The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

New Legislation Seeks to Reform Inspectors General

Senator McCaskill (D-MO) introduced legislation in the Senate yesterday calling for greater independence for Inspector Generals in federal agencies. Representative Jim Cooper (D-TN) has introduced similar legislation in the House earlier in February this year.

The increased attention from Congress on the role of the inspector general is a reaction from a series of recent scandals and controversies that have surrounded the office. Inspectors General at the Department of Commerce, the General Services Administration, and most recently, NASA (for our executive director Danielle Brian’s testimony before a House Committee regarding the NASA IG, click here), have been under attack by Department heads or criticized that they did not maintain adequate independence from the agency that they are supposed to be overseeing. In fact, the House has held a general hearing on the independence of inspector generals and what can be improved to increase the effectiveness of the government’s first line of defense against waste, fraud, and corruption.

These recent problems have shown that something must be done to improve the effectiveness of the IG office, and POGO applauds Congressional attention to this very little-known but very important office in the federal government. A few sections of Senator McCaskill’s legislation that are particularly important:

1) The legislation will allow Inspectors Generals to use independent legal counsel instead of relying on the legal counsel provided by the agency. In order to achieve independence from the agency, IGs must have independent legal advice about how to do their job.

2) No IG can accept bonuses, since they are awarded by the heads of the agencies. Accepting these bonuses creates an inherent conflict-of-interest, since there will be a monetary incentive for IGs to compromise the performance of their job in order to curry favor with the head of the agency.

3) Finally, in the event of a vacancy, the Council on Integrity and Efficiency is authorized to recommend three qualified candidates; however, the Council is not given appointment authority.

Hopefully Congress can come up with effective amendments to the Inspector General Act of 1978 to ensure that the office of the Inspector General is up to the task of overseeing federal agencies in the 21st century.

- Michael Zhou

New TSA Doc Reinforces Its Hypocrisy

Secrecy News released an important document today, a notice from the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regarding “Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and so-called Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII).” According to the notice, among the rules that users of SSI or PII should follow:  “DO always use the SSI header and footer markings for SSI information.”

TSA failed to follow this rule when it sent out a notice to Air Marshals including Robert MacLean about its decision to reduce air marshal coverage of “high-risk” flights amidst heightened warnings based on intelligence that terrorists were planning on hijacking planes in 2003. MacLean blew the whistle on the decision and embarrassed higher-ups at TSA who were forced to change flight schedules. Now MacLean is waging a one-man battle against the Orwellian decision by the TSA to retroactively designate the flight information as SSI: a transparently johnnie-come-lately effort to undercut MacLean’s whistleblower case.

In the meantime, our jaws dropped to the floor when we heard the title of House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment hearing today: “Over-Classification and Pseudo-Classification: Making DHS the Gold Standard for Designating Classified and Sensitive Homeland Security Information.” DHS is likely the worst abuser of pseudo-classification in the federal government. Making it the gold standard, while a laudable goal, might be a tad bit optimistic. TSA Air Marshal P. Jeffrey Black had this to say about the hearing name: “If you looked up the word OXYMORON in the dictionary.... you'd see that title under examples. That’s like saying......    Icebergs are Deceiving and Dangerous:  Making the Titanic the Gold Standard for Cross-Atlantic Travel.”

-- Beth Daley

LOGCAP Episode IV – A New Hope

Yesterday, the Army announced that three companies have been selected under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP IV) contract – the Army’s contract to provide support (deliver of food, water, and spare parts) and operational (dining and laundry facilities) services to U.S. troops.  The winners were Dyncorp, Fluor, and Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR--their release is available here).  If this sounds familiar ... it is!  KBR (LOGCAP I and III) and Dyncorp (LOGCAP II), have held the LOGCAP contract since 1992.

