID.
[...]
Unfortunately, when Congress belatedly passed the FY 2011 budget in April 2011, it did not include funds to hire additional personnel above attrition. Furthermore, as this FAC report goes to press, Congress appears poised to reject the Administration’s FY 2012 request to strengthen staffing at the State Department and USAID.

Resources for Staffing and Training

1. Secretary Clinton should pursue her budget proposal to strengthen diplomacy and development assistance by securing funding for an additional 1,250 Foreign Service positions at the State Department and 650 at USAID by FY 2014.

2. To achieve the above recommendation the Secretary should make completion of Development 3.0 the first priority. Small reductions in the various assistance program accounts would fund the personnel increases now pending without damaging the development effort.

3. The Secretary should use a portion of the new positions to complete the staffing of a Foreign Service training complement equal to 15 percent of core staffing in order to provide the professional education and training needed to raise the overall level of performance of the State Department and USAID.

The report is available here but seems to have slipped into a dark hole inside the beltway. Too dark to read there.

On Jul 26, the House Appropriations Committee released the fiscal year 2012 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill:

The bill includes a total of $39.6 billion in regular discretionary funding, which is $8.6 billion or 18% below last year’s level. Included in these reductions are cuts back to the fiscal year 2008 levels or below for certain operations and assistance accounts. The bill also includes $7.6 billion designated as Global War on Terror funding, which is $1.1 billion below the President’s request.
[...]
State Department Operations and Related Agencies – The bill contains a total of $11.9 billion in discretionary funding for operational costs of the State Department and related agencies – a decrease of $3.9 billion below last year’s level and a $3.1 billion below the President’s request. This includes funding for programs such as diplomatic and consular affairs, embassy security and operations, assessed contributions to international organizations, and international broadcasting. The bill also eliminates temporary pay raises for overseas officers.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Operations – The bill contains $1.04 billion for USAID – a reduction of $488 million from last year’s level and $705 million below the President’s request. The bill halts new hiring at USAID and stops expansion of facilities overseas associated with that hiring.

Global War on Terror – The bill includes Global War on Terror (GWOT) funding for efforts and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, GWOT funds will support security forces and police previously funded by the Department of Defense. GWOT funds will also support civilian programs in support of the military’s counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan.

For the subcommittee draft text of the FY 2012 State and Foreign Operations Bill, please visit: http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY12-SFOPS-07-25_xml.pdf.

This is a Republican-sponsored bill.  GOP members hold seven of the 11 seats on the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee. On July 27, the bill was reported to the Full Committee on voice vote.  The Full Committee markup is scheduled for August 3rd.

There are again talks about the elimination of "locality pay" and even the "F" word. Locality pay and furloughs sounds familiar; didn't we had these talks just months ago? But this will be a much larger drawn-out battle not just on staffing the Foreign Service but funding for diplomacy and foreign aid in 2012. Even if the State bill is "only one and a quarter percent of the overall budget."  Most foreign aid recipients do not vote; but of course, countries receiving US aid have their own lobbyists and presumably they will be working "all hands" and earning their pay in the months ahead.

The Cable's Josh Rogin reports that SFRC's Senator Kerry has also unveiled his bill on July 27 (apparently with no participation from Senator Lugar; not a good sign) that would fully fund the State Department and USAID operations at the level requested by the White House.  Josh notes that "nobody knows if those funds will be set aside for international affairs when the appropriators weigh in. And the ongoing negotiations over the debt ceiling could change the financial picture for State and USAID as well."

The text of Senator Kerry's bill is here, with an expanded summary here, and a fact sheet on the bill here.

So the duel is officially on.

If there is a compromise (oh dat dirty, dirty word), it will presumably be between the 18% mark. Senator Kerry will not get his full funding, and the GOP will not get its full 18% cuts. It is also conceivable that the State/USAID funding could become casualties in the "we're going to be the next banana republic debt ceiling" negotiations.


CNN reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already warned members of the House of Representatives that she "will recommend personally" that President Barack Obama veto a bill that would severely restrict State Department operations, international organizations and foreign assistance.

But what good is that warning when the debt ceiling catastrophe and its attendant side effects are heading our way like a Chinese bullet train?

2012! It's sooner than you think. Well now, where is John Cusack when you need him?

Snapshot: Af/Pak Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Strategy, Funding and Staffing

Via the OIG Review of the Af/Pak "Bureau" under the  Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP):

The Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy follows four pillars: expand media engagement, counter extremist voices, build communications capacity, and strengthen people-to-people ties.

