Kerry, Lugar send letter to state department - not happy with time given to do oversight

[karynnj]

on the legislation for Pakistan aid spending.

Here is the entire one paragraph BG article:

John Kerry, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had been repeatedly praised by the Obama administration for working so long and hard to bring billions of foreign aid dollars to Pakistan. The effort to increase aid to Pakistan - a key ally in the war in neighboring Afghanistan - began when Joe Biden and Barack Obama were Kerry's colleagues on the committee. But even among close colleagues and friends, disagreements arise. Kerry and Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is the ranking member of the committee, sent this March 5 letter scolding the State Department for giving them only two weeks to look over plans for $1.4 billion in Pakistan - and few details. Since the letter was sent, the State Department has sent a series of officials to get grilled on Capitol Hill about the plan.

Link from that to the Kerry/Lugar letter. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/03-05-10%20JK%20RL%20to%20Lew%20re%20Pakistan%20FY%2010.pdf


What I don't get is what this really says. The BIG issue that caused Kerry (and Hillary) so much trouble in Pakistan was that there were conditions in the legislation that required a high level of oversight to determine that money was spent to do what it was approved for. This was because the majority of money approved in the past for Pakistan was misused. The Senators' requests sound very reasonable - for all bills.

It is curious that the Boston Globe is positioning this as a disagreement. But, it is also odd that the letter is from March 1, 2010. Presumably, the letter was sent after less formal steps were taken. More importantly, tt also does not speak of the resolution. The 15 days would have passed - and there was nothing indicating the Senate put a hold on it, so obviously there was a resolution. (Any grilling was not in committee meetings.)

This is a confusing article, in that it raises questions on secrecy on the Obama foreign policy - are they allowing Congress, with their party and friendly chairs in both Houses, in charge to their responsibility of oversight? What was the point of this article?

[wisteria]

1. This article appears to suggest that the State Department and the SFR Committee

Chair-Kerry and Ranking Member-Lugar are at odds over this. It seems to imply to me, that the State Department is in a hurry for this information perhaps thinking the money is still not being spent properly. Or perhaps, this is nothing more than a request from the State Department coming from someone who does not understand how long it takes to gather this type of information and the Globe is trying to find conflict where there is only misunderstanding.

[karynnj]

2. My take

I think the SFRC is trying to re-establish the role of the SFRC to really do oversight and that this letter was as much trying to change the way it is done. The suggestions are really for a less confrontational process - having details provided as they are decided upon so the SFRC could review them (and presumably comment), rather than the more formal way the State department has had of creating the plans and then presenting them all at once giving just the 15 days required by law.

I think this is simply a bureaucratic power struggle. No matter how "friendly" the relationships between the SFRC and State department heads are, any more that changes the status quo will be contested. Over the Bush years - and likely before, the power of the Congress has been reduced while the power of the Presidency increased. Thinking about it, I would guess it more likely that someone, not Kerry, in the SFRC leaked this letter after it no longer was current and they might have done it to bring up the issue of adequate oversight.

The timing is what is the most interesting. There were no holds on the money - or that would have been reported. There is no disagreement on policy.

[Mass]

3. It would seem that this is not the only disagreement between the State Department and the SFRC

Apparently, Kerry has a hold on some assistance to Cuba democracy programs until the State Department assures that they are useful and not corrupt.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0410/Kerry_holds_Cuban_democracy_assistance_programs.html?showall

[karynnj]

4. Another short article on the disagreement over Cuba

US funding of Cuba democracy work draws scrutiny

MIAMI — Lawmakers in Washington are pushing the White House to take another look at a Bush-era shift in U.S. aid for Cuba to private contractors instead of nonprofit groups.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Howard Berman of California temporarily blocked the renewal of about $45 million in aid last month. The two Democrats want the Obama administration and the State Department to answer their concerns about fraud and mismanagement in the program.

Cuba has made some gains in terms of access to cell phones and the Internet. But critics of the U.S. aid policy say that would have happened even without the money being sent through contractors.

http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/04/08/lawmakers-want-state-department-to-rethink-cuba-aid-programs-shift-to-private-contractors-27416/

From the Politico article and this one, Kerry and Berman are doing a very sensible thing, though it sounds like these private contractors likely have some political power. I hope the state department listens. (Especially the comments in the Politico argument suggest that they are counterproductive - as well as likely corrupt.