According to the Army’s news release:

Solicitations for the planning support and performance contracts were issued in August 2006, and proposals were accepted in October 2006. A total of two proposals were received for the planning support contract, while six proposals were received for the performance contract. All proposals were evaluated based on a "best value" approach, which examines a company's ability to deliver the best possible service to the government.

In February 2007, the LOGCAP IV planning support contract was awarded to Serco Inc. of Vienna, Va., the North American affiliate of a parent company, Serco Group PLC, based in the United Kingdom. The contract was awarded for one base year with four option years, with a maximum value of up to $45 million per year. Serco Inc. supports the LOGCAP contract by providing a broad range of logistics planning and program support functions.

Additional LOGCAP IV information can be found here.

POGO hopes that some of the past problems (e.g., billing issues and bad service) are corrected with the Army’s new LOGCAP strategy and that the troops are getting the best services that can be provided.

-- Scott Amey

Waxman not melting away

Today, Representative Waxman (D-CA) released another report detailing the status of government contract spending.  The report states that:

• Federal government contract spending has risen from $203.1 billion in FY 2000 to $412.1 billion in FY 2006 (according to FPDS the 2006 number is over $418.9 billion).
• Contracts awarded without full and open competition have increased.  "For the first time on record, more than half of federal procurement spending was awarded through no-bid and limited-competition contracts in 2006."
• Waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting is soaring as a result of the increase in spending, lack of genuine competition, over-reliance on cost-plus and other risky contracts, and stagnation in the acquisition workforce.

Some of these statistics may be the result of the unusual circumstances for FY 2006.  For example, the finding about contracts awarded without full and open competition may be explained by the need to secure contracts rapidly during Hurricane Katrina (the fiscal year started on October 1, 2005 – a little more than a month after Katrina hit the Gulf coast).

Despite the political nature of the report, many of Waxman's findings mirror the findings of the White House-appointed Acquisition Advisory Panel and should not be dismissed as a problem isolated to 2006. Where there is smoke there is fire.  Many of Waxman's findings are the subject of numerous bi-partisan legislative proposals (H.R. 1585 and S. 1547) that would improve the federal contracting system.  POGO highlighted the proposed contracting reforms here.

-- Scott Amey

FEMA May Finally Have the Staff they Need for Adequate Contract Oversight

Almost two years later, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is now 95 percent fully staffed.  This is a vast improvement from staffing levels POGO found during Hurricane Katrina, when FEMA only had 36 of the 60 contracting officers that they needed.  POGO hopes that this means that future disaster responses will not be followed by reports that 15 percent of "purchases did not comply with selected purchase card requirements" and that the levees repaired following the disaster are not ready to handle another storm two years later.  FEMA has made many promises that they will be ready for the next national disaster, but it is worth remembering that FEMA has struggled to learn from its mistakes in the past--FEMA encountered many of the same problems in 1992 as they did in 2005.  Only time will tell if FEMA is truly ready for the next disaster.

-- Mandy Smithberger

P.S. FEMA's Director of Management and Chief Acquisition Officer Deidre Lee urged the need for results-based contracts by using the analogy of micromanaging a haircut (when it's micromanaged the result is a disaster), but I've always been told that nothing annoys a stylist more than when you try to describe the haircut but don't bring a picture of what you want.

CIA's "Family Jewels" Now Public

From the National Security Archive:

Update - June 26, 2007, 1 p.m. - The full "family jewels" report, released today by the Central Intelligence Agency and detailing 25 years of Agency misdeeds, is now available on the Archive's Web site. The 702-page collection was delivered by CIA officers to the Archive at approximately 11:30 this morning -- 15 years after the Archive filed a Freedom of Information request for the documents.

The report is available for download in its entirety and is also split into five smaller files for easier download.