To implement that strategy, Embassy Islamabad runs the Department’s largest bilateral exchange program, and Pakistan has the largest Fulbright program in the world. The public diplomacy budget for Pakistan grew from a base public diplomacy budget of approximately $1.5 million in FY 2009 to $58 million in FY 2010 for public diplomacy and strategic communications from Department and USAID funds, not counting strategic communication funds from the Department of Defense. Funds limited to public diplomacy that were spent in Pakistan in FY 2010 totaled $41.4 million (FY 2010 base of $1.6 million; FY 2009 supplemental, 2-year funds of $31.1 million; and FY 2010 supplemental regularization funding of $8.7 million). The FY 2011 budget request is for up to $110 million.

The public diplomacy budget in Afghanistan grew from a base public diplomacy budget of $1.5 million in FY 2009 to over $87.5 million in FY 2010 for public diplomacy and strategic communications from Department and USAID funds, not counting significant strategic communication funds from the Department of Defense. Funds used only for public diplomacy that were spent in Afghanistan in FY 2010 totaled $46.7 million (FY 2010 base $1.3 million; FY 2009 supplemental 2-year money $22.1 million; and FY 2010 supplemental regularization $23.3 million).

These budget increases at Embassies Kabul and Islamabad have been accompanied by a doubling of the number of public affairs officers at the two missions and by SCA/PPD staffing up to support grants management. Neither the S/SRAP unit nor SCA/PPD requires further staff augmentation to manage this increased workload.

Active links added above. Is the informational effect worth all that money?

Countering extremist voices in English is not the same as countering it in the local language or dialect.  Right there, the State Department has a problem not just in the Af/Pak super bureau but in US missions in the large swath of the world where English is not the principal language.

If extreme voices calls you a dog in American English, you should be able to call them back a dog in their language, and explain what kind of dog and why, even debate about it. No translators required, no mistranslation, no misunderstanding just what you mean. But if you can't speak their language ... well, um .... see why that's a problem?

Snapshot: Top 10 State Department Assistance Recipients FY2010

According to the Prime Award spending data from USAspending.gov, the following organizations are the State Department's Top 10 Assistance Recipients in FY2010.

screen capture from
usaspending.gov

Related articles

• Spending transparency for the federal government (businessinsider.com)
• Data.gov in crisis: the open data movement is bigger than just one site | Nathan Yau (guardian.co.uk)

 

 

 

US Embassy Tajikistan: $318,913 to Build Rec Center, $1.5M to Demolish, Redesign, Reconstruct Botched Rec Center

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) Semiannual Report to the Congress for the Department of State (Department) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) recently went online. This most recent report covers the period ending March 31, 2011.

US Embassy Dushanbe, Tajikistan
Photo from US Embassy/Facebook

The report includes a summary of inspections, audits, and investigations conducted by the OIG including the following botched rec center at the US Embassy in Dushanbe:

Limited-Scope Review of the Design and Construction of a Recreation Center at Embassy Dushanbe, Tajikistan (MERO-I-11-04)

In December 2006, Embassy Dushanbe and RPSO awarded a contract, valued at $318,913 for construction of a post-managed recreation center, to a local contractor, PIR-5 LTD (PIR-5). OBO approved the initial design and issued a building permit in October 2007. In July 2008, RPSO issued a notice to proceed, and construction began in the fall of 2008. In May 2009, PIR-5 ceased site activities and walked off the job when RPSO withheld payments. The contract was formally terminated on July 15, 2009. The swimming pool facilities must be demolished, redesigned, and reconstructed at an estimated cost of $1.5 million—five times the original cost.

OIG found a number of deficiencies in the design and construction of the recreation center, including RPSO’s and the embassy’s failure to assess the reasonableness of the proposed price. PIR-5 did not design and construct the Dushanbe recreation center according to required building codes and guidelines. Required designs were not submitted by PIR-5, nor were design issues resolved prior to starting construction. RPSO failed to limit U.S. Government risk because the contractor was not required to purchase payment bonds and insurance. CORs did not properly monitor the contractor’s performance or progress, failed to establish quality assurance measures, and did not ensure the contractor submitted required documents. Invoices were approved and paid although the work was unacceptable. COR turnover and a short­age in management staff led to a lack of continuity in contract management.

