Justice for Some

Noticeably absent from any of Webster’s numerous definitions of "Justice" is any mention of favoritism.  In fact, if you used the following definition of justice: "The quality of being just, impartial, or fair," favoritism could almost be considered an antonym of Justice.  That said, you almost can’t help but laugh at the irony of the Department of Justice receiving two letters on Wednesday from Senator Claire McCaskill, questioning whether or not favoritism played a role in the allocation of two of their FY 2007 competitive grant programs.

Those letters were announced in a press release which questioned the competition, or lack thereof, of both the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grant Program and the Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grant Program. The former grant program has received a fair amount of attention already, Youth Today published a great story documenting the seemingly arbitrary nature in which OJJDP Director Robert Flores awarded the Juvenile Justice grants.  That story led to a subsequent letter of inquiry (pdf) from Representative Waxman to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

However, prior to McCaskill’s letter (pdf), the latter Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grant Program had not received any public scrutiny to the best of my knowledge.  Although the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program has flown under the public radar, it has been something that POGO has been looking into for the past couple of months.

POGO is eagerly awaiting the Department of Justice’s response to Senator McCaskill’s letter regarding the Byrne Discretionary Grants.  If, in fact, it turns out that those grants, like the OJJDP grants, were awarded through favoritism rather than competition, it would raise some serious questions about the competitive grant process in general at the Department of Justice.

-- Jake Wiens

Note: If there are any FY 2007 Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants Program applicants that have anecdotal evidence of grant mismanagement, please call Jake Wiens at (202)-347-1122.

Over and Doan With

On Tuesday, it was reported that Lurita Doan, embattled head of the General Services Administration, was forced to resign by the White House. She made the announcement to colleagues in an e-mail. The GSA issued a press release the next day.

Doan was appointed GSA Administrator in May 2006 and almost immediately began attracting controversy. She landed on POGO's radar within a matter of weeks with a high-ranking agency appointment that reeked of cronyism. Months later, we learned of her dislike for inspectors general, whom she reportedly compared to terrorists.

Things really started going downhill for Doan in 2007 with allegations of procurement improprieties and an Office of Special Counsel determination that she violated the Hatch Act by improperly using GSA resources to help elect Republicans. Doan's March 2007 appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee bordered on the absurd, with repeated claims of having "no recollection" of the meeting at which the Hatch Act violation occurred, except that there were "cookies on the table." Her performance at that and a subsequent hearing, combined with allegations that Doan tried to intimidate employees who were cooperating with the Committee's investigation, led an exasperated Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to call for her resignation:

Nevertheless, Doan remained on the job, looking like she would ride out the remainder of Bush's second term. But this week, she was summoned to the White House and given the axe. The question everyone is asking is: why now?

There is speculation that Doan's departure has something to do with the recent exoneration of her agency's inspector general, Brian Miller. Miller was recently cleared of misconduct allegations in two separate whistleblower investigations, much to the displeasure of Doan. It may be that Doan's ongoing public spat with Miller, on top of all of her other problems, was the straw that broke the camel's back.

What's next for Lurita Doan? It seems likely we have not seen or heard the last of Doan, who was once a very successful government contractor and deep-pocketed GOP donor. POGO will be watching.

-- Neil Gordon

Props to Oberstar and the House Transportation Committee

House Transportation Committee Chairman Oberstar and his staff deserve to be commended for their tremendous FAA oversight work.  The ripples from their recent hearings are continuing to be seen.  Not only have they forced the FAA and the airlines to take maintenance and inspections more seriously, but they also highlighted the plight of FAA whistleblowers who suffered retaliation for just trying to do their jobs.  I heard some blowback on the radio today--industry representatives suggesting that Congress should rethink this oversight, given the inconvenience to air travelers while the airlines perform the checks they should have already conducted.  Instead of rethinking oversight, someone should publicly thank Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation Committee for their terrific work.  Remember, the critics would be the first to point fingers if there had been a crash.

As usual, Jon Stewart said it best on Tuesday's Daily Show: "It's all sort of ironic, when you think about it.  When you fly, you are inspected quite thoroughly, whereas the plane itself is, perhaps, occasionally vacuumed.  See, with this administration, if a passenger blows up a plane, it's a 'failure in the war on terror,' but if the plane just blows up on its own, it's 'the market self-regulating.'"

-- Danielle Brian

FAA Oversight Hearing Webcast

Right now the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is holding a day-long hearing on "Critical Lapses in FAA Safety Oversight of Airlines: Abuses of Regulatory 'Partnership Programs.'"  You can watch the whistleblower-sparked hearing online, live right now.

Here's the full summary of the subject matter (pdf).

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Whistleblowers Front and Center at Tomorrow's FAA Hearing

FAA whistleblowers are going to be the stars of the show at tomorrow's marathon House transportation committee hearing (pdf) on the cozy relationship between the FAA and major airlines.

Here is the hearing's first panel:

Mr. Charalambe ("Bobby") Boutris
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 737-700 Partial Program Manager for aircraft maintenance Southwest Airlines (SWA) Certificate Management Office (CMO)

Mr. Douglas E. Peters
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 757 Partial Program Manager American Airlines Certification Unit, AMR CMO

Mr, Michael C. Mills
Assistant Manager, Dallas Fort Worth Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)

Mr. Paul E. Cotti
Supervisor, American Eagle Airworthiness Unit, AMR CMO

Mr. Robert A. Naccache
Ret, Assistant Manager, SWA CMO

Mr. Terry D. Lambert
Manager, Safety and Analysis Group, Flight Standards Division, FAA Southwest Region

According to the USA Today:

Government officials have blocked enforcement of safety rules at major airlines for years because they have a cozy relationship with the companies, according to the testimony of U.S. inspectors who will appear before Congress Thursday.

