Steve Peacock's U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor

New Legislation Seeks to Slash Federal Workforce by 10% -- But Opens Door for White House Waivers

A bill that seeks to reduce the federal workforce by 10% over the next few years was introduced today by House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform Chmn. Darrell Issa (R-Cal.) and subcommittee leaders Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

The legislation aims to accomplish that goal by limiting the hiring of one new federal employee for every three who leave their jobs or retire. The Reducing the Size of the Federal Government Through Attrition Act of 2011 (HR-2114) supposedly would save taxpayers $127.5 billion over ten years.

The bill likewise prohibits federal entities from simply awarding contracts to vendors to make up for the loss of personnel.

Chaffetz, who also is a member of the House Budget Committee, said in a joint statement, "The American people deserve a federal government that is smaller, leaner, and more efficient... Private sector job creators and families in my district have learned to do more with less. So should the federal government."

One former government insider who spoke to U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor on condition of anonymity predicted that major departments such as State, Defense, Health & Human Services, and possibly even the Dept. of Commerce likely would evade such cuts if the bill is signed into law.

“They’ll simply claim that matters of national security, economics, or public health preclude them from complying with the law,” according to the source, who had not yet seen the bill.

Indeed, a closer look at the bill’s text reveals that its sponsors already have built such a mechanism into the proposed law.

According to Section 2(e), the White House would be granted the power to approve waivers when it deems necessary::

(e) WAIVER.—

(1) EMERGENCIES.—This section may be waived upon a determination by the President that—

(A) the existence of a state of war or other national security concern so requires; or

(B) the existence of an extraordinary emergency threatening life, health, public safe ty, property, or the environment so requires.

(2) AGENCY EFFICIENCY OR CRITICAL MISSION.—This section may be waived, with respect to a particular position or category of positions in an agency, upon a determination by the President that the efficiency of the agency or the performance of a critical agency mission so requires.

“In the end, we’ll see a savings of millions, maybe, not billions, for the taxpayer,” the source said.

U.S. Aid to Pakistan Continues as Debate Over bin Laden Complicity Rages

Impassioned debate about whether the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a true U.S. ally or is complicit in hiding the now-deceased terrorist Osama bin Laden continues on Capitol Hill—and, according to a review of contracting records, the delivery of military and other aid to that nation continues relatively unimpeded in the meantime.

The types of aid flowing to Pakistan range from airport equipment in support of U.S.-provided F-16 fighter bombers to the funding of research into the causes of stuttering among the Pakistani people.

The following contracting actions represent a sampling of recent activity; indeed, the endeavors listed here are relatively small in contrast to overall expenditures, past and anticipated, by the U.S. on behalf of Pakistan. As noted in a U.S. Agency for International Development report released earlier this year, “Quarterly Progress and Oversight Report on the Civilian Assistance Program in Pakistan As of December 31, 2010”:

For fiscal year (FY) 2010, Congress appropriated $1.514 billion authorized by the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, along with other assistance funds, to support the civilian assistance strategy in Pakistan. The U.S. Embassy reported that $3.931 billion in FY 2009, 2010, and 2011 civilian assistance funds had been obligated as of December 31, 2010.

Similarly noted in this week’s Congressional Research Service report “Osama bin Laden’s Death: Implications and Considerations” (made available through the Federation of American Scientists):

For FY2002-FY2010, Congress appropriated about $4.43 billion in security-related assistance and $6.22 billion in economic/development/humanitarian assistance for a total of about $10.65 billion. In addition, Pakistan has received $8.88 billion in Coalition Support Fund “reimbursements” for its operational and logistical support of US-led military operations during this period.

Some of the most recent requests come specifically from the U.S. Air Force for shipment to Shahbaz Air Force Base, where last year the U.S. delivered the first four of eighteen F-16s ordered by the Pakistani military. The newest equipment will come in the form of six “C-130 transportable” Panther fire trucks made by Rosenbauer America (Solicitation #FA8630-11-R-5025), six Allianz RT655 runway sweepers “to be used in support of the Pakistan Air Force F-16 program,”(Solicitation # FA8630-11-R-5024), plus two 60-ton and two 40-ton cranes. (Solicitation #FA8630-11-R-5027).

Shahbaz AFB is located near Jacobadab, about 300 miles north of Karachi and 300 miles southeast of Kandahar, Afghanistan..

