The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

The “Other” Office of Special Counsel

With the Vice President’s former chief of staff indicted, and top leaders in Congress and others facing investigations or indictments, it’s tough to compete. Another one is getting lost in this hullabaloo, the opening of an investigation into the federal government’s other Office of Special Counsel (not to be confused with Fitzy). This the agency responsible for protecting whistleblowers. That investigation stems from a complaint filed by anonymous employees from the agency as well as organizations concerned about whistleblowers including POGO. Our concern has been that the political appointee heading the office, Scott Bloch, has appeared to violate just about every law he has been appointed to enforce, and instituted so-called “reforms” and managed OSC in a way that would make Katrina’s poster child, Michael Brown, proud. The OPM IG investigation is a step in the right direction, butwe have concerns about how it will be conducted.

FOUO, FOIA, and other Letters from DHS

It definitely raises our eyebrows when government employees working in a public disclosure office sign secrecy agreements.

In late August, POGO learned that two employees in DHS's FOIA office had signed non-disclosure agreements (pdf). These agreements bind the signatory to protect FOUO information from disclosure or possibly face punishment (note: DHS modified its non-disclosure agreement so it does not apply to employees anymore).

Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded (pdf) to POGO's concerns about its Management Directive on "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) Information (pdf).

One of POGO's key points in its letter to DHS was that "DHS has created a rule requiring the DHS community to steadfastly protect the same information that FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] officers may release to the public." 

DHS's response signed by Under Secretary for Management Janet Hale is, "The directive on FOUO allows our employees to recognize and safeguard potentially exploitable sensitive information, while also complying with the Freedom of Information Act."  This response is bureacratic gobbledy gook which obscures the reality of the situation.

One of the problems with DHS's stance is that many FOIA requests stem from disclosure by agency employees, consultants and contractors.  If these persons fear criminal, civil and/or administrative punishment then they may not talk to reporters and the public at all. Because the directive allows almost any piece of information to be defined as FOUO and even states that unmarked information may be considered FOUO and should be protected as such, then the lines of communication allowing for specific and informed FOIA requests could be curtailed.

Insight into SEC

SEC Insight, a private investment research company that uses Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, issued a press release today on its court victory over the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The company saw a sharp spike in the number of "Glomar" FOIA denials under former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt's tenure.  A Glomar response is when an agency decides to "refuse to confirm or deny" even the existence of records sought by a requestor.

For the decade prior to 2002, Glomar was only used by the SEC three times.  Yet in 2003 alone, Glomar was used 99 times--66 of those instances were used to block disclosure of information to SEC Insight.  Since SEC Insight's lawsuit, the SEC has stop using Glomar, according to the press release.

SEC was denying disclosure because of fears that release of documents could interfere with ongoing investigations of companies.  SEC Insight argue that segregable portions of documents that won't interfere with investigations should be released, rather than not releasing anything at all. And that "in many instances the release of correspondence or subpoenas the SEC sends to a public company under investigation will not, in most instances, interfere with ongoing investigations and can better protect investors."

SEC's excessive use of Glomar in 2003 is highly questionable; it is a response that should be rarely used.  Why did the SEC suddenly start using Glomar all of a sudden?  Who made this decision?

While POGO is glad SEC Insight won its case against the SEC, we wonder how much of this information could simply be made available from the SEC directly, preferably on the internet, without having to utilize FOIA at all.

V-22 Osprey: Ice Ice Baby

We at POGO thought that a $100 million dollar aircraft that can’t do combat maneuvers was bad enough. Now we learn that the V-22 Osprey doesn’t yet have the operational de-icing systems or weather radar that allow it to fly into clouds.

An icing problem was apparently the root cause for an Air Force version of the V-22 Osprey running into trouble while enroute to Edwards Air Force Base in California last week. Our sources say CV-22 #6 experienced a compressor stall of both engines after flying into a cloud at 18,000 feet, presumably because of icing problems. The Osprey, our sources say, didn’t recover from the engine problem until it reached warmer air around 10,000 feet. As a precaution the aircraft landed in Prescott, Arizona – where it’s engines were changed out.

The Navy, which honchos both the Marines and Air Force V-22 programs, says that technically the engines didn’t shut down and that the incident wasn’t as serious as it might seem. Yet, they admit the V-22, after 20 years in development, doesn’t have a tested de-icing system, nor does it have weather radar onboard. The October 18 incident has been dubbed a “Class C mishap” – meaning the aircraft sustained damages between $20,000 and $200,000.