OIG recommended that an employee with construction engineering experience chair the managed project technical evaluation team and that the contracting officer obtain an OBO audit before awarding a contract varying more than 20 percent from the Independent Government Cost Estimate. OIG also recommended that OBO fully review and approve designs, management plans, and quality assurance plans before beginning construction; review construction progress and identify risks; and establish COR guidance.

Related articles

• Tajikistan upset by 'U.S. invasion' video game (canada.com)
• BBC Journalist Urunboi Usmonov Detained In Tajikistan On Suspected Terrorism Connections (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tajikistan bans divorce by text message (cbsnews.com)

 

 

 

Funding Smart Power Maybe Smart, But What About My Re-election?

Joseph S. Nye Jr., professor at Harvard and author of The Future of Power writes Foreign Policy: Cutting From Foreign Aid Doesn't Help.  Excerpt below:

[...] On Tuesday, the axe fell: The State Department and foreign operations budget was slashed by $8.5 billion — a pittance when compared to military spending, but one that could put a serious dent in the United States' ability to positively influence events abroad.
[...]
Now, in the name of an illusory contribution to deficit reduction (when you're talking about deficits in the trillions, $38 billion in savings is a drop in the bucket), those efforts have been set back. Polls consistently show a popular misconception that aid is a significant part of the U.S. federal budget, when in fact it amounts to less than 1 percent. Thus, congressional cuts to aid in the name of deficit reduction are an easy vote, but a cheap shot.
[...]
In 2007, Richard Armitage and I co-chaired a bipartisan Smart Power Commission of members of Congress, former ambassadors, retired military officers, and heads of non-profit organizations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. We concluded that America's image and influence had declined in recent years and that the United States had to move from exporting fear to inspiring optimism and hope.

The Smart Power Commission was not alone in this conclusion. Even when he was in the George W. Bush administration, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Congress to commit more money and effort to soft-power tools including diplomacy, economic assistance, and communications because the military alone cannot defend America's interests around the world.
[...]
The obstacles to integrating America's soft- and hard-power tool kit have deep roots, and the Obama administration is only beginning to overcome them, by creating a second deputy at State, reinvigorating USAID, and working with the Office of Management and Budget. Increasing the size of the Foreign Service, for instance, would cost less than the price of one C-17 transport aircraft, yet there are no good ways to assess such a tradeoff in the current form of budgeting. Now, that progress may be halted.
[...]
Leadership in a global information age is less about being the king of the mountain issuing commands that cascade down a hierarchy than being the person in the center of a circle or network who attracts and persuades others to come help. Both the hard power of coercion and the soft power of attraction and persuasion are crucial to success in such situations. Americans need better to understand both these dimensions of smart power.

Nowhere is this more true than on Capitol Hill. While Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken about the importance of soft power, they do not have to face the American electorate. As a friend in Congress once told me, "You are right about the importance of combining soft power with hard power, but I cannot talk about soft power and hope to get re-elected." The defense budget affects almost all congressional constituencies in the United States; the budgets for State and USAID do not. The result is a foreign policy that rests on a defense giant and a number of pygmy departments. For example, when Gates and Clinton recently agreed to transfer an aid program from the Pentagon to the State Department, the program's budget was cut in half. And now, Foggy Bottom faces cuts across the board.

Congress needs to be serious about deficit reduction, and it also needs to be serious about foreign policy. The events of the past week suggest it is serious about neither.

Read in full here.

Related articles

• Obama's Conventional Foreign Policy (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Demonstrating success, Defending cuts (one.org)
• Defense Spending Rises In Budget Bills, Despite U.S. Drawdown In ... (huffingtonpost.com)

Senate Appropriations Releases Highlights of FY2011 CR: This is bad but HR 1 would have been way worse

Via the Senate Appropriations Committee, a press statement on the Highlights of FY 2011 Continuing Resolution:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Senate Appropriations Committee released highlights of legislation filed today in the House of Representatives to fund the federal government through September 30, 2011.  The bill includes a separate division for the Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Appropriations Act. The final compromise legislation negotiated with the House of Representatives contains significant spending reductions, but protects the vital economic and security interests of the United States.  In total, the Continuing Resolution (CR) cuts $78.5 billion from the President's Fiscal Year 2011 request and is $37.6 billion below Fiscal Year 2010.

