TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2010


KLMNO THE FED PAGE U.S. looks to expand its media-building efforts in Afghanistan


Spurring a growth in


WALTER PINCUS In Fine Print


Afghanistan,” the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has decided to expand its media activities in that country. Since 2002, USAID has funded a


S


network of 43 FM radio stations in Afghanistan, trained Afghan journalists and established a content and distribution service for news and radio programming that reaches 80 radio stations. This new ambitious effort,


tagged the Afghanistan Media Development and Empowerment Project (AMDEP), is described as “essential” to expand “the availability of reliable information that allows Afghans to make informed choices about goods, services, their government and the future of Afghanistan,” according to a pre-solicitation notice posted last week. Of course, USAID is hardly the only U.S. government agency that has become active in the Afghan media arena. Agency overlap exists — albeit on a smaller scale — such as the overlap within the intelligence community, as The Washington Post reported last month. In May, for example, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul announced it was open to applications from “local representatives of civil society, including non-governmental organizations and universities,” for grants from the State Department’s public diplomacy funds. Grants would range from $500 to $10 million, the notice stated, and could pay for projects that “expand media engagement . . . build communication capacity of the Afghan people and government . . . [or] counter extremist voices that recruit, mislead, and exploit.”


The U.S. military and coalition


partners also sponsor various media activities in Afghanistan. A Pentagon official recently provided an example related to the Defense Department budget next year. It calls for spending $180 million on “psychological operations” in Afghanistan and Iraq, a category once known as strategic communications. The Pentagon defines such activities as those that “induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.” In Afghanistan, they are almost all run by civilian contractors. Meanwhile, USAID will seek its own contractors to run AMDEP projects, but they should be nongovernmental organizations or firms willing to give up profits, according to the solicitation notice. The new efforts will include creating regional Afghan media training and production centers; consolidating existing Afghan professional media associations, thereby building “a network capable of advocacy and self-regulation to high journalistic standards”; and providing technical assistance to Afghan ministries in the media sector to help with “business-friendly government regulation of the airwaves and licensing procedures.” The first AMDEP project is to be


amobile phone service that would supply subscribers with free


customized daily news reports. The reports would include information streamed from local and foreign radio and television broadcasts (in languages spoken in Afghanistan), newspaper articles read aloud and local blogs. Subscribers could customize the information they want and access the service numerous ways, including calling a toll-free number for a menu of what’s available or selecting a service and receiving a daily call. The purpose, according to the


USAID solicitation, is “to enable the sophisticated news consumption behavior of Afghans who have highly developed skills for triangulating facts by accessing a variety of news sources.” News sources selected for the


service are to be paid on a per-user rate, which, according to the USAID notice, could provide incentive for such groups “to produce higher quality and quantity of content.” The service is to be operated “according to a non-discrimination standard in regard to independent news and information content.” Not mentioned is whether the sources that provide the news would include those favorable to the Taliban or critical of the United States and coalition forces. Dubbed “Mobile Khabar,” meaning mobile news in both Dari and Pashto, the venture aims to increase “the number of


aying that “freedom of information is essential to stabilizing and rebuilding


media options would help Afghan residents make more informed choices,


according to the U.S. Agency for International Development.


MASSOUD HOSSAINI/ GETTY IMAGES VIA AGENCE FRANCE PRESS


Obama’s batting average not as high in lower courts


By Laura Litvan


individuals creating and sharing their own news and information amongst each other” and expand the use of cellphones to deliver news and information, according to the agency. USAID expects the contractor to establish what it calls the “Access to Information Foundation” which it projects would need $7 million a year to operate. Though access would be free to subscribers, the agency believes that advertising eventually would be a part. Seeking advertisers, according to USAID, would be another lesson the system teaches the Afghans — that “from the outset . . . users gain an understanding that advertising comes as part of the provision of news and information.” What has been the result of the


first eight years of USAID media programs? Its Afghan office is trying to find out, with a national media assessment, audience survey and efficacy study occurring this summer. Its purpose, according to USAID, is “to gain an understanding of the role media plays in Afghan societies.” It plans to share the results to “inform media developments and communications efforts” of the U.S. government, including the military, which has been financing similar polling and surveys over the past four years. pincusw@washpost.com