The Pentagon already has approved the aircraft for full-rate production (pdf), yet the Navy says the V-22 de-icing systems are still being tested. Even so, pilots don’t really need it, they say. Instead they’re instructed to just avoid bad weather conditions.  Of course, bad weather should be avoided, but sometimes it can't.  Should an aircraft not ready for combat or clouds be approved for full-rate production?

Whether the incident was serious or not, it certainly raises some serious questions about the limitations of the V-22.

Imagine it. Congressional oversight.

A Washington Post article this last weekend prompted Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee to write yet another letter (pdf) to committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) asking him to actually exercise oversight over meaningful government issues such as contracting. 

The Post article by Robert O'Harrow and Scott Higham discusses accusations that Unisys, an information technology company, overcharged the government for labor.  For example, taxpayers have been billed "$131.12 an hour for a technical writer who should have made no more than $46.43 an hour. The extra money was generally not passed along to the employees but was kept by the company."  Unisys has billed the government $940 million of its $1 billion Transportation Security Administration contract to create a computer network linking the nation's airports, though less than half the work is complete. (Which is funny since Unisys's motto is "Imagine it. Done."  Imagine indeed.)

Instead of being upfront about the real price tag, apparently the $1 billion figure was a deliberately low amount--the work will likely cost $3 billion--to gain support from Congress.  Other problems with the Unisys contract, as noted by O'Harrow and Higham, are that TSA:

• used "a little-known Transportation Department program...which speeds the process by pre-qualifying contractors and abbreviating competition, [but] has had documented problems with oversight";
• did not provide "detailed specifications to the contractor," but instead asked "the contractor to determine what was needed";
• did not have enough contracting-oversight specialists to provide adequate oversight.

Waxman is right to demand that the House Government Reform Committee get its act together and start doing its job.  One of Congress's main roles is oversight over the Executive branch and federal agencies.  It's a little something citizens, and hopefully, members of Congress should have learned in high school civics class, called called checks and balances and separation of powers.  And there's no excuse--the Congressional Research Service has even provided Congress with a Congressional Oversight Manual.  Davis could serve the American people better if he'd focus on something more significant than steroids in baseball.

Sen. Stevens Alleges Alaskanism

Daniel Webster, eat your heart out. Seems like Ted Stevens is now the greatest orator in American Senatorial history. Why? When fellow Republican Senator Tom Coburn, an avid anti-pork barrel advocate, suggested that two outrageously expensive transportation projects in Alaska be cut so the money could go to hurricane-ravaged Louisiana, Stevens, ever the lover of pork products, exploded on the Senate floor, threatening to resign if his state was, to use his phrasing, discriminated against. He of course left out that Alaska, whose population is almost as small as the New Orleans, gets more federal dollars per capita than any other state.

As we mentioned in September, you can help fight pork by raising the issue with your member of Congress.

The "Generic" Country

Al Kamen's column today recounts a mildly humorous moment that I had on July 26, 2005 at an Air Force briefing.  Three of the Power Point slides used in a presentation on the Air Force's Future Total Force plan (pdf) featured an unnamed country littered with targets in a hypothetical US air attack.  These slides were meant to show that National Guard and Reserve units need the best aircraft since they will be facing the same threats active duty forces do and are deployed almost as often too (nowadays, Reserve and Guard units often get second-hand aircraft, rather than the latest).   

As an aside, I asked Air Force Brig. General Allison Hickey and two Air Force public affairs officers if the country featued in the slides was indeed Iran.  There initial response was a defensive no, it's a "generic country" an artist drew up for the presentation.  But as I pointed out the countries surrounding Iran, strengthening my observation, the Air Force officers moved the presentation on, but did say they should probably change the slides considering tensions with the country.  Oddly, they let me keep the slides though.

-Nick Schwellenbach

The Top Brass Prefers Gold

In his blog, Bill Arkin lists several former Defense Department generals and admirals who have moved onto private industry.  We talk about the movement between government, private industry and lobby shops--known as the revolving door--a lot here at POGO.  We wrote a report about it last summer. 

