The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Continuing Security Concerns at Los Alamos National Laboratory

                 

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Continuing Security Concerns at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Project On Government Oversight's Executive Director Danielle Brian's testimony.  She starts around 56:25 on the video.

Reliably Unreliable Warheads

Could the Department of Energy (DoE) be engaging in a form of planned obsolescence when it comes to our nation’s nuclear stockpile? That unsettling thought may not be far from the truth.

In an article published today by the LA Times, Ralph Vartabedian reports on serious problems at the DoE’s Pantex facility in Amarillo, TX. One of these problems is the backlog of surveillance testing on nuclear weapons. Such tests are conducted annually to ensure the reliability of these weapons. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report describes the process:

A key task of the Complex is to monitor warheads for signs of actual or future deterioration. This work is done through a program that conducts routine surveillance of warheads in the stockpile by closely examining 11 warheads of each type per year to search for corrosion, gases, and other evidence of deterioration. Of the 11, one is taken apart for destructive evaluation, while the other 10 are evaluated nondestructively and returned to the stockpile. In addition, an Enhanced Surveillance Program supports surveillance; its goal “is to develop diagnostic tools and predictive models that will make it possible to analyze and predict the effects that aging may have on weapon materials, components, and systems.”

When routine surveillance detects warhead problems, the Complex applies knowledge gained through SSP to fix problems through the Life Extension Program (LEP), which attempts “to extend the stockpile lifetime of a warhead or warhead components at least 20 years with a goal of 30 years” beyond the originally anticipated deployment time.

When this routine process breaks down, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine which weapons problems need to be addressed by the LEP. As a result, reliability of the weapons themselves begins to suffer.

Although the man in charge of the nuclear weapons complex, Marty Schoenbauer, seems to disagree with this fact, those who have actually worked in the testing program concur:

But Ralph Levine, who once ran the Energy Department's nuclear weapons surveillance testing, wrote a letter in 2005 asserting the backlog would allow defects in nuclear weapons to go undetected for years. As a result, he said, Energy officials removed him as manager of the program, and he retired last year.

John Duncan, who until four years ago headed surveillance testing at Pantex for Sandia National Laboratory, agreed that testing problems at Pantex are undermining confidence in the stockpile. Even today, the certifications of nuclear weapons are being made with less certainty than scientists should have, Duncan and Levine said.

So in the face of a backlog on surveillance testing and its importance for weapons reliability, it makes sense that the DoE would seek to expand the program. Yet the Department has done the exact opposite, stating last Friday that it plans to decrease the number of tests conducted annually.

Why would the DoE do such a thing? The most likely answer is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program avidly supported by nuclear labs and the Department. By diminishing the ability of existing programs to ensure weapons reliability, approval for increased funding and acceptance of the RRW program by Congress would be virtually guaranteed.

If this is a case of planned obsolescence, it’s an extremely dangerous game.

-- John Pruett

Pelosi's aircraft fiasco is Hastert's folly

I find it interesting that the Air Force is complaining that the Speaker of the House wants to use the Speakers aircraft.

We did not hear a peep out of the Air Force when Speaker Hastert inserted an earmark in the FY 2003 Air Force appropriation requiring them to lease 4 large aircraft to support the Congress. The lease provision was inserted the year before the Air Force initiated its cockamamie program to lease 100 large tanker aircraft. It would appear that the initial 4 were a stalking horse for how far credulity could be stretched in the name of pork and support for the Defense contractor who had recently moved their headquarters to the Speakers home state.

The only reason for the earmark-directed lease was to ensure that they would not be visible in the appropriated budget. As a lease cost, they were lost in the amorphous Operations and Maintenance appropriation. The lease rationalization for these aircraft was even more specious than that attempted for the tankers in as much as 2 of the large aircraft were sitting in the desert and could have been purchased for a fraction of the ultimate lease cost.

One is left with the impression that the Air Force is trying to play Politics.

-- Ron Garant
Former Director of Investment Appropriations,
DoD Office of the Comptroller

Crude Awakening: Interior Faces Congress

This week looks to be a busy one for the Department of the Interior (DOI). Three Congressional committees have scheduled hearings, and between new twists in the Abramoff scandal and royalties mismanagement, Interior officials will have plenty of explaining to do.