President Obama, on the verge of winning confirmation of his second Supreme Court appoint- ment in two years, is having lim- ited success shaping the lower federal courts that handle thou- sands more cases. Obama got off to a slow start picking judges for the federal trial and appeals courts, and Repub- lican delaying tactics have stalled some confirmations. Filling judi- cial vacancies will get tougher af- ter November with the likelihood that Democrats’ 59 to 41 control of the Senate will be eroded. The president’s allies question his choice of nominees and com- plain that he has been too cau- tious in confronting GOP opposi- tion. “A lot of groups are still waiting for this president to nominate someone who will really reshape the bench,” said Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights in Washington. The group supports expanding legal protection for minorities. The 13 federal appeals courts


are particularly influential. They have the final say in thousands of cases, while the Supreme Court decides about 80 cases per year. Appellate courts ruled on or dis- missed 59,600 cases in the year ending March 31, 2009, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington. Obama has submitted to the


Senate 63 trial court nominations and 22 for the appeals courts. At the same point in his first term, George W. Bush had nominated 83 trial judges and 32 for the ap- peals courts, according to Russell


USPS hiring freeze


The mail service halts the hiring and promotion of administrators in the latest move to ease its budget crunch. Fed Worker, B3


Wheeler, a scholar at the Brook- ings Institution in Washington. The Senate has confirmed nine Obama appellate nominees, three fewer than for Bush at a compara- ble point for the former Repub- lican president. The Senate has confirmed 27 of Obama’s nomi- nees to be trial judges, compared with 51 for Bush. Many of Obama’s choices have


generated little controversy. Wheeler suggested that Obama hasn’t taken full advantage of the Democrats’ control of the Senate to push his nominees.


“Obama obviously has a lot on


his plate. But then what president doesn’t?” said Wheeler. Obama last week urged the Senate to move more quickly to confirm his nominees.


“If we want to deliver justice in our courts, then we need judges on our benches,” he said. The lower-court nominations


have been overshadowed by Oba- ma’s Supreme Court appoint- ments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate last year, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is on track to win confir- mation this week. Twenty lower-court nominees, including 12 cleared unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, await further Senate action. Each senator has the power to block a nominee by putting a hold on the appointment without giv- ing a reason, a tactic that has stalled some of Obama’s choices. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama,


the ranking Republican on the ju- diciary panel, said Republicans aren’t entirely to blame for delays. He said appointees are “moving along” without the clashes that scuttled some of Bush’s nominees. —Bloomberg News


SAVE award finalists


Federal workers cast online votes for the best of the 18,000 money-saving ideas submitted. Fed Worker, B3


S


A13


Panel: Rep. Waters probably broke rules Key dates in the investigation


waters from A1


House rules by acknowledging some wrongdoing, Waters signaled that she thinks a public airing would be the only chance to clear her name. “I have not violated any House


rules,” she said in a statement. “Therefore, I simply will not be forced to admit to something I did not do. . . . The record will clearly show that in advocating on behalf of minority banks, neither my of- fice nor I benefited in any way, en- gaged in improper action or influ- enced anyone.” The ethics committee took two


key steps Monday. It announced that the subcommittee that had been investigating Waters conclud- ed it had a reason to believe she vi- olated the chamber’s conflict-of- interest rules, and it established a new eight-member subcommittee to hold a trial. The committee also released an


80-page report that was prepared last August by the quasi-independ- ent Office of Congressional Ethics, which serves as a preliminary in- vestigator and recommends to the full House ethics committee whether it should pursue matters. The case revolves around Wa-


ters’s role in arranging meetings between Treasury Department offi- cials and executives of minority- owned OneUnited Bank and whether her intent was to broadly benefit minority-owned financial firms represented by the National Bankers Association (NBA) or sim- ply to aid Boston-based OneUnit- ed.