-- John Pruett

Subcommittee on Royalty Management Meets Today in Secret

Last November, Interior Assistant Secretary C. Stephen Allred announced under a swirl of controversy that he had commissioned a new Subcommittee on Royalty Management "to review and provide advice to the department on aspects of mineral revenue collection from federal and Indian lands." But, the Congress, the GAO, and the Interior Inspector General all had open investigations into the very topic of how and why the taxpayer was being deprived of billions of dollars in oil and gas drilling fees known as royalties. So, it did cause some to wonder why another review was needed.

Then came the kerfuffle over who exactly was to chair the new Subcommittee. At first, it was reported that a former longtime American Petroleum Institute lobbyist/lawyer would chair the Subcommittee. The news was, well, a bit like pouring gasoline over the fire. Senator Wyden, for one, asked: "How does it send a message of independence to put at the head of your new watchdog group, somebody with that background?"

Behind the scenes, concerns were raised about whether it was wise to have oil industry confidants probing the enforcement methodologies used by Interior to find and collect from oil companies cheating on their royalty payments. In March, Interior Secretary Kempthorne announced the members of the Subcommittee had been selected. In a noticeable improvement to earlier prospects, the members were to be mostly current or former public or elected officials.

The Royalty Management Subcommittee's first meeting, held today in Washington, DC, will be closed to the public. It is certainly perfectly legal under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for a Subcommittee to have private meetings. However, it is also not the preferable way for a Subcommittee to operate, particularly when dealing with an issue of great interest to the public and the Congress, as is the case here. In addition, Subcommittees are not to be used as a venue for preventing public insight into deliberations.

In response to my letter requesting that the Subcommittee's meetings be open, Assistant Secretary Allred wrote that Subcommittees like this one "are subject to FACA only under very limited circumstances. Accordingly, once the Subcommittee completes its work, its report will be presented to the Royalty Policy Committee at an open meeting."

Yet according to the General Services Administration, which sets FACA rules, "it is not permissable for a parent advisory committee simply to 'rubber-stamp' the advice or recommendations of their subcommittees, thereby depriving the public of its opportunity to know about, and participate contemporaneously in an advisory committee's deliberations. Agencies are cautioned to avoid excluding the public from attending any meeting where a subcommittee develops advice or recommendations that are to be reviewed and considered by the parent advisory committee before being submitted to a Federal officer or agency. These exclusions may run counter to the provisions of the Act that require contemporaneous access to the advisory committee deliberative process."

-- Beth Daley

 

Angler: Cheney's Vice Grip on Executive Power

If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend the ongoing Washington Post series on Vice President Cheney, who the Secret Service code-named "Angler."  The Post's Barton Gellman and Jo Becker obtained unprecedented access to current and former insiders at the highest levels of government to paint an extremely detailed picture of how Cheney has wielded unprecedented vice presidential power to shape some of country's most important policies.  It's this week's must read (so far), in my opinion.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

"Get Grandpa’s FBI File"

The 1966 Freedom of Information Act gives the American public access to FBI files on everything from businesses to the famous deceased, a privilege that is equally as beneficial as it is underused. The new website, "Get Grandpa’s FBI File", hopes to shatter this apathy toward requesting FBI files, a process better known in the political world as “FOIA’ing” a file, by serving as the middle man between Joe Schmo and the FBI. The site asks:

“Did Grandpa Joe run a gambling ring? Did Aunt Mary ever lead an antiwar protest? Did Cousin Gary smuggle booze during prohibition? Was Great-Uncle Fred a communist organizer?”

By filling in a few slots on this site, you can have a FOIA letter in a few seconds to send to the FBI and request their file. Not interested in the past misdeeds of your family, but obsessed with iconic figures from the past? Not only can you request and receive information about Hollywood stars, but you can also head over to the FBI’s Famous Person Listing and mull over the histories of Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe, among others.

If you’re worried about your privacy, "Get Grandpa’s FBI File" guarantees that the server does not save any information after you have printed the letter. When you go to the site, you will need to provide proof that the person in question is actually deceased, which is as simple as printing out a Wikipedia article or submitting a newspaper clipping indicating their date of death.