On Tuesday, the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee will meet to examine Interior’s management of offshore oil and gas royalties. Discussion is sure to turn quickly to the botched 1998-99 offshore leases that could result in the loss of several billion dollars in royalty revenues.

Also prepare for some possible awkwardness on the part of Interior officials. Just last week, Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director “Johnnie” Burton announced the promotion of Chris Oynes, the person who was entrusted with overseeing the ’98-’99 leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Oynes will now be in charge of MMS’ entire offshore program. This is some tough news to chew on considering that the agency has already created a new five-year plan to lease out previously-prohibited offshore areas. Meanwhile, Burton has yet to appear publicly before Congress to explain why she failed to act on the ’98-’99 leases.

Next in line, Wednesday’s hearing will mark the opening salvo of what promises to be a series of oversight hearings in the House Committee on Natural Resources. In a press release issued today, Chairman Nick Rahall stated:

“I am committed to pursuing an aggressive and comprehensive hearing schedule to delve into a host of matters that are plaguing the Interior Department.  This oversight hearing is the first in what is planned as an ongoing effort in the weeks and months ahead to examine the agency across the board – from problems at the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Fish and Wildlife Service,” Rahall said.

“This Committee has an obligation, one that it has not pursued sufficiently in recent years, to ensure that the Interior Department is serving the interests of the American people and not the interests of a few well-connected individuals or well-placed bureaucrats,” Rahall continued.

The hearing, entitled “Reports, Audits and Investigations by the GAO and the IG Regarding the Department of the Interior,” certainly won’t pull any punches. Chairman Rahall made the royalty issue one of his top priorities in his “110th Congress Agenda of American Values” where he declared, “The oil and gas royalties system has never worked. Instead, it has proven to be a form of corporate welfare that has enabled oil and gas producers to undercut payments due the American people.”

Finally, to round out the week, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources meets this Thursday to look at President Bush’s fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Interior. The committee will likely address the Proposed 2007-2012 Five-Year Outer-Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing program, which still requires an Environmental Impact Statement to proceed.

When the full committee last dealt with this topic on January 25th, members raised concerns about whether the new leasing plan was even necessary considering the fact that many pre-existing leases remain undeveloped. Other issues included the potential environmental damages resulting from common drill leaks and the unreliability of dated resource estimates. 

Although this week’s round of hearings is unlikely to see any new revelations or significant legislation, it definitely sets the pace for what will prove to be a long-overdue, thorough investigation into past DOI mismanagement and an earnest attempt to restore accountability.

Update:  The House Committee on Natural Resources has rescheduled Wednesday's hearing for this Friday, February 16. The room remains the same. For more information, visit their calendar page.

-- John Pruett

Is This a Stickup?

Climb aboard, the train is leaving the station! Family members are being hired up by railroad interests facing an overhaul of rail safety rules.

"Like every other industry, we felt it was important to have representatives from both the Democratic and Republican side," said Peggy Nasir, spokeswoman for the Association of American Railroads, which hired Shuster, Lipinski, and Sante and Michael Esposito. "We are meeting all the standards we need to meet for lobbying."

The lobbyist hires to which Nasir is referring are: Former Representative Bud Shuster of transportation pork barrel fame and father of sitting Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA) on the House railroads subcommittee, Former Representative William Lipinski and father of sitting Congressman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) also on the subcommittee, and the father and brother of majority staff director of the subcommittee, Jennifer Esposito.

An investigation by USA Today last year found that “in 2005 alone, appropriations bills contained about $750 million for projects championed by lobbyists whose relatives were involved in writing the spending bills.” That’s a lotta dough! And makes a few of us wonder, is this a stickup?

-- Beth Daley

Exposing the Dept. of Job Security

Richard Skinner, Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and David Walker, Comptroller General with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), appeared today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to discuss management and contract problems within DHS. The particular programs under scrutiny were the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and Deepwater, but the hearing also highlighted more fundamental concerns about contracting and transparency in the Department.

In his written testimony (pdf) for a similar hearing yesterday in the House Homeland Security Committee, Walker stated:

...DHS has not made its management or operational decisions transparent enough so that Congress can be sure it is effectively, efficiently, and economically using the billions of dollars in funding it receives annually, and is providing the levels of security called for in numerous legislative requirements and presidential directives. Our work for Congress assessing DHS’s operations has been significantly hampered by long delays in granting us access to program documents and officials, or by questioning our access to information needed to conduct our reviews. We are troubled by the impact that DHS’s processes and internal reviews have had on our ability to assess departmental programs and operations. Given the problems we have experienced in obtaining access to DHS information, it will be difficult for us to sustain the level of oversight that Congress has directed and that is needed to effectively oversee the department, including the level of oversight needed to assess DHS’s progress in addressing the existing transformation, integration, and programmatic challenges identified in this statement.

