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

WND: Scandal-plagued HSBC shopped Congress for favors

Check out Scandal-plagued HSBC shopped Congress for favors -- No officials offer to return bank's blood money," my latest from WND.  The WND piece sheds light on the big picture of HSBC's effortful attempts to influence of Congress over the years, which took place while the bank largely turned a blind eye to drug-cartel and terrorist money flowing through its vaults. A separate article I wrote for The Revered Review -- Federal Lawmakers Silent on Tainted HSBC Funds -- Will Sen. Menendez, Rep. Garrett return "blood money"?" -- hits closer to home for me, as it centers upon my elected officials here in New Jersey, and how they likewise raked in dollars from HSBC while leading congressional subcomittees tasked with overseing the banking industry.

WND: Cash Flows for 'Madrassa' Lawmaker

Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.)

Check out my latest article for WND, "Cash flows for 'madrassa' lawmaker -- Contributors include Obama appointee as U.S. Marshal." For all it's worth, I spent two days researching and writing this piece, which reveals a surprising connection between a shady congressman and a high -ranking law enforcement official appointed by President Obama. Specific to U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor, the piece is quite relevant since the elected official in question,  Rep. Andre Carson, serves on powerful congressional panels having great influence upon -- and which are greatly influenced by -- cash-rich international corporations and unions seeking political favors.

U. S. Marshal Kerry Forestal

U.S. to Provide Kenya with Navy SEAL Boats

The Obama Administration has arranged to provide several customized special-operations military vessels to the Government of Kenya, U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor has learned.

That discovery coincides with today's blast in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi. Although officially it remains unclear whether the blast was the result of a utility problem or the work of terrorists, Reuters reports that a witness saw a man place a suspicious package in business-district building right before the explosion.

The U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command is awarding a noncompetitive “sole-source contract to United States Marine Incorporated (USMI) of Gulfport, Miss to provide five (5) 11M Naval Special Warfare Rigid Inflatable Boats,” according to a presolicitation notice that NAVSEC uploaded to a federal contracting database May 21.

The U.S. Navy in a separate “Fact File” describes the vessels as “High-speed, high-buoyancy, extreme-weather craft with the primary mission of SEAL insertion/extraction.”

A History Channel report referred to the boat as “the Lamborghini of special warfare craft.”

The 36-ft. turbocharged vessels typically carry a crew of three in addition to one SEAL squad, and are armed with an “M60 7.62mm machine gun, MK19 40mm, [and] M2 .50 cal. machine gun.” Although the presolicitation document did not specify whether NAVSEC was equipping the USMI-provided boats with such armaments, it said the company “will provide services and materials required to build the boat, as well as execute testing, trials, depreservation of the boat in preparation for transportation, and perform in-country reactivation.”

NAVSEC did not disclose the estimated cost of the Kenya-bound boats.

The naval unit justified the sole-source contract based on its claim that USMI “is the only source with the 11M Naval Special Warfare Rigid Inflatable Boat data rights necessary to build and perform services depicted through a foreign military case for the Kenyan Government. This firm has the requisite background knowledge and experience required.”

A review of Federal Election Commission campaign contribution records supports NAVSECs contention that it awarded the noncompetitive contract based on USMI’s ability to provide the equipment; indeed, the Obama Administration clearly did not allow the company executive team’s generosity to Republican causes to stand in the way of this award.

USMI Chairman John Dane III, for example, donated $104,000 largely to Republican committees and candidates since 1998.  

The most sizeable gift from Dane III was a $25,000 contribution to the Republican National Committee in 2004. He also gave $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in July 2010—a contribution that he matched once again in October 2011.

Six days later he contributed $2,500 to Romney for President, Inc.

Most recently he gave $2,500 to Palazzo for Congress Committee. U.S. Rep. Steven McCarty Palazzo (R-MS) currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee, which gives him a seat on its Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces as well as the Subcommittee on Readiness.

CEO Barry Dreyfus also has given more than $100,000 mainly to Republican candidates and committees over the past fifteen years, most recently cutting two separate $2,500 checks on the same day (Jan. 26, 2012) to the Palazzo for Congress Committee

Interestingly, the sole FEC record of a campaign contribution made by Bryant Bernhard, USMI president, was a $2,400 check made out May 24, 2010 to the Gene Taylor for Congress Committee. Taylor was the Democrat who lost his seat to Palazzo in the following November election.

There is no record of any campaign contributions made by VP Conrad Keubel.

FOR MORE REGIONAL COVERAGE, SEE THE MONITOR'S KENYA PAGE AND AFRICA PAGE.

FOR RELATED GOVERNMENTAL/DEPARTMENTAL COVERAGE, SEE OUR WHITE HOUSE PAGE AND U.S. NAVY PAGE.

Photo provided courtesy U.S. Department of Defense.

Senators Oppose Hiding Wartime-Contracting Records for 20 Years

Many thanks to Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) for pressing the Archivist of the United States to release contracting records that the government decided to seal for the next twenty years. Considering that possibly tens of billions in contracts allegedly have been squandered or lost to fraud and mismanagament in Iraq and Afghanistan, it borders on criminal that the Archive would dare keep this critical information from the citizenry. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the government will actually rescind the decision to seal that data.