The final legislation rejects the draconian cuts and onerous policy riders proposed in H.R. 1.  The reductions in funding levels agreed to in this bill will impact millions of Americans, and many good programs will suffer difficult cuts.  As these cuts must be implemented in just the remaining six months of the fiscal year, their impact will be especially painful in some instances.  However, the bill preserves critical programs that were targeted for cuts in H.R.1, including Head Start, Pell Grants, and vital scientific and medical research.  In keeping with the commitment Senate Democrats made earlier this year, no earmarks are funded in the bill.

Below are examples of programs that would have been seriously harmed by H.R. 1, undermining our economy and putting children and seniors at risk.  Under the bipartisan legislation negotiated by Congress and the White House, these crucial investments will continue. 

Protecting America's Vital Interests Abroad

• H.R. 1 would have cut funding for the Department of State and foreign operations by $3.8 billion below the FY10 enacted level (not counting $6.1 billion in supplemental appropriations much of which was for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq), and $3.3 billion below the CR agreement.  It would have caused serious harm to U.S. embassy and consular operations which millions of Americans who live, work and study abroad depend on every day, and to programs that directly protect U.S. national security and other important diplomatic and economic interests, and which provide life-saving aid to victims of disease, war and natural disasters.  At the H.R. 1 level, total funding for foreign operations for the world's leading superpower would have fallen below a mere one percent of the Federal budget.

• While the CR agreement will require a spending freeze for many diplomatic operations and foreign assistance programs at FY10 levels or below, unlike H.R. 1 it provides sufficient funds to enable the United States to continue to exert the global leadership the American people expect. 

What's next? Here is from the House on Rule for the FY11 Full Year CR and how it works:

Debate and votes on these issues, put in the form of concurrent resolutions adjusting the enrollment of H.R. 1473 (known as “enrollment correction resolutions”), will be directly tied to final passage of H.R. 1473, the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act via the rule providing for its consideration. Here’s how it will work:

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1473 (the full year CR), H.Con.Res. 35 (defunding of ObamaCare), and H.Con.Res. 36 (defunding of Planned Parenthood). The House will debate and vote on each of these items separately. Because H.R. 1473 represents a final agreement akin to a conference report and the enrollment correction resolutions are straight up or down votes, debate will be limited and no amendments will be allowed on any of the three items.(italics added)

It’s important to note that the enrollment corrections must be passed by both the House and Senate to be effective; neither body can make the changes without the consent of the other. It’s also important to remember that as the originating body of H.R. 1473, the House ultimately has custody of the official papers and is responsible for enrolling and presenting the bill to the President for his signature.

Upon passage of each measure, the House will send to the Senate the final version of a House appropriations bill, H.R. 1473, and the two enrollment correction resolutions.

• If H.Con.Res. 35 and H.Con.Res. 36 also pass the Senate, the House Clerk will add the language in the resolutions as “corrections” to the final enrolled version of H.R. 1473.

• If the enrollment correction resolutions do not pass the Senate, they will not be added to the final version of H.R. 1473 and it will be enrolled and sent to the President.

In order to ensure timely consideration of all three items, the rule will direct the Clerk of the House to refrain from finalizing the enrollment H.R. 1473 until the Senate holds votes on H.Con.Res. 35 and H.Con.Res. 36. The order and timing of the votes on all three items in the Senate will be determined by leadership of that body.

FY2012 Budget Request for Civilian Power: State 197 Positions | USAID 165 Positions

In the FY2011 budget, the Obama administration requested 410 new Foreign Service positions and for USAID, an increase of 200 FS positions.  Last year, when Secretary Lew (now OMB Director) was asked by a reporter on President Obama's  plans early on to increase the number of Foreign Service officers by 1,600 over two years, this is what he said:

DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: It was never over two years.
QUESTION: Is that –
DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: No, I mean, we’ve stretched it out a little bit, but it was never over two years.
QUESTION: Well, my point is, have the cuts that he’s trying to make affected the positions that are going to be added?
DEPUTY SECRETARY LEW: I think that as I indicated in my opening statement, we have had to extend the period, but we haven’t changed the goal. And I think it’s really a remarkable statement of how important this rebuilding of the core capacity of the State Department and USAID is in a very difficult budget year when there are very difficult tradeoffs in domestic programs.

We’re maintaining the commitment to building up our capacity to have properly trained civilians available for these critical assignments. You look around the world and the fact that there are 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq makes the case as clearly as anything that I could argue as to why we need more people. Without growing, it just means pulling civilians out of other posts. So we need to grow and I think the budget gives us the ability to continue to grow. And the pace of hiring will only slow down slightly. It will not be a dramatic change.