OneUnited suffered during the collapse of the mortgage industry because it had invested heavily in shares of federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and at one point in the fall of 2008 it was seeking close to $100 million from Treasury for those shares. Waters’s husband, Sidney Wil- liams, had served on the board of directors of OneUnited and owned $350,000 to $750,000 in the bank’s stock at the end of 2008. Dis- closure forms for 2009 show simi- lar holdings. Twice in September 2008, Wa- ters approached Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to discuss OneUnited’s pursuit of federal assistance. According to Frank’s testimony, she acknowl- edged a potential conflict: “Sid- ney’s been on the board.” Frank told the investigators that he did not want Waters involved in


April 2008 — Maxine Waters’s husband, Sidney Williams, resigns from the board of directors of OneUnited Bank. He retains bank stock worth $350,000 to $750,000 as of December 2009. August 2008 — At the request of OneUnited officials, Waters calls Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and asks for a meeting to discuss how federal policies have hurt minority-owned banks. Sept. 9, 2008 — Meeting is held at Treasury, attended by about 20 people, including Waters’s chief of staff, two officials from OneUnited and one from the National Bankers Association. After the meeting, Paulson calls Waters to say that he expected representatives of other minority-owned banks to attend. September 2008* — In conversations with House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Waters confides that she is in a predicament because of her husband’s relationship to OneUnited,


whose officials are seeking help. Frank tells her to “stay out of it,” because he was already working to help the Boston-based bank. Sept. 23, 2008 — The chief executive of OneUnited e-mails Waters’s chief of staff with a request that Treasury provide the bank with millions in federal aid. December 2008 — Treasury gives OneUnited $12.1 million in Troubled Assets Relief Program money. March 2009 — Media reports Waters’s role in helping OneUnited. April 2009 — Office of Congressional Ethics begins preliminary review. July 2009 — OCE board finds “substantial reason to believe” Waters violated conflict rules and refers case to ethics panel. October 2009 — Ethics panel votes to create an investigative subcommittee on Waters case. August 2010 — Ethics committee says adjudicatory subcommittee will hear case after investigative subcommittee sends report.


* OCE report says Frank could not recall the specific dates of his conversations with Waters, but Waters’s office says they occurred after the Sept. 9 meeting.


Sources: Office of Congressional Ethics, staff reports


the OneUnited issue. “Stay out of it,” he said he told her. “Representative Waters told


[Frank] that she was in a predica- ment because her husband had been involved in the bank, but ‘OneUnited people’ were coming to her for help,” the report states. In an interview Monday, Frank emphasized that his motivation for warning Waters away from the is- sue was because he was already aware of the financial problems of the bank in his home town. “It was something I was working on inde- pendent of her,” he said. In December 2008, after corre- spondence between bank officials and Waters’s staff, OneUnited re- ceived $12.1million from the Trou- bled Assets Relief Program. The preliminary investigation by the ethics office included inter- views with former Treasury secre- tary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who told investigators that he agreed to have his senior aides meet with OneUnited’s executives after re- ceiving a call from Waters, believ- ing it would be a meeting involving many minority bankers. Paulson told investigators he called Waters after the meeting to ask why only


OneUnited officials were present. Based on interviews with Paul-


son, Waters, her staff and others, the preliminary report said “the discussion at the meeting centered on a single bank — OneUnited.” Waters said Monday that the


meeting was requested “on behalf of the NBA, not on behalf of OneU- nited Bank.”


According to the report, three bank executives attended the meeting: one from the NBA and two from OneUnited, one of whom had just been selected chairman of the NBA. He was there to advocate on behalf of the association’s mem- bers as well as OneUnited, he is quoted as saying in the report. Waters, a 20-year House mem- ber from South Central Los Ange- les, also maintained that her ac- tions did not directly result in OneUnited or anyone else receiv- ing federal money and that she re- ceived no personal benefit. Because the House adjourned


Friday for a nearly seven-week break, no public action is expected in the Rangel or Waters cases until Congress returns. kanep@washpost.com ben.pershing@wpost.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54