Both the letter-writing service and the first 100 pages of the FBI file are free. There can be charges as the site explains when you fill out its online form:

“the FBI is allowed by law to charge reasonable fees for Freedom of Information Act requests. The FBI gives you the first 100 pages of any request for free. Files longer than 100 pages are charged at ten cents per page. In practice, if the file is between 100 and 180 pages the FBI tends not to charge because it costs them more to bill you and collect the money from you than it does to just send you the copies and be done with it. But because of all this, your request letter must state some maximum amount you're willing to pay -- usually $30. If your request costs more than this, the FBI will contact you for permission before proceeding on your request. Remember, do not send money with your request: the FBI will bill you if necessary.”

Anyone who files a FOIA request may have a long wait before they receive any information. Once FBI headquarters receives the letter, the letter must make its way to the proper department. Then, that department has 20 business days to respond with a letter, stating whether or not they will send the file. After that letter, they will send the information to you “in a reasonable time afterward,” according to the official FOIA website. And another thing - your request may take a backseat to more pressing file requests from people who will disseminate the information to the public, say during a political scandal, for example.

Although these hurdles might discourage someone from requesting files, the information usually arrives within six weeks, and any person can take legal action against the FBI if they do not respond to their request in a timely matter. And now that "Get Grandpa’s FBI File" writes the letter for you, there really is no reason to ignore your long-burning desire to get the dirt on your dead relatives, your favorite celebrity from the past, or controversial icons with a legacy. Just go to the site, fill in some info, and click “Print letters!”

-- Rachel Banks

CIA's 1974 "Family Jewels" File To Be Finally Declassified

Just in from secret document mavens, the non-profit National Security Archive:

CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden announced today that the Agency is declassifying the full 693-page file amassed on CIA's illegal activities by order of then-CIA director James Schlesinger in 1973--the so-called "family jewels." Only a few dozen heavily-censored pages of this file have previously been declassified, although multiple Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed over the years for the documents. Gen. Hayden called today's release "a glimpse of a very different time and a very different Agency."

...

Then-CIA director Schlesinger commissioned the "family jewels" compilation with a May 9, 1973 directive after finding out that Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and James McCord (both veteran CIA officers) had cooperation from the Agency as they carried out "dirty tricks" for President Nixon. The Schlesinger directive, drafted by deputy director for operations William Colby, commanded senior CIA officials to report immediately on any current or past Agency matters that might fall outside CIA authority. By the end of May, Colby had been named to succeed Schlesinger as DCI, and his loose-leaf notebook of memos totaled 693 pages [see John Prados, Lost Crusader: The Secret Wars of CIA Director William Colby (Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 259-260.]

Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA's illegal domestic operations with a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974 ("Huge C.I.A. Operation Reported in U.S. Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years"), writing that "a check of the CIA's domestic files ordered last year… produced evidence of dozens of other illegal activities… beginning in the nineteen fifties, including break-ins, wiretapping, and the surreptitious inspection of mail."

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Vice President Sought Elimination of Secrecy Oversight Office

Just in from Steve Aftergood's Secrecy News:

The Office of Vice President Dick Cheney proposed to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), the executive branch organization that oversees the national security classification system, after its Director insisted that the Vice President comply with reporting requirements that apply to all executive branch entities.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), chairman of the House oversight committee, said Vice President Dick Cheney's attempt "could be construed as retaliation" against the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO).  An interagency review group rejected the Office of the Vice President's  (OVP) suggestion.

After continually refusing requests by ISOO for data regarding the OVP's use of its classification authority, the Director of ISOO, William Leonard, "formally asked the Attorney General in January 2007 to intervene and to render an interpretation of the executive that would resolve the dispute in one direction or another," Aftergood wrote today.

Interestingly, Vice President Cheney wants the benefits, without the accountability, of both the legislative and executive branches for himself.  OVP spokeswoman Lea Ann McBride told the Chicago Tribune that, "This has been thoroughly reviewed and it's been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to [the office of the vice president], which has both legislative and executive functions."