Since the FY2011 budget is still hung up in Congress, it's hard to say if the 610 new positions will actually materialized. But the new request for FY2012 is already in and only totals 362 for State and USAID. The next opportunity to request a staffing increase won't happen until February 2012 for the FY2013 budget.   

Click on image to view larger version

Related articles

• U.S. says cutting aid threatens Afghanistan fight (reuters.com)
• U.S. aid chief faces Republican budget cutters (reuters.com)
• Obama keeps Afghan war spending, Iraq costs down (reuters.com)
• State Shows QDDR to Congress: More Hires, Smaller Contracts (devex.com)

US Embassy Baghdad: 777,888 Hours or $36 Million of Overtime

Image via Wikipedia

State's OIG released last Friday an audit of Embassy Baghdad's Internal Controls for Overtime Pay. Here is the lowdown on overtime according to the report:

Overtime for American personnel is defined as those hours in excess of the 40-hour work week. American personnel eligible for overtime include uncommissioned Foreign Service Officers, Foreign Service specialists, and General Schedule personnel. Senior Executive Service, Senior Foreign Service, and commissioned Foreign Service Officers are not eligible for overtime. Three general categories of American personnel are eligible for overtime:

1. Temporary Duty (TDY) employees. These employees are short-term, lessthan 6 months, and long-term, more than 6 months but less than 1 year.

2. Permanent Change of Station (PSC) employees. These permanent postemployees have assignment orders for a 1- or 2-year tour.

3. Section 3161 hires. These are employees who are hired under a specialauthority (5 U.S.C. 3161). The employees are assigned to the Iraq TechnicalAdvisory Office in Washington, but most are sent TDY to Iraq. The employees’ U.S. Government appointments terminate when their Section 3161 appointments end.

/snip/

OIG reviewed overtime for 2008 and 2009 and found that American employees in Embassy Baghdad submitted 777,888 hours of overtime, totaling about $36 million, for those 2 years. During 2008, an average of 287 (50 percent) of 570 Americans claimed overtime during each pay period, with a total cost for that year of $18,207,654. In 2009, an average of 352 (51 percent) of 695 Americans claimed overtime during each pay period, with a total cost for that year of $17,745,039. 

/snip/

Although OIG found that the average number of claimants increased for 2009, the number of overtime hours actually decreased, from 400,875 to 377,013 hours. Since the time of OIG’s audit, Embassy Baghdad has initiated a program to monitor the number of overtime hours worked and to send quarterly reports to supervisors for an explanation of excessive amounts. While the Embassy’s program assesses indications of potential abuse of overtime hours, it does not address compliance with supervisory authorization for overtime, supervisory approval of timesheets, or the provision of complete and accurate information to Charleston (SC) Global Financial Services Center for payment.

/snip/

Embassy Baghdad did not have adequate internal controls to support the overtime payments because supervisors did not authorize overtime in advance of overtime performed; did not certify timesheets after the work was performed; did not certify overtime for payment in the proper period; and did not require T&A documentation to support overtime payments, such as leave and approved absences. For example, employees and supervisors did not always sign timesheets, and employees used different types of timesheets that often lacked key information, such as lines for supervisor or employee signatures and dates of certification

/snip/

Embassy Baghdad’s internal controls for authorizing and approving overtime were weak, and Charleston needed to improve its quality controls for processing overtime payments. Based on its review of overtime payroll records, OIG found noncompliance with policies and regulations for authorizing, reconciling, and documenting T&A reports. Specifically, Embassy Baghdad officials

• Did not enforce regulations requiring supervisors to approve T&A reports based on actual hours worked and authorize overtime hours in advance of work.

• Did not require employees to attest to the accuracy of the hours and leave charges shown on their T&A reports.

• Allowed employees, not their supervisors, to transmit their time sheets directly to Charleston.

Until these deficiencies are addressed, Embassy Baghdad will have no assurance that payroll expenses for overtime and related T&A information is reliable, increasing the risk for fraud and abuse. OIG notes that disciplinary penalties exist at the post for noncompliance with such T&A requirements as signatures and overtime justifications, although OIG was unable to determine whether the post initiated any disciplinary actions. (Time and attendance requirements for American personnel at Embassy Baghdad are summarized in Appendix B.)

