The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Contagious Crossings

The multiple crossings into this country by a Mexican citizen with a highly-contagious form of tuberculosis continue to raise concerns.  Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-Maine) are not about to let up on the Homeland Security Department.  Last week during a hearing on terrorist watch lists Collins in particular made clear she was not satisfied with the responses to her questions about the case from department official Paul Rosenzweig.  Now they have fired off a letter to Secretary Michael Chertoff demanding he respond by November 6th to a rather daunting list of 31 questions surrounding the case of Amado Isidro Armendariz Amaya, who has been diagnosed with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). 

In their cover letter they point out that Amaya “was allowed to repeatedly enter the U.S. between April 16 and May 31, 2007, despite a lookout being placed in the CBP computer-based screening system for him."  Furthermore they write that: 

We are troubled by the slow release of information to our Committee from the Department about the Amaya case, some of which has proven to be contradicted by other government sources.  In particular, we are concerned that the Department claimed to have originally received only an alias for Mr. Amaya, but later reported that it received a complete last name and middle name for him.  Furthermore, DHS officials reported that they could not provide the Committee with information about the flights that Mr. Amaya took within the U.S. after DHS was alerted to his health status.  The CDC, however, stated that it had received Mr. Amaya’s flight information from the Office of Health Affairs at DHS.   We expect to receive complete and accurate information on this case in a timely manner.

The letter also points out that during the same time period, Department officials were:

...briefing Congress on the case of Andrew Speaker, an American who was also infected with MDR-TB and who was also admitted to the U.S. despite CBP having placed a lookout for him in their computer-based screening system.  During the week of June 4, 2007, personnel from the Department, including the Chief Medical Officer and CBP who were involved in both the Amaya and Speaker cases, briefed the Committee on the vulnerabilities in our border systems that allowed Andrew Speaker to re-enter the U.S undetected.  However, no one from DHS alerted the Committee of the Mexican national who had entered the U.S. undetected 21 times in the seven prior weeks.   We find it troubling that no one from your Department thought it prudent to advise the Senate of the Amaya case at the time that the Committee was investigating the vulnerabilities that allowed another person with MDR-TB and on a watch list to enter the U.S. undetected.

“Troubling” …. is that a polite way of saying “we’re mad as hell”?

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Contractors Feting Themselves

Last week, the information technology (IT) industry trade publication Government Computer News, held its annual Awards Gala at the Washington Hilton - known as the Academy Awards night for government contractors. This contractor-sponsored extravaganza honored government and industry partnering to achieve “excellence.” We’re not sure what that means exactly, but a number of reports from the dinner indicate that contractors feted themselves for landing large government contract awards, and for generally doing everything they can to permeate all facets of government agency operations, making the distinctions between public servants and their contractor “partners” ever more blurred. Particularly disturbing were the honors bestowed on current government executives, including General James Cartwright, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, and John Johnson, Assistant Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at the General Services Administration. These government leaders may very well merit praise for their service on behalf of the public, but it is quite disconcerting to see that praise lavished upon them by contractors who receive billions of dollars a year in contract awards from the organizations these people run.

The sponsors of the event claim that over 1,000 people attended the black-tie reception and dinner in the main ballroom where they dined on scallops and prime rib.  It was reportedly an impressive sight, with a multimedia display, and videos of leading government and industry executives touting the benefits of “partnering.” As might be expected, the event was underwritten by “sponsors,” which included virtually every large and mid-sized government IT contractor, including Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Northrop-Grumman.

However, everyone I talked to said the evening’ highlight was clearly when Hall of Fame Inductee and contractor lobbyist, Steven Kelman spoke. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Mr. Kelman, he is widely credited as being the architect of our government’s current contracting system. Kelman, who as always was introduced as a Harvard Kennedy School professor and former OMB Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator (ignoring his role as industry lobbyist), addressed the crowd twice -- the first time through a short video sequence streamed on the large display screens in the banquet hall, and then again “live” when he was presented with his Hall of Fame award.