The testimony alleges for the first time that inspectors have been pressured by Federal Aviation Administration officials to change findings or to soft-pedal enforcement actions for several of the nation's largest airlines, including Northwest, United and Continental. The controversy over the FAA's oversight has so far involved only Southwest Airlines.

The inspectors claim FAA officials were often more concerned with airline profit margins than safety and made them work under the specter of intimidation, according to the testimony, provided to USA TODAY.

Thursday's hearing before the House Transportation Committee was prompted by two whistle-blowers who charged that their bosses at the FAA had prevented them from enforcing serious safety matters at Southwest a year ago. The FAA issued a $10.2 million fine against Southwest last month for intentionally flying jets that had not received critical inspections and acknowledged that its inspectors had not acted properly. [emphasis added]

In other aviation safety oversight news, in Washington state, jurors continue to deliberate the fate of former Boeing quality assurance inspector Gerald Eastman.  Eastman, after raising concerns about the safety risks of what he felt were lax inspections of planes, went to the press with internal Boeing information.  Eastman's actions were discovered by Boeing investigators and is being prosecuted for stealing Boeing proprietary information. He states his motive was simply to bring to light safety concerns of public interest which were not being addressed.  Given the recent Transportation Department Inspector General report which verifies that there are problems with Boeing and other major aerospace manufacturers' quality assurance systems, it might be worthwhile for the House transportation committee to take a look at Eastman's case and others as a possible subject matter for a future hearing.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Blockbuster Congressional Oversight Hearing on FAA, Aviation Safety This Thursday

From the people who brought you last year's amazing House Transportation Committee hearing on the Coast Guard's troubled Deepwater program, this Thursday will provide another too rare treat in effective congressional oversight.  The House Transportation Committee will provide a day's worth of visible congressional oversight on "Critical Lapses in FAA Safety Oversight of Airlines: Abuses of Regulatory 'Partnership Programs' (pdf)."  Chairman Oberstar's hard hitting oversight and investigations team has been building to this day with its continuing work to get the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines to rectify the serious lapses in safety inspections.  Part of Chairman Oberstar's success has been to get the media involved (for example, see this link) -- which is probably why the fact that this hearing is even happening won't be surprising to many readers.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

A New Take on Congressional Oversight

EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock wrote an interesting blog post this week on the importance of congressional hearings.  It pretty much goes without saying that congressional hearings benefit Congress and the American public.  Yet, as Peacock points out, hearings can be a useful exercise for agency officials as well. 

The process of preparing testimony for a hearing often forces Executive Branch officials like Peacock to examine their agency in a new light.  For instance, while preparing testimony for a recent hearing before the House Appropriations Committee, Peacock learned for the first time that Congress had moved $2 million away from the EPA Superfund's emergency response and federal facilities programs, and that 92% of the EPA's senior managers will be eligible for retirement in 2013.

Peacock compares the process to cleaning your house when guests come to visit:

"Not all hearings are of the same quality, but if agency officials do it right, preparing for a hearing can be an excellent way to make sure the house is in order."

It is worth noting that Peacock's views are unfortunately rare among Executive Branch officials, who generally consider hearings to be pesky at best.

-- Michael Smallberg

Nearly Two Decades Later, Still No Relief for National Security Whistleblower

When it comes to whistleblower retaliation, there's no case quite like Richard Barlow's.

POGO recently released a Richard Barlow resource page, with dozens of documents and news articles relating to his case.  While working as a counter-proliferation officer at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the late 1980s, Barlow learned that top Executive Branch officials were allowing Pakistan to illegally manufacture nuclear weapons.  He also discovered that these officials were lying to Congress about Pakistan's nuclear weapons network, headed by A.Q. Khan, because telling the truth would have obligated the U.S. to cut off military aid to Pakistan, at a time when covert aid was being funneled through Pakistan to aid the Afghan jihadists in their struggle against the Soviet Union.

Because he merely suggested that Congress should know the truth about this critical national security threat, Barlow became the target of a vicious retaliatory campaign that cost him his job and his security clearance, and caused irreparable damage to his marriage and personal life.

In the nearly twenty years since his firing, numerous follow-up investigations have confirmed Barlow's allegations and discredited those who labeled him a traitor.  At one point, a near-unanimous majority in Congress, along with President Clinton, concurred that Barlow should be granted modest relief in the form of a pension.

But a few individual Members of Congress have so far succeeded in thwarting any congressional effort to either compensate Barlow or to address the numerous national security issues raised by his case.

In 1998, despite widespread consensus that Barlow deserved to be compensated, the Senate Judiciary Committee bowed to the objections of a single senator, John Warner (R-VA), and referred Barlow's case to the Court of Federal Claims.  The Court was supposed to examine the factual basis for a Senate amendment to provide Barlow with relief.  During the proceeding, however, a number of Executive Branch officials (including George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, and Michael Hayden, Director of the National Security Agency) invoked the State Secrets Privilege to block all evidence of crimes against Congress.  The judge accepted the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege, but allowed the trial to continue, meaning that Barlow was forced to make his case without access to nearly any evidence of Executive Branch misconduct.