/snip/

OIG’s July 2009 inspection report on Embassy Baghdad indicated that supervision over overtime claimed by Section 3161 contract employees was inadequate. To determine whether Section 3161 employees had a predominant amount of overtime, OIG analyzed overtime by the three general categories of American personnel eligible for overtime. OIG found that during 2008 and 2009, 44 percent of the personnel were Section 3161 hires, 37 percent were Permanent Change of Station employees, and 19 percent were Temporary Duty employees. While Section 3161 employees received the greatest share of overtime, OIG determined that the amount of overtime was not excessive when compared with that of other types of employees.

Active links added above. Read the whole thing here.



Related item:
OIG Report No. AUD/CG-10-25, Embassy Baghdad Internal Controls for Overtime Pay - June 2010


  

Related articles by Zemanta

• US envoy: Diplomatic presence in Iraq will shrink (sfgate.com)
• The Other Timeline In Iraq (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• US to draw down diplomats in Iraq in next 3-5 years (alternet.org)
• Top Insurgents Escaped Prison Days After Iraq Took Over (nytimes.com)

You may need to start bringing your own pencil to work soon ...

Josh Rogin of The Cable writes that the House panel just slashed $4 billion from the State and foreign aid budget. Gosh, I can't count.... is that 4 plus nine zeros?  That's like ... a lot of zeros, dude! 

Congresswoman Nita Lowey cites the following highlights of the bill:

• The bill provides $8.864 billion for Diplomatic and Consular Programs at the State Department, $678 million below the President’s request, but $637 above the FY 2010 enacted level.
  
  
• $1.41 billion is included for USAID’s Operating and Expenses Account to add 100 positions to USAID’s capacity in the field and reduce its dependency on the U.S. military to implement assistance programs.
  
  
• To preserve and protect our environment and fight global climate change, this bill includes over $1.34 billion in bilateral and multilateral funds for clean energy, biodiversity, and climate change initiatives, which is $258 below the request.
  
  
• The committee is aware of the bipartisan interest in increasing the size and strength of the Peace Corps and, despite significant budget constraints, provides the President’s budget request, $446 million, for the Peace Corps.
  

You probably know what's coming.  There'll be cuts all around except for I'AfPak posts. Folks will be asked to slash another 10-15% off their mission budget from the previous year. Do more with less as a mantra will be back with a vengeance (although I was never convinced it ever did go away). The good news is before too long, you'll be able to do everything with nothing. Imagine that -- especially for 4th of July gigs next year.

H/T to Josh for the chart showing which accounts got whacked:

FY2011 State Summary Table

Related articles by Zemanta

• House Dems, Citing Corruption, Block Reconstruction Funds For Afghanistan (huffingtonpost.com)
• House panel denies aid to Afghanistan (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Rep. Lowey Strips Afghanistan Aid Bill Of $3.9 Billion In Response To Corruption Reports (crooksandliars.com)
• House panel denies aid to Afghanistan (sfgate.com)
• Rajeev Goyal: Rep. Lowey Decides the Future of the Peace Corps (huffingtonpost.com)

Snapshot: Top 10 Recipients of US Foreign Aid in FY2010, FY 2011 RQ

In the FY2011 request, Afghanistan tops the list at nearly $4 billion, followed by Pakistan at $3 billion. This is in addition to significant supplemental funds—$2 billion and $370 million, respectively—requested for these countries for FY2010. Israel and Egypt would continue to receive significant funds, primarily for Foreign Military Financing, at $3 billion and $1.56 billion, respectively. Jordan would also continue to rank high on the list, with $682.7 million requested. Iraq, which dropped out of the top 10 list in FY2010 (though a request for more than $2 billion in FY2010 supplemental funds is pending), would be the fifth largest recipient of aid in FY2011, under the Administration request. Assistance to the other top recipients—Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and South Africa—is targeted primarily at HIV/AIDS and other health programs.

(click on table to enlarge image)

Extracted from
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2011 Budget and Appropriations (Congressional Research Service | May 5, 2010)  via Secrecy News.

Related Post:
Snapshot: Top 10 Recipients of US Foreign Aid (FY2009, FY2010 RQ)

DOD's Overseas Footprint Substantially Larger than State Dept's Shoes

Image by devilarts via Flickr

Last week, the smart folks over at the Stimson Center’s Budget Insight blog had this up: 

The size of the military, its budget, and its overseas footprint are all substantially larger than the US civilian foreign policy agencies, as the data below shows.