Chertoff Explains His Framework

Last week we noted that three key Senators had expressed disappointment with the Homeland Security Department’s draft National Response Framework.  In particular, Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Subcommittee Chair Mary Landrieu (D-La.), expressed unhappiness that changes they thought they had wrought in the structure and duties of FEMA following its Katrina debacle had been ignored by DHS in the “Framework.”

In a speech on Friday to California firefighters the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff tried to explain what the Framework is and is not.  Here are excerpts:

FCMD Contractor In the News – BP’s Bad Day

In compiling POGO’s Federal Contractor Misconduct Database, it is rare to find a contractor involved in more than one misconduct instance in a single week. Needless to say, we were astounded last week when we found a contractor involved in six instances – all in one day.

October 25, 2007 was just another day for most of us, but to the officers, directors and shareholders of energy giant BP Amoco P.L.C. (now BP P.L.C.), it might earn the nickname “Black Thursday.” On that day, it was announced that various divisions of BP racked up over $380 million in criminal and civil fines and restitution in five separate instances involving federal regulators and prosecutors. In the sixth instance, a federal grand jury indicted four former employees.

Here’s a quick rundown of BP’s very busy day:

    * The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) assessed a $7 million civil penalty on BP Energy Company for violating FERC’s capacity release policy.

    * BP Products North America pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act and agreed to pay a $50 million criminal fine and serve three years of probation.

    * British Petroleum Exploration pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and agreed to pay $20 million in fines and restitution and serve three years of probation.

    * A former gasoline trader for BP Products North America paid a $400,000 civil penalty to settle charges of violating the Commodity Exchange Act.

    * The Department of Justice agreed to defer prosecution of BP Products North America for violating the Commodity Exchange Act in exchange for $303 million in fines and restitution and cooperating with the government’s ongoing investigation. That day, a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted four former BP America employees in the matter.

It would almost break your heart, were it not for the fact BP boasted $22 billion in profits last year, and oil is currently trading at over $90 a barrel. If paying exorbitant gas prices alone doesn’t elicit your sympathy, consider that BP is one of the federal government’s largest contractors, scooping up over a billion dollars in contracts each year despite regularly committing infractions like the ones described above.

With the addition of these six instances, BP now has the second highest misconduct penalty dollar amount with $1.1 billion. It ranks behind another oil company, Exxon Mobil, with a penalty amount over four times larger. That amount could grow significantly if the Supreme Court, which today agreed to hear a case involving the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, upholds the $2.5 billion punitive damages award.

-- Neil Gordon

Fireworks Over SBA Inspector General Report

Senator John Kerry threw down the gauntlet yesterday over a Small Business Administration Inspector General report (pdf) that got the heavy black marker treatment from the agency. According to a release from Kerry’s office:

The Small Business Administration (SBA) took the highly unusual step of requesting that the Inspector General redact large portions of its report, including the majority of its recommendations, the agency’s responses to those recommendations, and the Inspector General’s comments on the agency’s response.

And, according to Senator Kerry’s letter to the SBA Administrator (pdf), “The OIG has stated that it does not necessarily agree with the extent of the redactions, and I am inclined to agree.”

In fact, the redactions were so extreme that they included the first three of the IG’s recommendations, and both the SBA’s response to the recommendations and the IG’s reply to that response.

An unusual note by the SBA Office of General Counsel prefaces the report and draws attention to the extensive redactions: "Although the Office of the Inspector General does not necessarily agree with the extent of, as a courtesy, we have agreed to redact this text." [emphasis added]

Just in case you think the IG protests too much, check out the Results in Brief section, pp. 4-7 of the report.  That’s a huge waste of a lot of perfectly good black ink.

There is often tension between government agencies and their Inspector General watchdogs who can be the bearer of bad news about those agencies. POGO has been researching the effectiveness and independence of the IG’s. We’ve already found other instances where IGs have had their reports unnecessarily redacted by agencies or where the agency has simply refused to post an IG’s reports on the web.

Inspector General legislation THAT passed by a vote of 404-11 in the House, despite a Presidential veto threat, would require that all IG reports be posted on the web within three days. The Senate will likely take up corresponding legislation in the coming days.