Additional thanks goes to the Project of Government Oversight, or POGO, for bringing this matter to the public's attention. POGO has made the Webb-McCaskill letter available through the group's blog.

Senate Committee Hearing: Wendy R. Sherman, Under Secy. of State Nominee

The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Sept. 8 will hold a hearing on the nomination of Wendy R. Sherman to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Sherman currently is vice chair of Albright Stonebridge Group, a self-described "global business consulting and strategy firm" led by former Secy. of State Madeleine K. Albright.

Among other roles Sherman has served as a "chief troubleshooter" and counselor for the U.S. State Dept. during the Clinton Adminstration, currently is affiliated with the Center for a New American Security, and also serves on the board of advisors of the Truman National Security Project. (Thanks to SourceWatch.org for those links).

Response to Kerry OpEd in the Washington Post

Having just read an opinion piece by John Kerry, the Democratic Senator and former presidential candidate from Massachusetts, I can no longer maintain my previous stance on keeping the Monitor a strictly news-only, opinion-free service.  The continued push to redistribute our nation's wealth around the globe under the misguided name of foreign aid continues unabated in the U.S. Congress, despite growing public opposition. Kerry's powerful position as Foreign Affairs Committee chairman makes his stance on maintaining the status quo all the more troubling to me as a citizen.

A little more analysis is needed to put the overall U.S. foreign aid situation in perspective. Though it remains to be seen whether I to transform the Monitor into a more forceful mechanism for shedding light on foreign aid remains to be seen, so for now I'll just say that Kerry's push for U.S. hyper-interventionism needs to be addressed.

I highly suggest reading Kerry's piece, titled "Amid budget crisis, a defense of foreign aid," regardless of where you stand on the issue. I posted the following comment on the Washington Post site in response to Kerry's call to "step forward" and keep the foreign aid machine running on high.

Sen. Kerry's cliché-ridden pitch for further U.S. entrenchment around the globe is not very convincing; indeed, his exhortation to avoid "pulling back" and to instead "step forward" evinces the feel of past proclamations (from another leader) that "if you're not with us, you're against us." Not quite as threatening as the latter example, but equally useful in setting the terms of the debate -- or, should I say, in establishing what is within the acceptable realm of discussion in the Foreign Relations Committee chairman's mind. 

His comment that "Many question whether we can afford foreign aid... however... we can’t afford not to" attempts to convey an urgency that just isn't there. Similarly, his attempt to minimize the breadth of foreign aid by contrasting it to the significantly larger Pentagon budget is rich in emotion but lacking in logic. The DoD budget is bigger than those of the dozens of agencies administering foreign aid combined? Thanks, Senator, for pointing that out, but that does not justify spending billions on all the other aid programs -- the ones he conveniently left out his commentary, Secy. Clinton's multimillion-dollar embassy crystal-glassware initiative aside.

Every dollar we spend to help small businesses, for example, in the nation of Macedonia is one less dollar we spend to help small businesses here in the U.S. -- or, in the alternative, one less dollar for the American taxpayer to keep in his or her bank account. Every dollar we spend to modernize the educational system, for instance, in the Kingdom of Jordan, is one less dollar to go toward U.S. schools, or, as I said, toward meeting the daily struggle of the U.S. taxpayer. Each cent spent on promoting tourism, to cite just one example, in West Bank & Gaza is a penny taken away from U.S. citizens, for whom Chairman Kerry unconvincingly argues will benefit from the flow of dwindling wealth from the U.S. to rest of the world.

Senate Panel Questions Whether $3.1 Billion in 'Drug War' Contracts Were Worthwhile

The federal government doled out $3.1 billion in contracts to vendors in the "War on Drugs" from 2005-2009 in Latin America alone, but has no clue whether this outsourcing was effective in helping to achieve its counternarcotics goals, a Senate panel has determined.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, yesterday (June 8) released the report, "New Information About Counternarcotics Contracts in South America."

The following is a verbatim transcript of the report's Executive Summary:

At the request of Senator Claire McCaskill, this analysis examines State Department and Defense Department spending on contracts to supply counternarcotics assistance to governments in Latin America. The analysis reviews counternarcotics contract spending over a five year period focusing primarily on eight countries: Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Haiti, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic.

The analysis finds that from 2005 to 2009, the federal government’s annual spending on counternarcotics contracts in Latin America rose by 32%, from $482 million in 2005 to $635.8 million in 2009. In total, the government spent more than $3.1 billion on counternarcotics contracts during this period.

Key findings in the analysis include:

From 2005 to 2009, the majority of counternarcotics contracts in Latin America went to only five contractors: DynCorp, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ITT, and ARINC, who collectively received contracts worth over $1.8 billion.

The State Department and the Defense Department spent nearly $2 billion on counternarcotics contracts in Colombia alone from 2005 to 2009.