Separately, the U.S. State Dept. is arranging for the delivery of VHF radio base stations, radio, and related equipment for the Balochistan Levies, a paramilitary force that patrols Pakistan’s violence-plagued Balochistan province. According to a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition document that U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor has obtained, State’s Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) at the American Embassy in Islamabad is ordering the communications gear. The urgent need for additional equipment, combined with the fact that NAS and the Bureau of International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs already invested million of dollars into Motorola equipment in that region, necessitates the noncompetitive acquisition.

The Balochistan Levies group “is tasked by the Government of Pakistan to cope up with terrorist insurgency in Balochistan along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border with the help of communication equipment. The agency carries out counternarcotics/counter-terrorism operations in the troubled areas,” according the document.

In a separate but related development, State on April 13 signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Police to provide more than “$17 million in vehicles, communications, and other equipment.” State pointed out in the announcement that in 2010 the U.S. “committed $102.6 million for civilian law enforcement assistance. This year, the United States will continue to supply the KP Police with approximately 440 additional vehicles, including trucks, armored vehicles and personnel carriers, ambulances, and motorcycles…”

This week INL also began recruiting potential candidates to fill the role of Senior Counter Narcotics (CN) and Civilian Military Advisor, a position created to “play a central role in guiding and strengthening INL Afghanistan and Pakistan office's (INL/AP) relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) and agencies of the Intelligence Community.” The main objective of the advisor is to help “develop and manage a major INL program” in support of Afghanistan's Ministry of Counter Narcotics. (Solicitation # PSC-11-027-INL).

The advisor likewise will “coordinate procurement activities associated with the MCN capacity-building program, planned as a $25M-per-year program, and work with the contractor(s) to maintain appropriate oversight.”

The State Dept. on March 16 had issued a solicitation for 1,000 bullet-proof vests destined for Karachi, Pakistan, but on April 20 cancelled that procurement without explanation. It’s unclear whether the vests were slated for use by U.S. personnel or would have been for Pakistani forces. (Solicitation  #0662-020001A).

The construction of a bombing-practice range in Pakistan also is on the radar screen of the U.S. government, a $10-$25 million project for which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers back in February began assessing potential contractors. Although the Army has not yet issues a Request for Proposals, it is weighing the interest of companies capable of designing and constructing “urban village mockups,” watch towers, fiber optic links to the Pakistani “defense grid,” and other “Close Air Support Range” infrastructure improvements. (Solicitation #W912ER-11-R-0061).

The National Institute of Health at the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services is negotiating a sole-source contract with the Allama Iqbal Medical College to continue researching the genetics of hearing and speech disorders such as stuttering. DNA samples from hundreds of Pakistani families already have been collected via collaborative research among Pakistani, U.S., and European medical experts. “This collaboration involves ascertaining families in Pakistan with hearing and speech disorders and mapping the underlying genes for theses disorders,” NIH says in Solicitation #LG-1547307. The estimated cost of this contract was not disclosed, not could any prior contract awards for this endeavor be located via the federal contracting database.

Despite the escalating rhetoric and congressional hearings on such matters, it does not appear that the U.S. will seriously curtail aid to Pakistan any time soon, as the following excerpts from the above-mentioned CRS report indicates:

Although there is considerable agreement in U.S. government circles that disengaging from Pakistan is an unwise course, intensive congressional scrutiny of U.S. assistance to Pakistan is already underway. In the post 9/11 era, Congress has appropriated more than $20 billion in foreign assistance and military “reimbursements” for Pakistan, placing that country among the top recipients of U.S. financial support over the past decade. The Obama Administration has requested nearly $3 billion in further security- and development-related assistance to Pakistan for FY2012, along with more than $1 billion for continued reimbursements to the Pakistani military…

In the wake of revelations that the world’s most-wanted terrorist had apparently been living for years in a comfortable home in a relatively affluent city and only one kilometer away from Pakistan’s premier military academy, congressional skepticism about the continuation of large aid disbursements to Pakistan has deepened even further. On May 3, 2011, H.R. 1699, the Pakistan Foreign Aid Accountability Act, was introduced in the House. The Act would prohibit future foreign assistance to Pakistan unless the Secretary of State certifies that the Pakistani government was not complicit in hiding OBL. Depending on the course of Pakistan’s future policy statements and levels of cooperation with the United States, Congress may choose to adjust current assistance funding levels. Such funding flows are already hindered by U.S. concerns about corruption and lack of transparency in Pakistan’s implementing partners.

The ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan and its connection to developments in Pakistan remain matters of serious concern to U.S. policy makers. NATO remains reliant upon logistical routes through Pakistan to supply its forces in Afghanistan, and these landlines of communication regularly come under attack by militants. It is widely held that success in Afghanistan cannot come without the close engagement and cooperation of Pakistan, and that the key to stabilizing Afghanistan is to improve the longstanding animosity between Islamabad and Kabul.