In his analysis of the case, Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law at the Library of Congress, argues that the Court ultimately failed to follow the Senate's instructions:

"The executive branch, by asserting the state secrets privilege, essentially told the court that it was not entitled to know the facts, and the court, in accepting this position, essentially told the Senate--and Congress--that it was not entitled to know the facts."

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently considered another amendment, supported by POGO (see here and here), to provide Barlow with pension relief.  But this time, a few anonymous Members on the Senate Judiciary Committee placed a hold on the bill, essentially sending it to its death.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a legislative initiative to reexamine the State Secrets Privilege.  In his testimony at the hearing, Louis Fisher argued that judges should not automatically accept the Executive Branch's invocation of the State Secrets Privilege, as was the case with Barlow's trial:

"In state secrets cases, federal judges have at times treated executive assertions about state secrets with "deference" or "utmost deference."  Either standard undermines the principle of judicial independence, the essential safeguard of checks and balances, and the right of private litigants to have a fair hearing in court.  Unless federal judges look at disputed documents, we do not know if national security interests are actually at stake or whether the administration seeks to conceal not only embarrassments but violations of law."

It is encouraging to see Congress turn its attention to the abuse of the State Secrets Privilege by Executive Branch officials.  Nonetheless, as Barlow points out in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the recently proposed State Secrets Protection Act may not have made much of a difference in his case.  For instance, it doesn't instruct courts how to handle properly classified information that shows evidence of criminal activity by the Executive Branch.

So after nearly two decades, Congress continues to deny relief to a patriotic intelligence officer, choosing instead to protect Executive Branch officials who lied to Congress and jeopardized national security.

Stay tuned in the weeks ahead, as POGO will be giving you an opportunity to take action to help resolve Barlow's case.

-- Michael Smallberg

Bill Moyers reports on congressional oversight

The latest edition of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, which aired last Friday, provides an informative snapshot of congressional oversight. In particular, it covers the past year's worth of investigations conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under the leadership of Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). The episode is available to watch online in two parts along with summaries, transcripts, and links to relevant information.

Rep. Waxman's committee has played a leading role in unraveling the Administration's abuses of power and taxpayer dollars. The Bill Moyers episode focuses on a few of the committee's more prominent investigations – including GSA administrator Lurita Doan's alleged use of her agency's resources for Republican party politics, the potentially illegal activities of Iraq contractors hired by the State Department (e.g., First Kuwaiti and Blackwater), and former State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard's improper ties to Blackwater.

On a more general level, the House committee's work over the past year has been to create an extensive documentation of the Administration's policies and practices. This has proven to be a monumental task considering that executive secrecy has increased dramatically under the current President. As Rep. Waxman states at the end of his interview with Moyers, "I think this administration is doing a lot, maybe all it can, to keep from being held accountable."

This is particularly true when it comes to federal contracting, which has roughly doubled over the past decade to currently $400 billion per year. Rep. Waxman notes that almost half of this amount has been distributed without open competition, thus making it difficult to determine if the government is receiving the best products and services at the lowest cost. Furthermore, this lack of competition has led to instances of corruption and kickbacks.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has certainly gone a long way towards reasserting the "oversight" function in Congress. For more information on the committee's efforts, Marc Ash, Executive Director of Truthout, also conducted an interview (video available online) with Rep. Waxman in December.

-- John Pruett

Crucial Amendments Fall Prey to Presidential Signing Statement

In an outrageous but all-too-familiar move, President Bush has declared in a signing statement that he is entitled to ignore certain provisions of the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which he signed into law yesterday. One of these provisions would establish an independent, bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting; another would extend whistleblower protections to employees of defense contractors.

POGO strongly supported both of these provisions (see here and here), and we’re dismayed to learn that the White House now considers them to be optional.

According to the White House press release, the burdensome provisions “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations...The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”

As many reporters have pointed out, the use of presidential signing statements has increased at an alarming rate under the current administration. But should the president be allowed to selectively disregard any part of a bill that he signs into law?  Senator Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CQ Today that “the courts have ruled that the president cannot pick and choose provisions of appropriations bills that [he wants] to comply with.” A blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force also found that these signing statements “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.”

-- Michael Smallberg

Congress on REAL ID: Stop us Before we Legislate Again!

Members of Congress are piling on the Homeland Security Department again, railing against its final rule, released on Friday, for implementing the REAL ID Act of 2005. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson is peeved that details were leaked before he could peruse it, he complained in a letter to Chertoff. Governors, state legislatures, state DMVs, have all weighed in and pronounce themselves cautiously satisfied that many of their objections to earlier proposed rules have now been met.  Privacy and civil liberties groups are still vehemently opposed. Senators Leahy, Akaka, Sununu and others are still worried about privacy and concerned about unfunded mandates.

But let’s get real here.  All but one of the 9/11 hijackers used some form of government-issued ID, mostly driver’s licenses, to board aircraft or stay in this country.  One of the major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in 2004 was to increase the security of driver’s licenses.  In response, Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005 – yes, folks, we’re going on three years ago – but every time the Homeland Security Department has attempted to issue the rules that would carry out the law, it has been met with furious outcries from not only the states and privacy and civil liberties people, but also from the very Members of Congress who mandated those very rules. About 20 states have passed legislation opposing REAL ID, and six states have passed laws expressly prohibiting compliance.  As the department moves to implement the law, some in Congress are talking repeal.