Walker’s testimony further relates that these sort of impediments were encountered during his investigation of the Deepwater and SBI programs. A Tuesday article by Chris Strohm for the publication CongressDaily looks at one of the main individuals at DHS behind both Skinner and Walker’s investigative difficulties:

Walker said the problem is "systemic" and not the fault of any single individual. But he complained that GAO has had to go through the office of General Counsel Philip Perry. Perry is married to Elizabeth Cheney, a former State Department official who is one of the vice president's two daughters. Walker said it is his understanding that people from Perry's office have to review documents GAO seeks before they are released and selectively sit in on interviews with department employees.

"When you have more lawyers in a meeting than program people, you know you got a problem. Something needs to be done about this," Walker said. "There needs to be an understanding that if the general counsel's office is going to get involved, it's clearly got to be the exception rather than the rule," he added. "Right now the system is structured to delay, delay, delay ... We haven't had a situation where they refuse information but it might take months to get it."

Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner said his investigations have also been hindered. "We're experiencing the same problem," said Skinner, who added his office is "oftentimes" told who they can interview and that it sometimes takes weeks to get documents.

Perry’s questionable behavior extends far beyond nepotism and delaying investigations. He’s also a pro at jumping back and forth between government and the private sector, doing what he can to benefit industry along the way. After Bush became president, Perry moved from being a junior partner at the DC law firm Latham & Watkins to holding the position of Associate-Attorney General for the Department of Justice. He then moved to the Office of Management and Budget as General Counsel, where he had a hand in drafting plans for DHS. In 2003, he returned to Latham & Watkins as a member of their Homeland Security practice group and lobbied on behalf of Lockheed Martin and other companies.

Committee Republicans Call on Whistleblowers

House Republicans on the Oversight & Government Reform Committee have decided to follow the example set by their Democratic colleagues and reach out to whistleblowers and private citizens for information on waste, fraud, and abuse. Ranking member Rep. Tom Davis issued a press release yesterday announcing the creation of an email address, a whistleblower tip-line, and an online “reform suggestion box” to “help citizens communicate with the committee.” Davis states:

“Real oversight gathers evidence and follows the facts to sound conclusions,” said Davis. “Real reform starts with good ideas from the people. Whether the subject is Iraq reconstruction or why Sandy Berger never was given a polygraph, we want to help gather the facts that drive constructive oversight.”

This announcement comes a week before the House Committee, chaired by Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, is scheduled to markup a bill on whistleblower protections. The Project On Government Oversight, which will testify at the hearing, believes that both parties’ efforts to encourage communication between whistleblowers and Congress further demonstrate the importance of insider knowledge and adequate protections for those who have the courage to step forward.

-- John Pruett

Are Contractors the 4th Branch of Government?

Documents obtained by POGO (which were the focus of the Sunday New York Times story “In Washington, Contractors Take On Biggest Role Ever”) are drawing attention to the federal government’s movement toward downsizing, but at the expense of hiring contractors to perform jobs that were once, and perhaps should be, performed by career civil servants.  In fact, if you have ever contacted a federal agency you might have been talking or emailing with a contractor employee rather than a civil servant.

POGO’s most recent finding (pdf) involves the hiring of CACI to assist the General Services Administration (GSA) “in processing the backlog of suspension and debarment cases.”  Simply stated, six CACI consultants were hired at $104 per hour for 3 ½ months to help determine if other federal contractors should receive future contracts.  Although it nearly suspended or debarred itself, CACI was placed in a position to determine the future of government spending and federal contractors, including potential competitors of CACI.

The $380 billion question is why the government would contract out such a core government function – a function that should be performed by civil servants.  Additionally, one has to question the lofty $343,000 (or nearly $60,000 per consultant) price-tag for the temporary work.

The outsourcing dilemma also raises the question of who is really controlling the American government.  If so many jobs are being performed by contractor employees and senior-level appointees, is the government a government of the people or a government of corporate interests?

 

UPDATE: See POGO's alert for more info.

-- Scott Amey