Meanwhile, Senator Kerry promises a hearing in the near future.

-- Beverley Lumpkin and Beth Daley

Post-Katrina … but Still No Plan

More than two years after the federal government’s failed response to Hurricane Katrina, three Senators say the Homeland Security Department still does not have a satisfactory emergency response plan in place.

In a six-page letter sent late Monday to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Senators Joe Lieberman, (I-Conn.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee; Susan Collins (R-Maine), ranking member of that committee; and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), chair of a disaster recovery subcommittee, expressed disappointment in the department’s draft “National Response Framework (NRF).”

Although the letter praises the department for the improvement in the NRF for using less jargon and fewer acronyms and being more user-friendly than an earlier version, they assert:  “…we still do not have sufficient operational plans for governing the response to disasters. … The continuing lack of such plans is a serious gap in our homeland security.  The draft NRF emphasizes how far away we are from accomplishing this admittedly complex and ongoing, but critically important, task.”

The senators are particularly disturbed at the somewhat cavalier way in which the department apparently dismisses the new role their committee created for the Federal Emergency Management Agency after its Katrina debacle.  Lieberman and Collins take particular pride of authorship in the restructuring of FEMA which they thought they’d accomplished in last year’s Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006.  Their letter points out with dismay that their changes are being ignored:

The draft NRF, however, fails to recognize this expanded and elevated role of FEMA and its Administrator.  In the Roles and Responsibilities chapter, the draft Framework fails to even refer to either FEMA or its Administrator.  Rather, as drafted, the NRF suggests that the Department has delegated key leadership and coordination responsibilities to individuals or entities other than FEMA or its Administrator.  [emphasis in original]

Translation:  what part of CHANGE do you people not understand?

-- Beverley Lumpkin

First Congress, now his peers: More trouble for Cookie

We learn today that State Department Inspector General Howard “Cookie” Krongard is under investigation by the Integrity Committee of the council that coordinates activities of presidentially-appointed IGs, the President’s Committee on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE).

POGO has previously noted the serious questions raised by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about Krongard’s actions. In a scathing 14-page letter sent in September, Chairman Henry Waxman accused Krongard of impeding investigations launched by his staff into allegations of waste and fraud.  A number of those staffers have sought protection under federal whistleblower laws.  Now Government Executive writer Peter Stone quotes another IG staffer who says he was forced out after raising questions about defects in the new US Embassy in Baghdad.

Ralph McNamara, a former deputy assistant IG at State, told Stone he was interviewed in September by FBI agents doing a preliminary inquiry at the behest of the PCIE’s Integrity Committee.

The PCIE exists only under executive order at present.  Current legislation now pending in Congress would establish the council as a statutory body, with a clear line of funding, and delineated responsibilities to coordinate training and professionalism in IG offices throughout the federal government.

After a second letter from Waxman to Krongard in late September that accused him of allowing intimidation of potential witnesses, Krongard hired Barbara “Biz” van Gelder to represent him.  Gov. Exec. quotes Van Gelder saying the allegations about Krongard having impeded investigations were based on “imperfect recollections.”  Van Gelder most recently was in the news defending former White House aide David Safavian, found guilty in June 2006 of lying and obstructing justice as part of the Abramoff scandal.

-- Beverley Lumpkin

Government Audit: Marine Corps Rapid Acquisition System "Not Effective"

InsideDefense.com has a obtained a Naval Audit Service report verifying that urgent requests for capabilities from marines in the field, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, are not being resolved fast enough.  POGO has made this government report available for free here (pdf; note: InsideDefense.com charges for documents).

In sum, the Naval Audit Service concluded that the Urgent Universal Needs Statement (UUNS) process "was not effective" at the time of the audit.  The report is dated September 28, 2007.

The report states that "the effectiveness of the process could not be measured, the ability to accomplish the mission could be impacted, the potential exists for wasted resources, and delivery of required UUNS requirements to Marine Corps warfighters could be delayed."  The primary reason for these potential and real problems are the "lack of oversight and real-time visibility over the UUNS process" which "could delay solutions for [an] identified capability gap."  The Marine Corps could not track where many of the UUNS requests were in the acquisition process.