As Chertoff explained on Friday, in an at-times contentious press conference, in order to reach the goal of uniform security standards for all states’ driver’s licenses, all persons seeking a driver’s license must provide their DMV office with documents that prove who they are and that they are in this country legally – generally a passport or birth certificate, or a Social Security card plus a utility bill should suffice.  The next step is that the state must verify that the documents presented are legitimate, and must take active steps to secure its own records and databases.  Third, the states must issue licenses that meet new tougher standards for being tamper-proof; and finally, the states must work together to ensure that individuals don’t try to obtain licenses from multiple states.  Chertoff also said that foreign nationals entering the country on legal visas will be able to obtain driver’s licenses that expire when their visas expire.

Since DHS first began issuing proposed rules for REAL ID, it has received about 21,000 comments and, according to Chertoff, has made major changes, allowing the states more flexibility in implementing the law that he said has reduced the costs to states by about three-quarters (down from earlier estimates of $11 billion to about $3.9 billion now).  He estimated the final cost to the states at about $8 per license on average.

Chertoff warned that if states refuse to begin complying by this May, their citizens will not be able to use their states’ IDs to board aircraft or enter federal buildings.  He raised the specter that “if you have states that decline to participate in REAL ID, they may well find that they become a magnet for illegal immigrants.”  And Chertoff betrayed his impatience with the lengthy process:  “I think the time for smothering this important 9/11 Commission recommendation with endless process and discussion is over.”

Pointing out that the date for final implementation is December 1, 2017, more than 16 years after the 9/11 attacks, Chertoff said, “I feel as keenly as anybody else the urgency about getting all these things done as quickly as possible.  On the other hand, whenever we try to do something, everybody who finds it inconvenient or expensive starts to complain about it.”

As indicated above, he’s absolutely right that people are complaining and some of them are powerful people in the US Congress. That would be the same Congress that has completely ignored another major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission:  “Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security … Congress does have the obligation to choose one in the House and one in the Senate, and that this committee should be a permanent standing committee with a nonpartisan staff.”

In a letter last September (pdf) to Rep. Peter King, Chertoff wrote that oversight of the department by a myriad of committees and subcommittees “creates a uniquely difficult and unnecessary burden for DHS.”  At that point, there were EIGHTY-SIX different committees and subcommittees to which the Department had to respond. And here are some more amazing stats, all for the year 2006, the most recent available at that point:

Number of DHS hearings                             206

Number of DHS briefings                          2,242 (approx.)

Number of DHS witnesses                           268

Number of required reports                          373

Number of questions for the record            3,745

Most ominously, Chertoff told Rep. King:  “In my view, the problem is getting worse rather than better.  Recent proposals by several committees to remove elements of DHS to other departments or force co-sharing of DHS authorities with other departments seems [sic] mainly designed to accommodate competing jurisdictional claims among Congressional committees.”

We at POGO believe strongly in government oversight and accountability, but we also believe executive departments should be encouraged to work effectively and efficiently.  Particularly in the case of this new, vast and sprawling leviathan of a department, it’s impossible to see how it can accomplish its mission when its leaders must spend untold hours briefing and testifying and responding to 86 different Congressional entities.  Congress really needs to streamline this process.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Senate Passes Whistleblower Legislation

Last night, the Senate passed legislation by unanimous consent to strengthen the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act. Sponsored by Sen. Akaka (D-HI), the legislation (S.274) expands protections for federal employees by removing restrictions on when and where they may disclose evidence of wrongdoing. It also helps safeguard whistleblowers’ security clearances from agency retaliation. This is especially important considering that a large number of federal jobs with historically weaker protections (e.g., the FBI and defense and intelligence agencies) require such clearances.

A similar bill (H.R. 985), sponsored by Rep. Waxman (D-CA), passed the House in March with a 331-94 vote. It’s unclear now whether the two pieces of legislation will be worked out in conference or informally. There’s a strong possibility that President Bush will veto the final bill, yet Congress could override it if votes remain the same.

-- John Pruett

Small Business Contracting is Vital, but Does the SBA Think So?

Small business contracting issues have been floating around Congress and many government agencies in 2007. For example, Alaska Native Corporations are under the gun about award fees paid on a non-competitive contract (pdf), which has Presidential-hopeful Senator Clinton upset. Small business contracting goals (the federal government is required to spend 23% of the total value of all prime contract dollars with legitimate small businesses) were nearly met in 2006 with $77.6 billion dollars (22.8%) (pdf) going to small contractors.  However, those numbers have been criticized for being inflated and engineered.

This week, many people are scratching their heads about the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) efforts to protect its constituents. A Federal Times story highlights possible SBA efforts “to hide the fact that large companies are getting billions of federal contracting dollars meant for small businesses.” The American Small Business League and Eagle Eye Publishing criticized SBA for removing the names of large contractors (Lockheed, SAIC, General Dynamics and many of their subsidiaries) that commonly appear on SBA’s annual “Top 100 Small Business Government Contractors” (pdf) list.  The critics argue that the agency is trying to cover up the fact that Fortune 500 companies receive a large chunk of small business contracting dollars. SBA claims that it isn’t hiding anything, but rather providing public access to small contracting data. It also asserts it can’t compare its data to data compiled by other entities because methodologies are different.

