The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Names Like "Nine Fingers" and Dusty Foggo Make Even Gov't Contracting Interesting

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI has good reason to believe among the currency used by defense contractors Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes to bribe now-jailed former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham wasn’t just money, real estate, and Liberace-like wares, but also women – and that the FBI is also investigating whether or not this particular form of influence-peddling by Wilkes may have extended to other members of Congress, or their staffs, as well. Last December, the San Diego Union-Tribune circumspectly raised this possibility in its Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation of the Cunningham affair, making a passing reference to private parties hosted by Wilkes for various legislators.

On Thursday night, Harper’s Washington Editor Ken Silverstein advanced the story, reporting via a “well-connected source” that “those under intense scrutiny by the FBI are current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence committees -- including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post.” (Silverstein also got the 62-page rap sheet of the owner of the limo service retained by Wilkes for “entertainment” purposes.) Over at TPM Muckraker, Justin Rood concluded -- not unreasonably -- that this is likely a reference to Porter Goss, and wonders if this might explain a curious staffing decision at CIA:

Nip & Tuck

Even though the cuts are paltry, it's nice to see various House Armed Services subcommittees actually trimming a little weapons bloat, and ever so slightly raising the test and evaluation bar for some systems. Yesterday the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee cut $184 million from the nearly $10 billion Administration request for the Missile Defense Agency, and ordered the Pentagon not to spend another $200 million on Ground-Based MidCourse Defense unless the thing manages to dispense with at least two targets---in a "credible test," no less! Some satellite systems also felt the edge of the scalpel, with $30 million getting peeled off the $266 million Space Based Radar request; the Transformational Communications Satellite got an $80 million cut too.  Elsewhere, the Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee decided that the troubled and troubling Future Combat System (Sorry, they make you register)  merited a $325 million slice from the White House's $9.3 billion request.

But it wouldn't be a mark-up without additions somewhere, and, oh happy day for Lockheed Martin and the Air Force: Curt Weldon dropped in an extra $1.4 billion for 20 F-22As. And that extra F-35 engine the Pentagon didn't want, but so many others---Rolls Royce (now home to retired USAF General John Jumper), the British Government, Hoosier Rep. Steve Buyer, to name  a few---do? Back in to the tune of $408 million.

The subcommittee is also cutting $39 million worth of parts for future versions of the Presidential helicopter. Maybe this is a sign that they are planning on using the V-22 for the presidential helicopter. Who knows, maybe this will cause the President to join POGO in our long-standing concerns about the readiness of military aircraft.

So Not All College Kids are Lazy Slackers

A late tip of the hat to a trailblazing project by Brandeis Investigative Journalism Institute on Boeing whistleblowers published in the Washington Post, April 17^th . This is an exciting and creative endeavor that hopefully will supplement the dwindling ranks of investigative journalism.

Good to see that it’s not just the kids at UT Watch that are doing something productive with their free time.

Homeland Security "Gag" Orders for Guards

Congressional Quarterly has the latest (hat tip: Justin Rood) on the now-year-long saga of gag oaths--known as "non-disclosure agreements"--at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS):

Security guards at the Department of Homeland Security were forced last month to sign agreements not to disclose information the agency deems sensitive — an attempt, according to several current guards, to silence them after recent high-profile revelations of security breaches at DHS.

The guards, employed by Wackenhut Services Inc., were told to sign pledges, called “non-disclosure agreements,” on March 10, the day after former guard Derrick Daniels appeared on NBC Nightly News alleging security lapses at the agency’s Nebraska Ave. complex headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The timing raises questions about whether DHS and Wackenhut misused the agreements and ignored whistleblower protections in an effort to prevent the guards from disclosing additional information about security lapses at DHS headquarters.

According to one guard, Wackenhut supervisors threatened to fire employees who did not sign the non-disclosure agreements. Wackenhut recently lost out on bidding for a new security contract at DHS to Virginia-based Paragon Systems LLC. Nevertheless, Wackenhut guards will continue to provide security at DHS headquarters for the next few months, according to a department spokesman.

POGO and other organizations fought the DHS non-disclosure agreements and won an important victory, keeping the 180,000 government employees at DHS from having to sign them.  However, contractors still are not immune from having to sign the secrecy oaths and DHS's policies are problematic for other reasons.

One of POGO's objections to these agreements is the overly broad definition of "sensitive but unclassified" information the agreements are supposed to protect.  And as the CQ article indicates, it seems that Wackenhut is abusing the non-disclosure agreement and taking advantage of the vagueness of "sensitive but unclassified" to shut down security guards attempts to alert the media and the public to security breaches at DHS.

The V-22 Vs. the Needs of Troops Now

The AP reports on a sickening move by the Senate--at the urging of the Marine Corps--to add funds to the V-22 Osprey program at the expense of funding current troop needs in Iraq in the emergency appropriations bill:

A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops' night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions.