The audit looked at 29 UUNS requests.  The average time to complete an identification and validation of solutions for capability gaps identified in the UUNSs for these requests was about 6 months.  The audit says that 6 months is "excessive if the requirements are urgently needed by deployed or deploying troops."

Earlier this year, we made available parts of a leaked presentation that was never delivered to senior Defense Department officials earlier this year that made many similar points about the Marine Corps' rapid acquisition process.

One of the most notorious examples of unmet needs were MRAPs (mine resistant ambush protected vehicles), which the Defense Department is now planning on procuring in extremely large quantities (many experts question the numbers the DoD is planning to procure).  Marines in the field requested over 1000 MRAPs in early 2005 (and other identified a need for the vehicles even earlier) and it was not until early this year that either the Marine Corps or Defense Department began to really move.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Want to rummage the government's attic?

Some friends of POGO's have begun a new website that should excite the public, journalists or anyone interested in piercing the veil of government: GovernmentAttic.org.  According to GovernmentAttic.org, "The aim of this web site is to make available materials unavailable elsewhere.  There is no topic-oriented theme to our content.  If we have a theme, it is one of openness, hence the motto: Videre licet."

The first document sets on GovernmentAttic.org are "recent Freedom of Information Act request/processing logs for nearly 50 FOIA offices and, among others, 30 files on other subjects ranging from dog and horse gas mask development to No-Fly lists," a press release (pdf) says.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

This Just In...Whistleblowing is Good for Business

POGO’s 2007 "Baker’s Dozen” of Suggested Congressional Oversight Priorities includes a section calling for the increased protection from retaliation against whistleblowers.  In this section we write:

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency tasked with investigating whistleblower retaliation and disclosures is a failure. The OSC, which is up for reauthorization in 2007, has not lived up to its promise of being a safe haven for whistleblowers. According to its most recent annual report, less than 2.5% of whistleblowers seeking protection from retaliation are given any help at all.

Interestingly, a PricewaterhouseCooper report supports the argument that increased whistleblower protection is beneficial.  In the recently released 2007 Global Economic Crime Survey (pdf), a compelling argument is made that a corporate culture that promotes whistleblowing is actually good for business.

Their wide reaching study included, among other aspects, interviews with over 5,400 companies in 40 countries.  Their survey revealed that “fraud remains one of the most problematic issues for businesses worldwide, with no abatement no matter what a company’s country of operation, industry sector or size.”

The average financial loss, attributed to fraud, over two years per company interviewed, was in excess of 2 million dollars.  That figure does not even begin to take into account the corresponding collateral damage attributed to such aspects as reputational damage and company distractions, which have the potential to make $2 million in losses look like pocket change.

The fear of the aforementioned collateral damage, resulting from fraud being exposed, is often the rationale for intimidating whistleblowers.  However, this report finds that a corporation whose culture does not embrace whistleblowing is actually subject to much more damage due to fraud than a corporation that does embrace whistleblowing. 

Their research revealed that fraud occurred most often when the following two preconditions are present:

1. Perpetrators have deep-seated, personal reasons for engaging in criminal acts; they must have an incentive to commit fraud and be able to rationalise the fraud to themselves.

2. A company that is more likely to victimised by fraud not only lacks sufficient controls to detect fraudulent activity but also lacks ethics, values, programmes and systems that discourage fraud, i.e. a well-developed culture, including systems that encourage and protect employees who expose fraud. [Emphasis added]   

The report then goes on to say:

What can be particularly damaging are situations where employees are unsure about what to do when they become suspicious about the conduct of fellow employees or are themselves confronted with ethical dilemmas.  If a company does not provide clearly-defined channels of communication for its employees it may run the risk of sending the wrong message: that management does not want to hear about problems and/or ethical employees may either be ignored of find themselves the victims of management retaliation.

According to the report, these factors can lead to a “toxic corporate culture,” in which attitudes such as apathy and a disregard for rules, lead to increased instances of fraud.  This corresponding fraud is often exposed by anonymous tip-offs that make headlines and can destroy a company’s reputation.       