The defense budget is nearly 13 times bigger than all US civilian foreign policy budgets combined.  For Fiscal Year 2010, Congress has provided $636.3 billion for defense and $50.6 billion for diplomacy and foreign assistance.  Although the diplomacy and foreign assistance budget has grown faster since 9/11 than defense, this growth has not significantly changed this fiscal imbalance.[3]

The Defense Department (DOD) has the largest overseas presence of any federal agency, including the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID).  In November 2008, for every 1 USAID employee deployed overseas, there were 23 State Department employees deployed and 600 military/civilian personnel deployed overseas from DOD.[4] Increasingly US interests are represented by someone in uniform or working for the military, as contrasted with a diplomat or foreign assistance provider.

The overseas footprint of DOD is significantly larger than that of the civilian agencies. In November 2008, for every 1 USAID overseas mission, there were 3 embassies/consular posts, and 9 military bases.

A symbol of the imbalance between DOD and State − in 2008, DOD spent roughly $16 billion on fuel.  That is more than the entire cost of running the State Department, which was $13.5 billion.[5]

Read the whole thing here.

HRC Pitches for Proposed State Dept Budget

HRC appeared before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (Washington, DC | February 24, 2010) on the President's Proposed Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011 for the Department of State and Foreign Operations. Excerpt below:

Our fiscal year 2011 request for the State Department and USAID totals $52.8 billion. That’s a $4.9 billion increase over 2010. Of that increase, $3.6 billion will go to supporting efforts in “frontline states” – Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Other funding will grow by $1.3 billion, and that is a 2.7 percent increase, and with that money we will address global challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the State Department and USAID are equipped with the right people, the right technology, and the right resources.

[…]

Let me just highlight three areas where we are making significant new investments. First, the security of frontline states.

In Afghanistan, this past year, we have tripled the number of civilians on the ground, and this presence will grow by hundreds more with the $5 billion in this budget. Our diplomats and development experts are helping build institutions, expand economic opportunities, and provide meaningful alternatives for insurgents ready to renounce violence and al-Qaida and join their fellow Afghans in the pursuit of peace.

In Pakistan, our request includes $3.2 billion to combat extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the Pakistani people. This includes funding of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman initiative. Our request also includes a 59 percent increase in funding for Yemen, to help counter the extremist threat and build institutions there as well.

In Iraq, we are winding down our military presence and establishing a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian efforts will not and cannot mirror the scale of the military presence, but they rather should provide assistance consistent with the priorities of the Iraqi Government and the United States. So our request includes $2.6 billion for Iraq. These are resources that will allow us to support the democratic process, ensure a smooth transition to civilian-led security training and operational support. These funds will allow civilians to take full responsibility for programs, and the Defense budget for Iraq will be decreasing by about $16 billion – and that’s a powerful illustration of the return on civilian investment.

[…]

None of what we intend to do can be accomplished if we don’t recruit, train, and empower the right people for the job.

The State Department and USAID are full of talented and committed public servants, but we have too often neglected to give them the tools they need to carry out their missions on the ground. And rather than building our own expertise, we have too often relied on contractors, sometimes with little oversight and often at greater cost. This budget will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by over 600 positions, including an additional 410 for the State Department and 200 for USAID. It will also allow us to staff the standby element of the Civilian Reserve Corps, which is a crucial tool in our efforts to respond to crises.

Now, while deploying these personnel generates new expenses in some accounts, it will reduce costs by changing the way we do business. As we are ending our over-reliance on contractors, we’re actually showing we can save money, plus bringing these functions inside and improving oversight and accountability.

Video of her appearance before the Subcommittee is here.

Full text of her testimony is here.

Quickie: State Department Arm Wrestling with the Pentagon

And the winner is ….

Josh Rogin of The Cable has this piece yesterday: Pentagon wins turf war with State over military aid. Quick excerpt: 

One big chunk of funding at issue is in foreign security assistance, known as the "1206" account, which could total about $500 million next year. This is money used to do things like military training and joint operations with countries outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, such as Indonesia and Somalia.

Since the military doesn't have the lead in those countries, the funding should flow through State, right? Well, not in 2011. The president's budget will keep those funds in the Pentagon's purse in its Feb. 1 budget release, following a pitched internal battle in which the State Department eventually conceded.

"That literally is the result of vigorous arm wrestling within the administration," one source familiar with the discussions said. The battle had been waged primarily between the shops of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy and Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro, but finally Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew got involved.

[…]

Overall, State is expected to receive a hefty increase in its top-line budget request for fiscal 2011, but much of that money will be for Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing little growth in the rest of the State-USAID accounts.