In sum, former public servants sometimes cash in on their connections back in government.  But unfortunately it's too often accepted as just the way Washington works.  Public service should not be seen as a stepping stone to private gain.  It demoralizes the government employees who stay behind and are in government for the right reasons and subverts contracting to award companies who hold the right political connections, rather than who are the most qualified.

(Bio)Shielding Industry

This Tuesday, October 18, a Senate committee moved a bill forward that would create a new agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  This new agency would help spur private industry to develop and manufacture medical countermeasures for bioterrorism agents and natural outbreaks such as a possible avian flu pandemic.  But the bill also makes oversight and accountability of much of America's biodefense efforts nearly impossible.

S. 1873, the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005, exempts industry from liability and a new agency within HHS, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and parts of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Here's the October 17, 2005 text of the legislation (pdf).

Global Security Newswire lists other questionable aspects of the bill, such as forbidding government purchases of generic drugs thus tying the government's hands.

Several groups such as the National Vaccine Information Center and the Center for Justice and Democracy are opposed to the indemnification of industry.  And we at POGO don’t see how exempting BARDA from FOIA, FACA and FAR cost/accounting standards can even be justified.

BARDA would be responsible for handling the $5.6 billion Project Bioshield initiative to create a new biodefense industry with government incentives and contracts. Exempting BARDA would mean congressional and public oversight of the agency and its important activities would be severely curtailed. A less effective agency and an American public more vulnerable than it should be are the likely results of this erosion of transparency.

Libby Leaked Plame's Name to Oklahoma Indie Rock Band

File this one under bizarre, but POGO pal LC was listening to the Starlight Mints, an Oklahoma band often compared to the Flaming Lips, and noticed that Track 5 of one of their CDs is titled, "Valerie Flames."  From one of her sources, New York Times reporter Judith Miller incorrectly jotted down in one of her notebooks the name "Valerie Flame" instead of "Valerie Plame." Plame is the CIA operative wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson who publicly called out the Bush administration on its false assertions that Iraq was attempting to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger.

You can listen to a sample of the song in Windows Media format or in Real Player format.

The album is titled "Dream That Stuff Was Made Of."  It was released in 2000, so the album doesn't quite fit the Plame affair timeline since Wilson didn't write his New York Times op-ed until July 2003 and no one publicly mentions the trip before May 2003.

If you haven't been following the Plame investigation a good place to start is this Washington Post article, or check Laura Rozen's continuing coverage over at her blog.

Note: Mickey Kaus beat us to the punch earlier in the day.

SOCOM Bribery Scandal

The military's Special Operations Command (SOCom) is reeling from a bribery scandal according to this St. Petersburg Times story (hat tip DefenseTech):

TAMPA - Faced with a widening bribery scandal, officials at Special Operations Command said Friday they would review all contracts to determine if the kickback scheme left the nation's secret military commandos with inferior war-fighting equipment.

William E. Burke, 49, of Odessa, a defense contractor at SOCom, pleaded guilty to bribery in a plea deal and agreed to cooperate with federal investigators and identify associates in the scheme. He could face up to 15 years in prison.

As word spread of other criminal targets in the investigation, panic spread among employees and private consultants.

SOCom has been designated the lead command in the Global War on Terror.  Although the amounts of improperly negotiated contracts at SOCom will not likely run into the billions as in the Darleen Druyun-Boeing scandal, the effects can be just as negative for soldiers.  Our elite troops may not have the best equipment in life or death situations due to the personal greed of an inside player and private contractors.

RAND New F/A-22 Report

Via Defense Industry Daily, the esteemed RAND Corporation has released their report (pdf) comparing acquisition strategies of the F/A-22 Raptor and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.  The Raptor has been plagued with cost overruns and delays galore, while the Super Hornet met its cost estimates without major delays.  If you're short on time, RAND offers a summary, or alternately, you can read DID's more detailed summary.

POGO noted this August that at a meeting of the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA) Project, retired Air Force General Lawrence Farrell said that the F-16 fighter program was the model weapons acquisition program.  How do these two programs, the F/A-18 and F/A-22, compare to Farrell's model F-16 program?

Defense acquisition professionals, senior level defense officials and members of Congress all should take interest in the RAND Project Air Force report.  With a major Pentagon budget crunch possibly on its way, smart decisions will have to be made in order to maximize the interests of both the warfighter and the taxpayer.