Federal spending called 'moral failure': Panelists say time has come for 'intergenerational justice'

The failure of the present generation to exercise fiscal prudence is one of moral failure, since it invites disaster for future generations, panelists at the American Enterprise Institute have concluded.

But while panelists at the event, "I Hope I Die Before I Get Old: America's Long-Term Budget Crisis and 'The Call for Intergenerational Justice'," agreed on that point, they were not in harmony on how to rein in federal spending while simultaneously satisfying the Christian duty to care for the poor.

The debate at AEI headquarters in Washington, D.C., on April 20 centered on the merits – or the lack thereof, depending on the speaker – of the recently unveiled "A Call for Intergenerational Justice: A Christian Proposal for the American Debt Crisis."

The Center for Public Justice released the document the last month in conjunction with the group Evangelicals for Social Action. The goal is to spark a "biblically grounded movement in which grandparents, grandchildren and everyone in between can join hands to promote a just solution to our debt crisis."

ESA president Ron Sider declared, "It's not only an economic disaster to continue what we are doing, but it's immoral."

Sider, author of the influential 1977 book "Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity (20th Anniversary Revision)," said that the federal government's unbridled spending habits and increasing debt load "are a serious crisis and we have to deal with it." 

Sider lamented, however, the scope of current budget-slashing efforts and their potentially deleterious impact on the poor.

He said that an individual "cannot be a Christian without a true concern for the poor" and said it is "unbiblical and un-Christian to balance the budget on the backs of the poor."

"A Call for Intergenerational Justice" seeks to "increase bipartisan dialogue… on a topic that we simply dare not postpone for another five or 10 years," he said

Gideon Strauss, president of the Center for Public Justice, said it was critical to raise the issue of intergenerational justice and to publicly explain what it involves.

"Justice is not simply a matter of people who happen to be breathing at a particular moment," Strauss said.

Justice also must include a sense of generosity for future generations, he added.

"It is necessary for the present generation to exercise prudent restraint in its current affairs" so that future generations will meet their responsibilities.

"Fiscal responsibility and a concern for the poor are simultaneous responsibilities," he said. "They are simultaneously necessary and simultaneously possible."

Jordan J. Ballor, research fellow at the Acton Institute, decried the "inherent ambiguity in the document" and  refuses to give it his support.

He praised the document's framers for bringing critical federal budgetary issues to the forefront of debate; however, he said that "as a theologian" he finds "the context of the document insufficient," since it does not address how the church must heighten its role in assisting the poor.

"I don't think the document gives enough of an impetus for Christians to step up to the plate," Ballor said. "I don't want to let the church off the hook."

Faith and culture writer Jonathan Merritt said historically the church is most valuable when it "provides moral framework about how the faith can impact the public square." Consequently, Merritt, who also serves as teaching pastor at Cross Pointe Church in Atlanta, Georgia, signed onto the document.

He rejected Ballor's suggestion that more pressure must be placed on the church.

"I don't want to put the church on the hook," he responded. "The church has been stuck on the hook" for quite some time.

Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, maintained that society must scrutinize "the character of spending" before attacking the content of that spending. She said there is much uncertainty about the effectiveness of many anti-poverty programs, and that more analysis is necessary to weed out useless initiatives.

If a particular program is not serving the poor well – if it is failing to achieve anti-poverty policy objectives – then "we have to start asking hard questions."

She pointed out that despite massive federal programs, the number of people on food stamps doubled in the past decade.

"Why has it risen that much?" she asked. "What can we do?"

The main question that needs to be answered, she said is, "How do we help those who are truly in peril?"

ConservativeHomeUSA editor Ryan Streeter offered his support for the intergenerational justice endeavor.

"I found it very consistent with several [public] policy beliefs that I hold as a conservative," he said. "I am deeply worried about the choices we are making as a nation," fiscal choices he described as "morally reprehensible."

"It is not the role of the state to be subsidizing more affluent individuals," according to Streeter.

Likewise, he said, it is also time to put a halt to the transfer of wealth from the more affluent to less affluent.

He said the nation needs to go beyond the question of whether the government should provide a safety net for its people; rather the nation must assess policies to determine whether they promote or inhibit opportunities for success.

If that's not happening, then "we're not even going to have a safety net to talk about."

Strauss said although it can be "politically dangerous" for elected officials to talk about sacrifice, it is a duty of Christians to bring the issue of sacrifice to the forefront of the debate and to insert it into public conversation.

(This article originally April 22, 2011 in WorldNetDaily)