Congress is attempting (S. 2300, H.R. 1873, and H.R. 3867 [all in pdf]) to provide a level playing field for small businesses, which would likely increase competition and result in better deals for taxpayers. Those bills include anti-bundling provisions (provisions to eliminate super-sized contracts that only large contractors can bid on) as well as an annual re-certification measure that will prevent large contractors from receiving small business dollars. For example, annual re-certification (which is already required by the CCR – “You must renew your registration at least every 12 months from the date you previously registered.” [pdf, p. 6 of 22]) would provide SBA with better data and prevent the big boys from buying up a small business and receiving, for the indefinite future, the contracting benefits that are provided to that small company. Other initiatives have been discussed to prevent large contractors from miscoding goods and services to fit into specified small business categories (pdf).

Over the years, Presidential candidates and others running for political office have promoted the importance of small businesses to our economy and country. I think it’s time for someone to genuinely protect the interest of small businesses and Congress might have to lead that charge.

-- Scott Amey

Rep. Wicker's Unmanned Aerial Pork

On March 22, 2007, Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS) requested, in a letter to the chair and ranking member (pdf) of House Appropriations, an earmark for a little-known aerospace company to develop an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) project in his district. The company, Aurora Flight Sciences, has been growing rapidly and now looks set to expand further, in part a result of their cozy relationship with Rep. Wicker. The congressman himself may soon get a promotion as well. With the recent announcement of Sen. Trent Lott’s (R-MS) retirement at the end of the year, some speculate that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is likely to appoint Rep. Wicker to replace him until a special election is held next November.

The earmark in question ultimately appeared in the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations bill with support on the Senate side from Sen. Lott and Thad Cochran, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Listed under Army Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E), it designated $6 million for Aurora’s Orion High Altitude Long Endurance UAV, which is currently under development in collaboration with Boeing’s Phantom Works office.

Additional research reveals that Rep. Wicker and Aurora have benefited each other for some time now. Aurora funded a plane flight (pdf) in 2005 for Rep. Wicker from their headquarters in Manassas, VA to Starkville, MS. Then during the 2006 elections, Aurora was the top contributor to Rep. Wicker’s campaign, giving a total of $13,000 according to Opensecrets.org. Last but not least, Rep. Wicker’s former chief-of-staff, John Keast, left the congressman’s office in 2006 to work for Cornerstone Government Affairs, where, as of August, he’s been paid $60,000 to lobby Congress on defense appropriations for Aurora.

Aurora’s Orion project began last year at Mississippi State University’s Raspet Flight Research Lab in Starkville, MS. At that time, the company also began construction of a new production facility for Orion UAVs at the Golden Triangle Regional Airport in nearby Columbus, MS. The production facility opened in May of this year and Reps. Wicker and Chip Pickering spoke at the ceremony.

Aurora has won three multi-million dollar federal contracts over the past six months, as pointed out by Rep. Wicker in an Aurora press release last month. At least two, and possibly all three, relate to the Orion project and were awarded by the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command and the Air Force Research Laboratory.

In addition to the earmark, contracts, and production facility, Aurora has also recently expanded its high-level staff. In June of this year, Dan Brady joined the company as VP of Aerostructures. He formerly worked as a director at Vought Aircraft Industries, managing activities related to Bell and Boeing cargo aircraft (most likely the V-22 Osprey), and prior to that, Brady worked at Northrop Grumman. Last month, former Commander of US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and Army General Bryan “Doug” Brown joined Aurora’s Board of Directors. General Brown had retired from SOCOM earlier this year.

Aurora Flight Sciences, headquartered in Manassas, VA, has facilities located in Virginia, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. According to their most recent contract filings with the Federal Procurement Data Service (FPDS), Aurora has 267 employees and annual revenues of $32,000,000.

-- John Pruett

A Victory for Transparency in Congress

Thanks to the diligent efforts of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a provision that would have undermined transparency in government spending will be removed from the final version of the House FY 2008 Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Cited as Section 193 of the appropriations bill, the provision would have prohibited the public as well as congressmen not on the Transportation-HUD appropriations committees from viewing agency budget justifications prior to May 31 of each year. For more information on the provision’s implications, read POGO’s fact-sheet (pdf).

Sen. Coburn reached an agreement yesterday with Rep. John Olver (D-MA), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation-HUD, to strike the provision from the final bill. In a press release, Sen. Coburn stated:

Taxpayers, and elected representatives who don’t serve on the House or Senate Appropriations committees, have a right to access information about how the federal government plans to spend their money.

Also yesterday, just prior to Sen. Coburn and Rep. Olver's agreement, POGO and eleven other transparency and government oversight organizations sent a letter to senators requesting their support in removing Section 193 from the appropriations bill. That letter can be read here (pdf). For our press release, click here (pdf).

-- John Pruett

Senators Propose Reforms for Inspectors General

Yesterday, Senators McCaskill, Collins, Lieberman and Coburn introduced legislation (S. 2324) to strengthen Inspectors General (IGs) in the federal government, those watchdogs who make government function better and root out waste, fraud and abuse. This bill is the counterpart to Representative Jim Cooper's House legislation which passed handily by a vote of 404 to 11 in early October. CongressDaily reports S 2324 will be marked up next Wednesday in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is expected to be moved to the floor quickly.