President Bush's request for the emergency appropriations to cover costs of the continuing war and Hurricane Katrina recovery operations included no money for the troubled V-22 Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a plane.

The Marine Corps, however, followed up with a letter to lawmakers endorsing additional V-22s, noting that it is the only active production line capable of replacing four Vietnam War-era CH-46 choppers lost since Sept. 11, 2001.

Critics maintain that it's still a curious choice to be funded in a bill whose defining purpose is to replace equipment worn out or destroyed in Iraq.

Even if one thinks that the Osprey should be funded--and there are many who don't--it shouldn't come at the expense of current needs.  Our service men and women in Iraq should not have be subordinated to an expensive and questionable weapons procurement that won't bear fruit until years later.

Why is this man not smiling?

According to an Air Force power point briefing provided to POGO, earlier this month at 0815 on April 10th, the controls on an F-22A at Langley Air Force Base showed that the aircraft's canopy wasn't locking. After several attempts at opening and closing the canopy, on the final try it locked and jammed--trapping the pilot inside. According to the briefing, the 27th Aircraft Maintenance Unit then "consulted Lockheed Martin and the F-22A System Program Office to determine alternative methods to open the canopy and extract the pilot."

The mission was accomplished approximately five hours later. As you can see from the pictures here, while the "alternative method" ultimately used was fairly cheap (click here and scroll to the last picture at the bottom), the resulting damage wasn't--according to the briefing slides, the cost of canopy replacement will run $182,205. (But after tens of billions of dollars, what's another $182,205?)

As one of our sources puts it, the episode "raises a very interesting maintainability issue."

Oh, and if you haven't read it yet check out Ed Offley's Raptor piece on the Nieman Watchdog.

Guess which Iraq reconstruction project is on time and on budget?

It’s the gigantic US embassy in Baghdad.   USA Today reports:

The $592 million facility is being built inside the heavily fortified Green Zone by 900 non-Iraqi foreign workers who are housed nearby and under the supervision of a Kuwaiti contractor, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. Construction materials have been stockpiled to avoid the dangers and delays on Iraq's roads.

"We are confident the embassy will be completed according to schedule (by June 2007) and on budget," said Justin Higgins, a State Department spokesman.

The same cannot be said for major projects serving Iraqis outside the Green Zone, the Senate report said. Many — including health clinics, water-treatment facilities and electrical plants — have had to be scaled back or in some cases eliminated because of the rising costs of securing worksites and workers.

"No large-scale, U.S.-funded construction program in Iraq has yet met its schedule or budget," the committee report said. [all emphasis POGO's]

In the article's sidebar (posted on the above and to the right), POGO noticed that Disneyland and the Mall of America are two of USA Today's sources for the information on the US embassy complex.  Is Disney helping to build the US Embassy in Iraq?

UPDATE: POGO spoke with Barbara Slavin, the author of the USA Today article, about the Disney reference.  Slavin said that Disneyland was consulted in order to compare the size of its theme park with the US Embassy complex.

An Air Marshal Victory for all of US

Kudos to Federal Air Marshal Frank Terreri and ACLU in Southern California for prevailing in litigation concerning whether air marshals can alert the public of safety and security concerns. They reached an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, in which, according to the press release, “the government has agreed to send an e-mail within the week to all federal air marshals clarifying its policy on what marshals can say publicly. In particular, the message will clarify the meaning of two policies that Federal Air Marshal Frank Terreri argued were unconstitutionally vague.” 

Thanks too to Air Marshal Alert for letting us know the good news.

UPDATE:  This just in from Air Marshal Alert -- Terreri takes the investigation to the next level and files with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to get an investigation started on the Air Marshal Service.

Pulitzer Shout Out

Congratulations to the San Diego Union-Tribune and Copley News Service, on receiving a much-deserved Pulitzer for probing coverage of all things Randy "Duke" Cunningham related. (Special Honorary POGO Pulitzer to Laura Rozen, who's also been relentless on Dukester stuff.)

The Director of National Intelligence is "beyond the GAO's purview"

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (pdf) on information sharing and "sensitive but unclassified" information categories, which POGO reported on yesterday, contains a letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stating that the ODNI's intelligence activities are "beyond the GAO's purview."  The GAO made several recommendations that the ODNI, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, improve information sharing across the government.  The ODNI refused to comment on GAO's recommendations, because it claims it is above the GAO's authority.

The ODNI was created by the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 to coordinate activities across the intelligence community and is headed by John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

The GAO, Congress' investigative arm and a crucial tool in maintaining checks and balances between the legislative and executive, has had similar problems with the Central Intelligence Agency.  In 2001, the GAO issued a report (pdf) detailing its problems with accessing CIA information.  While acknowledging the need to protect intelligence sources and methods, the GAO argued that it still had "broad authority" to review and oversee the CIA.