POGO is glad Waxman is involved.  Contrary to the weak defense of institutional interests in Congress over the last several years, the Bush Administration has been forceful in its overreaching defense of executive power from the start.  Vice President Richard Cheney has been publicly vocal about why he believes in fending off Congressional inquiry in particular:

Mr. Cheney says the Bush policies have sought to restore the proper powers of the executive branch. Explaining the fight to control the task force records to ABC News last January, he said that over more than three decades: "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. We saw it in the War Powers Act, we saw it in the Anti-Impoundment Act. We've seen it in cases like this before, where it's demanded that the presidents cough up and compromise on important principles. One of the things that I feel an obligation on, and I know the president does, too, because we talked about it, is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Brownout Accidents Plague CSAR-X Helicopter

Note: This is an adaptation of a press release POGO put out this morning.

The H-47 Chinook clocked only 7 percent of all U.S. Army helicopter flight hours between February 2003 and June 2005, yet accounted for 30 percent of all brownout mishaps between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, Army data shows.  According to Aerospace Daily and Defense Report yesterday, "Congressional lawmakers are reviewing downwash data for the helicopters that competed for the U.S. Air Force's combat, search and rescue (CSAR-X) helicopter replacement fleet to make sure rescue operations can be done safely." As part of this review, Congress should also look at Army data which show that the Chinook disporportionately suffers accidents from brownout (swirling dust and sand) compared to the rest of the helicopter fleet.

Boeing's H-47 Chinook helicopter was selected for the $10 to $15 billion combat, search, and rescue (CSAR-X) contract last year, but the contract is being re-bid in response to protests by competition.

POGO recommends that the Air Force make a fair comparison of the bidder's proposals on the basis of this and all the other key performance parameters, and that the comparison and standards for comparison be made as transparent as possible to the bidders.

CSAR-X program documents clearly state the need for a helicopter which does not have a rotor downwash that will impede operations.  According to the June 16, 2005, Capability Development Document for Combat Search and Rescue Replacement Vehicle (CSAR-X)/Personnel Recovery Vehicle (PRV):

    The downwash produced by the CSAR-X (PRV), at mid-mission gross weight, in and around the recovery vehicle during a hover in all operational environments must not impede safe and successful recovery of isolated personnel. These environments include, but not limited to, heavily forested steep mountainous, smooth-level, rough-level, smooth-sloped, and roughsloped terrain in calm and high crosswind conditions. Loose particles such as tree limbs, sand, snow, water or rocks in the hover zone at mid-mission gross weights with SCL in Appendix G must not prevent the Recovery Team or injured and un-injured isolated personnel from conducting safe AIE operations (providing emergency life saving measures to isolated personnel, placement of a non-ambulatory personnel in a hoist recovery device, overland movement, self protection, communication, and swimming). (Emphasis added)

However, the Air Force seems to have ignored its own requirement when it picked the Chinook.

Despite the rotor downwash requirement, the initial competition picked a helicopter—Boeing’s  Chinook—that produces significant downwash, and is prone to accidents due to brownout (swirling sand and dust caused by downwash).  The May 2005 article “Brownout on the Battlefield,” in FlightFax, a magazine by the U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center,

    In the past 5 years, there have been 11 Class A, B, and C aviation accidents involving Chinook aircraft with brownouts being the trigger event.  These mishaps have resulted in 16 non-fatal injuries and equipment damage costs in excess of $37 million.

***

    All aircraft will kick up dust, but the Chinook produces the largest dust because of the size of its rotor system and its weight.  (Emphasis added)

A look at data compiled by the U.S. Army shows that the Chinook disproportionately suffers from brownout, and other mishaps and accidents when compared to the overall U.S. helicopter fleet.  Click here to see the data.

-- Nick Schwellenbach