The slow pace of rebalancing national security spending and the lack of a comprehensive strategy for guiding that process is the subject of a new book by former OMB national security funding chief Gordon Adams, entitled Buying National Security: How America Plans and Pays for Its Global Role and Safety at Home.

"The tool kit is out of whack," Adams told The Cable. "There's been a major move over the last 10 years to expand the Defense Department's agenda, which has been creeping into the foreign-policy agenda in new and expensive ways."

Read the whole thing here.

US Embassaurus Baghdad Plans to Go Double Whopper

Image by avlxyz via Flickr

No End in Sight for the Iraq Tax ...

The Cable’s Josh Rogin had an exclusive interview with Robert S. Ford, the deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Ambassador Ford (former ambassador to Algeria) on supersizing the embassy, quote: "If Congress gives us the money we are asking for, this embassy is going to be twice the size it is now. It's not going down, it's getting bigger.”  

Rogin writes that the Obama administration has prepared a budget request for a program that would vastly increase the number of people working on police training when the military draws down. That request, if granted, could increase the overall U.S. diplomatic presence in Baghdad from around 1,400 to more than 3,000 total personnel, including contractors.

"My biggest problem here is figuring out where are these people going to live, how are we going to get the security for them, how are we going to get food for them, and how are we going to get their mail delivered," he said.

Rogin points out that our Baghdad embassy is already the largest in the world and “bursting at the seams with people and equipment.”

The report also says that the new police training will focus more on "middle management," to include human resources, operational planning, and building institutional capacity, "rather than showing a new recruit how to wear a uniform and how to shoot a gun."

Read the whole thing here.

Funding for US Embassy Iraq
Extracted from OIG/MERO August 2009 Report

An August 2009 report from the OIG’s MERO Office on Embassy Baghdad’s transition planning for reduced US military in Iraq says  that the embassy’s mission strategic plan indicates a gradual reduction in PRTs from 16 teams in August 2010 to six teams by December 2011.  Wow! But there is also this:

Department budget officials are identifying costs associated with the U.S. military drawdown as requirements are identified, and they believe sufficient funds have been budgeted through FY 2011 to meet projected embassy operational requirements as currently defined. However, OIG has identified several areas in which the military drawdown may result in additional costs. These areas include requirements for: (1) enhanced security around the new embassy compound; (2) convoy security for fuel, food, and other supplies; (3) commercial air travel as an alternative to military transport; and (4) private sector design, contract preparation, and contract oversight to replace U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ support services.

[...] 

Embassy Baghdad stated that there are two program areas that will greatly impact the embassy platform in 2011 and beyond: (1) a Department program to take over training Iraqi police from the U.S. military, and (2) the possible stand-up of an Office of Military Cooperation under chief of mission authority to assume some of the support and assistance now provided by U.S. military units. Embassy Baghdad noted that neither of these two programs has yet been defined in terms of scope, numbers of personnel and their deployment to different Iraqi sites, or the duration of their missions or support needs.

How could budget officials say in mid-2009 that sufficient funds have been budgeted through FY 2011 when the embassy did not yet know at that time how many additional personnel were needed for the police program?

Since Ambassador Ford is now talking about a staffing increase from “around 1,400 to more than 3,000 total personnel,” I’m presuming they have now identified personnel requirements for the Iraqi Police training program that the Department will take over from DOD. 

 

Ah yes, no good deed will go unpunished.  And just when I started to believe that the new hiring authority will begin to close the staffing gaps especially at the mid-levels – sigh!

The largest bump in recent years that the Foreign Service got in terms of staffing happened during Secretary Powell’s Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI). That bump was quickly swallowed by a dinosaur with an almost bottomless appetite.  The State Department had recently received authority to hire 724 new officers. But with the surge in Afghanistan and a still hungry embassaurus in Baghdad, can you really expect a break in staffing gaps in diplomatic missions not located in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan?  What -- or Yemen?.

You may need to start bringing your own pencil to work, before long. The estimated funding for US Embassy Baghdad in FY2010 was $1.865B.  If its request for over 1600 additional personnel is approved, the estimated funding of $1.875B for FY2011 will most certainly skyrocket.   

With these kind of numbers, would talk on directed  assignments be too far behind?.    

Related Item: 

-08/25/09   Performance Audit of Embassy Baghdad's Transition Planning for a Reduced United States Military Presence in Iraq (MERO-A-09-10) Aug 09

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