As POGO has pointed out on this blog, the independence of numerous IGs has been under assault in recent years including the Small Business Administration IG, Central Intelligence Agency IG and the General Services Administration IG. On top of that, several IGs have come under a cloud of controversy and have been investigated for wrongdoing despite their unique place in government as leading guardians of ethics and integrity.

The Senate bill, which is similar in many respects to the House legislation, would do much to improve the IG system and bolster IG independence so that they can effectively carry out their fraud-fighting, government accountability activities without political interference.  There are a few changes from the House version, most notably the dropping of a fixed seven-year term for IGs, and the requirement they can only be dismissed for cause.  The Senate bill instead requires the President or agency head to notify Congress of the reasons for dismissal or transfer at least 30 days beforehand.

-- Beth Daley

Congress Still Largely Uninformed on Israeli Strike on Syria

Despite several congressional requests to the executive branch for briefings on Israel's air strike on Syria in September, Congress still remains largely in the dark, POGO learned yesterday.  On October 20, Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), respectively the ranking members of the House intelligence and foreign relations committees, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal charging that:

We regret that the administration has ignored numerous letters from Congress asking that all members be briefed on the Israeli airstrike. Failing to disclose the details of this incident to the legislative branch, preventing due diligence and oversight -- but talking to the press about it -- is not the way to win support for complex and difficult diplomatic efforts to combat proliferation by rogue nations. [emphasis added]

The Senate intelligence committee officially told me "no comment" yesterday.  However, a congressional staffer told me that "the issue has been closely held. The leadership of the defense committees and Intel committees have been briefed, but not the general membership of the Congress as you correctly noted in Ros-Lethinen’s OpEd."  Other sources told me that they were not aware of their full committees being briefed yet either.

Perhaps of greater practical concern for congressional oversight is, though a few select members have been briefed, none of their staff, which members depend upon for their expertise and knowledge, have not been allowed to accompany them, POGO has been told.

Though the Senate intelligence committee would not speak about the issue, its chairman, Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), then the ranking Democrat on the committee:

... complained in a 2003 letter to Vice President Cheney that his briefing on the NSA eavesdropping was unsatisfactory. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," he wrote. [link]

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Secret Briefing to House Intel on the CIA IG Today

The House intelligence committee is holding a closed door meeting on the CIA's Inspector General today, presumably to figure out if its independence is being threatened by the actions of CIA chief Michael Hayden and his subordinates.

Though there may be some anonymice going to some of the major papers, the House intelligence committee should make transcripts of this hearing available, consistent with the needs of national security.  Which means if there is information that is truly sensitive (it should go without saying that embarrassing information is not sensitive), redact it, but the blanket cloak of secrecy itself may undermine the full effectiveness of congressional oversight.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

State Dept. IG Howard Krongard Intimidates Congressional Witnesses

Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman sent Howard "Cookie" Krongard, Inspector General of the State Department, a letter (pdf) regarding “an exceptionally serious matter:  reports that your senior staff has threatened officials that you could fire them if they cooperate with the Committee’s investigation into your conduct.”

One has to wonder if Howard Krongard ever read his charter?

It almost defies belief, but two career federal investigators – one of whom just last week was described by Krongard as “one of my best investigators” – have told Waxman they were told that Krongard could fire them and their careers would be jeopardized if they cooperate with Waxman’s ongoing investigation into a number of serious allegations against Krongard (see earlier blog postings).  These two investigators, Special Agent Ron Militana and Special Agent in Charge Brian Rubendall, have gone public.

Waxman sternly warns Krongard that he will not tolerate any intimidation of potential witnesses and “direct[s]” him to instruct his staff to suspend all communications with employees whom the Committee is planning to interview.

This case just keeps on growing!

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Does the Defense Dept. Use Blackwater in Iraq?

At a Pentagon press conference last week, Defense Department Press Secretary Geoff Morell fielded questions from reporters, including the following exchange:

Q     Just, do you know whether in fact the Defense Department or the U.S. military in Iraq has any active investigations underway related to work by Blackwater in Iraq?   

 

MR. MORRELL: We do not have Blackwater as a company that does work on our behalf in Iraq. We do -- the military, I believe, does have contracts with Blackwater, but not in Iraq. So I don't know the role that DOD would play in investigating problems with Blackwater.   

 

Are they participating in the investigations --   

 

Q     (Off mike) -- I mean, some other, any incidents or any matters whatsoever of --   

 

MR. MORRELL: No, to my knowledge, Blackwater is not a current contractor with the Department of Defense in Iraq.   [emphasis added]

I don't know if anyone else has caught this, but Morell may be wrong.  The Defense Department awarded at least one contract with Blackwater for work in Iraq.  It was awarded the contract last summer by the Army for security work through September 2008:

Blackwater Security Consulting, Moyock, N.C., was awarded on Aug. 7, 2006, a $7,161,101 firm-fixed-price contract for personal security detail services – protection security services. Work will be performed in Baghdad, Iraq, and is expected to be completed by September 30, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on March 25, 2006, and 21 bids were received. The Joint Contracting Command, Baghdad, Iraq, is the contracting activity (W91GY0-06-C-0027).