More than half (52%) of counternarcotics contract dollars during this time period were spent to acquire goods and services related to aircraft, which are used for drug location and eradication. In total, the federal government spent approximately $1.6 billion on aircraft-related services, maintenance, logistics, support, equipment, and training from 2005 to 2009.

Neither the State Department nor the Defense Department has adequate systems in place to track counternarcotics contract data. Testifying before the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight in 2010, Defense Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counternarcotics and Global Threats William Wechsler called the Defense Department’s processes for managing counternarcotics contracts “inconsistent,” “time-consuming and error prone.” The State Department simply does not have a centralized system to collect or track this type of information.

While spending on counternarcotics contracts increased by 32% over the five year period under review, contract management and oversight has been insufficient, and has not kept pace with the government’s increased reliance on contractors.

The federal government does not have any uniform systems in place to track or evaluate whether counternarcotics contracts are achieving their goals.

The complete report also is available for download (.pdf, 501.65 kb).

Many thanks to David Isenberg, author of Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq (Praeger Security International), for alerting the Monitor to this report via his blog The PMSC Observer (free; registration required).

 

SNAPSHOT: Hundreds of Millions of Gallons of Jet Fuel Used in Support of U.S. Ops in Afghanistan

Occasionally U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor will take a look at various facets of government spending; a snapshot, if you will, of a particular use of taxpayer funds. Today, the Monitor looks at how much the federal government spends on jet fuel in support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

Calls to speed up the withdrawal of U.S. troops from and Central Asia have increased since Osama bin Laden’s death, but decision-makers have made clear that such a drawdown of troops is not happening any time soon. As the White House, Congress, and media pundits ponder and expound upon what, if any, changes should be made to U.S. policy on the issue, one thing is certain: U.S. military jets will continue to fly into, out of, and around Afghanistan.

But how much will this cost U.S. taxpayers?

A review of contracting documents obtained via federal database research sheds light on that question.

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for example, currently is soliciting bids to provide close to a half-billion gallons of jet fuel over two years, beginning December 2011, to the Manas Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan. Manas is a primary support base for U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere in USCENTCOM’s area of responsibility.

“The Transit Center at Manas has four missions: Air Refueling, Airlift, Onward Movement of Troops and Humanitarian Assistance,” the U.S. Air Force says in its official description of the base. “They do this with the help of 850 military members and 750 U.S. and host nation civilian employees and contractors—the vast majority belong to the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing and others to various tenant units.

Although the solicitation did not provide an estimated cost, DLA is requesting bids on the provision of 208 million gallons of jet fuel for a one-year period, with two potential six-month option periods for an additional 104 million gallon each.

Those totals include 36 million gallons that the contractor would hold in reserve monthly—a service that enables the contractor to assess an additional multi-million dollar fee.

DLA in Nov. 2010 awarded to Mina Corp. a one-year contract for 240 million gallons of jet fuel—which, calculated at the then-going price of $3.24 a gallon, brought the value of the contract to $778 million, according to a Transit Center Jet Fuel Procurement document.

The contract price-per-gallon on Feb. 1 was upped to $3.80 a gallon to “reflect current market conditions,” according to the document.

In 2009 DLA awarded a contract valued at $327 million (plus a $3.7 million fuel-reserve fee) for 105 million gallons. That contract also had gone to Mina Corp.

Placing these expenditures into context—and indirectly confirming that such costs will continue to be borne by U.S. taxpayers into the foreseeable future—are remarks that Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) made during this morning’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing “Steps Needed for a Successful 2014 Transition In Afghanistan.”

Committee Chmn. Kerry emphasized that the terrorist leader’s death marked a turning point in U.S. policy for Afghanistan—but when and how the U.S. will make that turn remains unknown.

“Osama Bin Laden’s death was more than a critical triumph in our fight against terrorism,” Kerry said. “It provides a potentially game-changing opportunity to build momentum for a political solution in Afghanistan that could bring greater stability to the region and bring our troops home.”

Despite this acknowledgement, Kerry made clear that he was not referring to an abrupt departure of U.S. forces.

“A precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a mistake and I, for one, would take that option off the table,” he said. “Instead, we should be working toward… a presence that puts Afghans in charge—and presses them to step up to that task—at the same time that it secures our interests and accomplishes our mission of destroying Al Qaeda and preventing Afghanistan from ever again becoming a terrorist sanctuary.”

Kerry said it was “unsustainable” for the U.S. to continue spending $10 billion monthly on military operations there.

He also said that the Afghanistan government was even less  capable, financially and otherwise, of filling a void that would be left by a hasty U.S. exit.

Assessing U.S. Policy and Its Limits in Pakistan

The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Thursday (May 5) will hold a hearing "Assessing U.S. Policy and Its Limits in Pakistan." The following witnesses are scheduled to testify

Dr. Samina Ahmed
South Asia Project Director
International Crisis Group
Islamabad, Pakistan 

Mr. Moeed Yusuf
South Asia Adviser
Center for Conflict Management, U.S. Institute of Peace
Washington, DC

Mr. Michael Krepon
Co-Founder & Senior Associate
South Asia, Henry L. Stimson Center
Washington, DC

The event, which the committee will hold in 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building, will be available via webcast.