Fortunately for the corporate world, companies are starting to recognize the beneficial nature of whistleblowing.  In fact, the report states “...in virtually every region of the world whistle-blowing is playing a role in uncovering the activities of wrongdoers.  More and more companies are now promoting whistle-blowing policies as an integral part of their risk management programmes.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. government has yet to get the message and the American public is footing the bill.  The government is a far cry away from creating a culture that encourages and appreciates whistleblowing. It’s time for Congress to wake up and demonstrate that it both understands the importance of whistleblowing and is willing to take action to create an environment that encourages it.

-- Jake Wiens
   

Laissez-Faire back at ya – contractors shouldn’t control the government

Outsourcing, competitive sourcing, or A-76 … call it by any name, but the federal government continues to allow contractors to play a major role in how the government serves the public. Yesterday’s hearing by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee entitled “Is DHS Too Dependent on Contractors to Do the Government’s Work?,” tackled the very important issue of whether the government has lost control of itself.

The fear is that contractors are performing inherently governmental functions that must be performed by government employees. Federal regulations list some government activities that must be performed by civil servants and other activities that can be performed by contractor employees. A problem arises when contractor employees cross the faint line between those activities.

The Government Accountability Office report (pdf) that was the subject of yesterday’s hearing found that in fiscal year 2005, the DHS spent $1.2 billion contracting for professional and management support services that closely support the performance of inherently governmental functions. The report listed the following activities as “high risk” of approaching the line of work that must be performed by government employees:

• Acquisition support             
• Budget preparation
• Developing or interpreting regulations
• Engineering and technical services
• Intelligence services
• Policy development
• Reorganization and planning

How many people know that contractor employees are writing agency budgets and creating policy?

While contracting for such services has helped a brand-new agency like the DHS fulfill its needs for staff and expertise, the GAO found the DHS comes up short in making sure that vital agency decisions are not being influenced by contractor judgments and that contractors are performing as required. The report highlighted the disturbing example of the Coast Guard hiring a contractor to help determine whether DHS jobs should be contracted out. A conflict of interest? We think so!

By relying too heavily on contractors, agencies like the DHS run the risk of eroding institutional knowledge. The government also risks paying too much for services or not receiving the best possible services for the money. More importantly, the government loses control over its own decision making. Service to the public and not to private interests should always be the goal. We are unsure that companies like Enron, Worldcom, and many large federal contractors think the same way.

-- Neil Gordon and Scott Amey

Get My FBI File

This past June, we blogged about the website “Get Grandpa’s File,” which is an attempt to aid the masses in requesting documents that the FBI kept about their deceased grandparent(s), through the Freedom of Information Act.  Although a useful website for those who are interested in their no longer living grandparent(s) documented activism or tomfoolery, it is not very useful beyond that . . . until now.   

“Get Grandpa’s File” has expanded to include a sister site, entitled “Get My FBI File.”  This site aids people in requesting documents about themselves held by the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, the Secret Service, and the Army Criminal Investigative Command. 

Just like “Get Grandpa’s file,” this new addition aids you in receiving information through the Freedom of Information Act.  Although you certainly have the option of requesting documents about yourself through the FOIA office of any government agency that strikes your fancy, “Get My FBI File” claims their  “...site is a little easier to use and may be more likely to get the records you seek.”

“Get My FBI File” makes the process easier by using software that allows you to simply fill in a few slots with suggested information.  The software subsequently converts that information into a letter addressed to the proper FOIA office.  Of course, if you are worried about your privacy, you can choose which slots you want to leave empty.  The software will then create a letter with blank spaces available for you to handwrite the rest of the information needed to have a successful FOIA request.

Obviously, you may not receive any information about yourself.  Not everyone has a file at the FBI or CIA, but wouldn’t you sleep easier at night if you knew?  All it takes is 5 minutes of filling out slots on a website, a photocopy of your driver license, and postage.  Who wouldn’t sacrifice 5 minutes of their time and some postage to find out what kind of dirt the government has on them?  I know I would.

-- Jake Wiens