Most of the scrutiny of Blackwater in Iraq arises from its work for the State Department.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he wants to rein in security contractors.  And though authorities such as Maj. General Richard Sherlock has said, "Department of Defense contractors are already under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," others think there may be some problems with that.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

UPDATE: Oh by the way, Presidential Airways (aka Blackwater Aviation), won a Defense Department contract for work in central Asia today:

Presidential Airways, Inc., an aviation Worldwide Services company (d/b/a Blackwater Aviation), Moyock, N.C., is being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract for $92,000,000.00. The contractor is to provide all fixed-wing aircraft, personnel, equipment, tools, material, maintenance and supervision necessary to perform passenger, cargo and combi Short Take-Off and Landing air transportation services between locations in the Area of Responsibility of Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. This contract was competitively procured and two timely offers were received. The performance period is from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2011. The United States Transportation Command Acquisition Directorate, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., is the contracting activity (HTC7 11 -08-D-0010).

Blackwater, State Dept. Attempt to Stonewall Waxman

Everyone's all over this today  Stephen M. Ryan, Blackwater's attorney at McDermott, Will and Emery LLP, wrote to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), informing "the Committee that a State Department official directed Blackwater not to provide documents relevant to the Committee's investigation into the company's activities in Iraq without the prior written approval of the State Department," according to a letter by Rep. Waxman (pdf) to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.   Ryan's letter is also posted here (pdf).  And here's the letter from the State Department to Blackwater (pdf).

The State Department is essentially telling Blackwater (pdf) that its contract with them trumps the request by Congress for documents: "It is plain from the cited clause that all documents and information generated in the course of performance of Contract No. S-AQMPD-05-D-1098 are fully subject to the control of the Department."

It seems that the legitimate need Congress has for the information about Blackwater's activities--especially considerable interest given the foreign policy and national security implications of their alleged actions in Iraq recently--easily trump the contractual relationship the State Department has with Blackwater.  Thus, the State Department is not "fully" in control of the documents and information requested by the House Oversight committee and should not be able to stop the flow of information to Congress, though subpoena power may ultimately have to be utilized.  Hopefully that can be avoided.  Congressional committees routinely access information contractors and the government generate in the course of a contractor fulfilling a contract.  Or else Congress could not oversee, especially nowadays with today's unprecedented outsourcing of government functions.

The most definitive resource I know of on the investigative power of Congress is Mort Rosenberg's Congressional Research Service report Investigative Oversight: An Introduction to the Law, Practice and Procedure of Congressional Inquiry.  Read it.

Big things poppin'.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

UPDATE: In the comments, KMB notes that a new State Dept. letter to Blackwater (pdf) changes things a bit.  It is definitely an acknowledgement by State that Waxman has a right to the information, though we'll see how this plays out.

Sen. Webb Demands Truman-style Committee

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been allocated to contractors for reconstruction and stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Correspondingly, there have been repeated allegations of war profiteering in these countries, including corruption, waste, and mismanagement of wartime contracts.  POGO investigator Nick Schwellenbach has posed the question “Will Congress create a new 'Truman Committee?” 

The answer may soon be yes. In July 2007, Senator James H. Webb and his freshman Senator cosponsors introduced a bill, entitled “Commission on Wartime Contracting Act.” (S.1825), which would mirror the objectives of the Truman Committee. Yesterday, Sen. Webb re-submitted the legislation as an amendment (No. 2999) to the Defense Authorization Bill (pdf) now before the Senate.  On Wednesday, POGO sent a letter to Senators Webb and McCaskill strongly endorsing the Sen. Webb’s legislation.

Congressional approval of this legislation will be a phenomenal step towards holding wartime contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan contractors accountable for rampant instances of fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.  It would also provide useful recommendations for future wartime contract procurement. 

Today’s New York Times underscored the dire need for more wartime contract oversight and accountability:   

Military officials said Thursday that contracts worth $6 billion to provide essential supplies to American troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan — including food, water and shelter — were under review by criminal investigators, double the amount the Pentagon had previously disclosed. 

In addition, $88 billion in contracts and programs, including those for body armor for American soldiers and matériel for Iraqi and Afghan security forces, are being audited for financial irregularities, the officials said.

Although the Pentagon alleged that these instances of corruption are the work of isolated individuals, many members of the House Armed Services Committee disagreed. Democratic Representative Ike Skelton, the chairman of the committee, even went as far as to say “The problems were so severe that I fear they could represent a culture of corruption.”

This alleged “culture of corruption” is inexcusable. Especially, when as Dina Rasor writes:

We are losing billions of dollars to waste in Iraq and this waste comes at the expense of our troops. We are spending two billion dollars a week with little oversight and controls and the war service industry companies are taking advantage of this desperate war situation.

Senator McCaskill echoed those sentiments in a press release today on amendment No.2999, stating, “As a former auditor, I’ve seen waste before. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything as outrageous as what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of contracting.”

In light of what may very well be a systemic problem, Congress should approve Sen. Webb’s amendment to ensure that it’s corrected.

-- Jake Wiens

What a tangled web we weave

Yesterday, we wrote about the letter House Government Reform and Oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent (pdf) to State Department Inspector General Howard J. Krongard, detailing numerous alleged improprieties committed by him.  Among these is the assertion that:

You impeded efforts by your investigators to cooperate with a Justice Department probe into allegations that a large private security contractor was smuggling weapons into lraq. (page 2 of this pdf)

This morning, the AP's Richard Lardner moved the ball forward a bit by identifying that company--Blackwater:

Although the security company was not named in the letter, several senior administration officials confirmed it was Blackwater.