Similarly, the GAO argues the same point in its report released yesterday.  According to the GAO:

ODNI then made a general reference to the DOJ having “previously advised” GAO that “the review of intelligence activities is beyond the GAO’s purview.” In DOJ’s comments on a 2003 GAO report [pdf] on information sharing, DOJ similarly said “the review of intelligence activities is an arena beyond GAO’s purview.” However, there was no legal analysis attached to either of these statements.

...we do not agree with DOJ’s view that the intelligence oversight framework precludes GAO reviews in the intelligence arena. Neither section 413 nor its legislative history states that the procedures established therein constitute the exclusive mechanism for congressional oversight of intelligence activities, to the exclusion of other relevant committees or GAO. GAO has broad statutory authority to evaluate agency programs and investigate matters related to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public money. GAO also has broad authority to inspect and obtain agency information and records, subject to a few limited exceptions.

In any event, we do not agree with ODNI’s characterization that our review involved “intelligence activities.” Our review did not involve evaluation of the conduct of actual intelligence activities. Rather, our review addresses the procedures in place to facilitate the sharing of a broad range of information across all levels of government. In our view ODNI’s concept of “intelligence activities” is overly broad and would extend to governmentwide information-sharing efforts clearly outside the traditional intelligence arena—including, for example, procedures for sharing sensitive but unclassified information unrelated to homeland security. The use of such a sweeping definition to limit GAO’s work would seriously impair Congress’s oversight of executive branch information-sharing activities.

POGO applauds the GAO for sticking to its guns in a time when congressional oversight is at a low, especially when national security is invoked.

The 2003 Justice Department letter which lays the basis for the ODNI's statement is below.

"Sensitive But Unclassified" But Unregulated

Further underlining the solidifying view by Congress that secrecy is unchecked within the executive, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report today (pdf) on information sharing and the universe of vague, largely unregulated "sensitive but unclassified" (SBU) information designations.  According to the GAO, there are at least 56 different SBU categories (GAO examined 16 SBU categories within the Energy Department alone) and:

...most of the agencies GAO reviewed have no policies for determining who and how many employees should have authority to make sensitive but unclassified designations, providing them training on how to make these designations, or performing periodic reviews to determine how well their practices are working. The lack of such recommended internal controls increases the risk that the designations will be misapplied. This could result in either unnecessarily restricting materials that could be shared or inadvertently releasing materials that should be restricted. (emphasis POGO's)

Last month, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut) held a hearing on secrecy where another similar GAO report (pdf) was unveiled, albeit one more narrowly focused on the Energy and Defense Departments' "Official Use Only" and "For Official Use Only" designations.

The White House issued a memo last December calling on agencies to standardize the hodge podge of SBU categories to facilitate information sharing across the government.  Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project On Government Secrecy, wrote that because of the Administration's memo, "'sensitive but unclassified' is poised to become the government's largest single information control category."

Dissing Disclosure Laws

For anyone who spends time perusing Congressional lobbying records, a constant source of frustration is usually to be found on page 2, section 12, which asks lobbyists to describe "specific lobbying issues (current and anticipated)." Sometimes this section is left blank, or, more often than not, filled with something short and cryptic.

While the firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz is among the few lobby shops that's actually pretty good about providing more detail than most in section 12, we can't help but wonder if, based on a glaring omission in a section 10 of a recent filing, Baker Donelson is more than a little concerned about revolving door criticism.

Though the story hasn't gotten a lot of coverage, Westinghouse is being acquired by Toshiba--which is particularly keen to market Westinghouse's nuclear reactors as intensely as possibly, especially to China. With the deal requiring US government approval, it was hardly surprising that Toshiba would retain Baker Donelson to, as the filing clearly states in section 12 (on page 2), consult "with the appropriate Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government, and the appropriate agencies on CFIUS [Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States] and antitrust matters, all related to Toshiba Corporation's acquisition of the Westinghouse Electric Company."

Perhaps a little vague, but still better than most. Section 10, however, requires a lobbying firm to list actual individuals who will be lobbying, and also requires that if a lobbyist has served in a high appointed or career federal position in the last two years before registering as a lobbyist, that position be disclosed. At the top of the list on the Toshiba filing is Howard Baker himself. From 2001 until last year, Baker was US Ambassador to Japan--but you wouldn't know that from the filing, as there's nothing but blank space next to Baker's name.  Similarly, the document also fails to note that lobbyist Richard Newcomb was, until less than two years ago, director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control--a nice guy to have on hand when dealing with CFIUS. (Newcomb did, however, list his Treasury position in a filing last year.)

And while lobbyist John C. Tuck is under no legal obligation to disclose that he was Under Secretary of Energy way back in the George H.W. Bush Administration--as well as Baker's senior advisor at the US Embassy in Tokyo 2001-2002--POGO thinks Tuck and others should be required to list ALL their government affiliations. But for the time being, we'd settle for the Congressional clerks' offices cracking down on lobbyists who don't follow the current lobbying disclosure law (pdf).