Blackwater is a very politically-connected company, as several have detailed.  More specifically though, the State Dep. IG Howard Krongard's brother is A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who formerly was the executive director at the CIA (its number three position--he was replaced with the infamous Dusty Foggo). 

In an article on the revolving door between Blackwater and the revolving door, Harper's Ken Silverstein noted:

Robert Young Pelton, author of the new book,  Licensed to Kill  , says that an early Blackwater contract—a secret no-bid $5.4 million deal with the CIA—came in 2002 after Prince placed a call to Buzzy Krongard, who was then the CIA's executive director.

Buzzy Krongard worked alongside Cofer Black, now Blackwater's vice chairman, who was director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center until 2002.  After his tenure at the CIA, Cofer Black worked at the State Department as its Ambassador-at-Large — a roving ambassador — for counterterrorism, before going to work at Blackwater in February 2005.

In addition to that, the parent company of Blackwater, the Prince Group, hired former Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz as its chief operating officer and general counsel in 2005 as he was coming under suspicion for also engaging in inappropriate acts that compromised the integrity and independence of the Pentagon Office of Inspector General.   Schmitz was investigated by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Integrity Committee and exonerated, though questions remain about the PCIE investigation, one source tells POGO (more on this hopefully to come).

So, Blackwater's Joseph Schmitz, who knows the ins and outs of IG investigations, works with Blackwater's Cofer Black, who worked with the brother (Buzzy Krongard)--who may have helped Blackwater out early on himself--of the Inspector General (Howard Krongard) responsible for investigating Blackwater.  It's a small world indeed.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: TPM Muckraker Spencer Ackerman flags us and adds more to the story on Blackwater's influence.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

The Dismal State of the State Dept.'s Watchdog

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee web site reveals an unusual and even startling letter (pdf) from Chairman Henry Waxman to the Inspector General of the State Department, Howard Krongard.

Waxman says that seven current and former employees of Krongard’s office have contacted the committee with “allegations that you interfered with on-going investigations to protect the State Department and the White House from political embarrassment.”  The current employees have sought whistleblower status, but two former senior officials in the OIG went on the record: former Assistant IG for Investigations John DeNona, and former Deputy Assistant IG for Investigations Ralph McNamara.  Waxman writes that both resigned “after you repeatedly halted or impeded investigations undertaken by their office.”

The 14-page letter offers a shocking litany of abuse of staff, blocked or white-washed investigations, and outright refusal to cooperate with Justice Department investigations.  And please keep in mind:  the Inspector General is the guy who’s supposed to be independent and objective, whose mission is to root out this type of behavior.

The allegations are supported by e-mails as well as testimony from OIG employees and they paint a devastating portrait.  Krongard is invited to “address the allegations described in this letter” at an upcoming committee hearing, October 16th.

This is just the latest inspector general to fall under a shadow of suspicion recently, including:

• Johnnie Frazier, U.S. Department of Commerce IG, who resigned after being accused of numerous alleged violations, including taking trips with no apparent official purpose at government expense, retaliating against employees who objected and refused to sign the travel vouchers, and destroying emails after he was informed of an investigation into his travel.
• Bill A. Roderick, Acting IG of the Environmental Protection Agency who attempted to get rid of 60 full-time staff members in his office out of a total of 360 while giving himself a $15,000 bonus.
• NASA IG Robert Cobb who was the subject of a President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency investigation. Because of the incriminating report, senior Democrats called on President Bush to fire Cobb and held oversight hearings into his incompetence.

Legislation is currently under consideration in both the House and Senate aims to improve the independence of Inspectors General.  The Project on Government Oversight has recently launched a wide-ranging investigation to explore how best to achieve the optimal balance between independence and accountability, and also to determine best practices and explore weaknesses.  Not only is it important to answer the question “who is watching the watchdog?,”  but we also must determine how to protect IG offices from retaliation by agencies or an administration unhappy with their work.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Office of Special Counsel Update II

The OSC’s reauthorization bill passed handily in Subcommittee this morning (for more see Office of Special Counsel Update I) and represents a great victory for good government groups and whistleblowers. In the meantime, Roll Call reports that House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis sent a letter to Bloch yesterday (pdf) raising more questions about his keystone cops investigation into Karl Rove and the White House.

The letter noted that “Sources familiar with contacts between the White House staff and your office have told Committee staff that lawyers from the White House Counsel’s office conferred with Amber Bell Vail and Ana Galindo-Marrone from your Hatch Act unit regarding the content of PowerPoint slides used by officials from the Office of Political Affairs. Ms. Vail and Ms. Galindo-Marrone, according to our sources, provided advice regarding the content of White House political presentations.” In other words, the Office of Special Counsel may have provided legal advice to the White House about the controversial briefings he is investigating before they happened. Davis notes: “Investigations of matters on which you had previously given advice would be entirely improper.”

The letter follows up on a trail of correspondence between Bloch and Committee (pdf) in which Bloch claims he has no records responsive (pdf) to the Committee’s request and even if he did they would be confidential anyway. Staff for Committee Chairman Waxman told Roll Call that they did not join the letter yesterday because Davis’ staff would not make their sources available for questioning to the majority.

-- Beth Daley

Kudos to Representative Castle

Wi