The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis to Speak at Hill Press Conference and Panel Discussion

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis served two deployments in Afghanistan.

By BRYAN RAHIJA

Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, the man who risked his career to raise credible challenges about the Pentagon's rosy depictions of progress in the Afghan war, finally has an opportunity to speak to Congress and the public. The 17-year Army veteran and Ridenhour award-winner is set to give his analysis to Members of Congress today at a 2:00 p.m. press conference and panel discussion.

In his prepared remarks, Davis asked why congressional leaders had not done more to get to the bottom of what conditions were like in the war-torn country:

With all appropriate respect and honor to this body, I must again ask: how could it be that not one committee or sub-committee chairman or chairwoman in the entire United States Congress finds the matter of sufficient importance that they will take action to ascertain the truth?

Davis made headlines back in February after the Armed Forces Journal published a bombshell of an op-ed he wrote titled "Truth, lies and Afghanistan." In the piece, Davis argued that the public wasn't getting the full story about Afghanistan:

Morning Smoke: SEC Says Big Firms Are 'Tempting,' But We Like to Take on the Little Guys

MORNING SMOKE

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

Financial Oversight

SEC: Taking on Big Firms is 'Tempting,' But We Prefer Picking on Little Guys
Mat Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Facing Down the Bankers
Annie Lowrey, The New York Times

SEC Reviewing Finra's Pay Packages
Jessica Holzer, The Wall Street Journal

After JPMorgan Loss, U.S. Regulator Ponders Tighter Volcker Rule
Silla Brush, Bloomberg

Open Government

Congress Will Allow Energy Dept. to Reclassify Nuke Info
Steven Aftergood, Secrecy News

National Security

IG Finds Holes in Army Financial Data System
Matthew Weigelt, Federal Computer Week

Proof that Military Chips From China Are Infected?
Defense Tech

Hunt Says LCS Freedom 'Is Fit for Service'
Christopher P. Cavas, Navy Times

Pentagon's No. 2 Leader Criticizes Lawmakers' Add-Backs to Defense Bill
Charles S. Clark, Government Executive

Whistleblower Issues

Woman Who Couldn't Be Intimidated By Citigroup Wins $31 Million
Bob Ivry, Bloomberg Markets Magazine

Most Whistleblowers Report Internally, Study Finds
C.M. Matthews, The Wall Street Journal

Government Oversight

SEC Names Interim Inspector General
Karey Wutkowski, Reuters

Bill Moving Through the House Today Sanctions Greater FDA Secrecy

By SUZANNE DERSHOWITZ

Yesterday, POGO and a range of other good government organizations sent a letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Ranking Member Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) opposing a harmful provision of the Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012 (H.R. 5651).

As stated in the letter, Section 812 of the bill would allow the FDA to deny public access to “any information relating to drugs obtained from a Federal, State, or local government agency, or from a foreign government agency, if the agency has requested that the information be kept confidential.” This could have real negative consequences by unnecessarily increasing secrecy at the FDA and restricting the public’s right to know about critical health and safety risks.

The House is scheduled to vote on this legislation today, and POGO is urging Members to remove (or substantially narrow) Section 812 before it’s too late. In the Senate version of the bill (S. 3187), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) offered an amendment aimed at addressing these problems. The Senate unanimously adopted his amendment, which limits the scope to cover information voluntarily provided by foreign governments, requires that requests to keep information confidential be in writing, and specifies a time frame after which the information will no longer be considered confidential.

As we wrote in the letter, we understand that the intent of the provision is to promote information-sharing between foreign governments and the FDA. The language in H.R. 5651, however, is misguided. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) already provides exemptions to safeguard against the release of these kinds of protected records. Section 812 goes beyond its intent—it is written so broadly that it could prevent the release of information that the FDA is currently required to disclose.

What’s at stake here is the public’s access to information about how the FDA conducts the people’s business. In a bid for government openness and accountability, concerned organizations and individuals are urging Congress to strike down this provision.

Suzanne Dershowitz is POGO's public policy fellow.

Follow @SuzieDershowitz

Photo via GenBug.

Morning Smoke: Why Senior Executives Should Pay SEC Fines Instead of Institutions

MORNING SMOKE

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

 

Financial Oversight

Why SEC Settlements Should Hold Senior Executives Liable
Claire A. Hill and Richard W. Painter, The New York Times

Bachus' SRO Bill Blasted by Government Watchdog
Melanie Waddell, AdvisorOne 

Embracing Finra, 'the Devil We Know'
Ben Protess, The New York Times 

Whistleblower Issues

Bank of America Whistleblower Receives $14.5 Million in Mortgage Case
Rick Rothacker, Reuters

Conflicts of Interest

Grassley Probes NIH Over New Nemeroff Grant
Ed Silverman, Pharmalot

No Disclosure Please, We're Contractors
Gavin Aronsen, Mother Jones

Open Government

Instead of Ramping Up, Declassification Activity Slowed in 2011
Steven Aftergood, Secrecy News

National Security

Mixed Messages on LCS Program
Michael Fabey, Aviation Week

Does F-35 Have Same Oxygen Problems as F-22? More Oversight Needed, Say Experts

By DANA LIEBELSON

Given the recent allegations by F-22 Raptor pilots that the aircraft has potentially deadly oxygen-system problems, it’s not surprising that questions are also being raised about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—which has strikingly similar design elements. Lockheed Martin, which makes both aircrafts, has recently said that “the F-35 and F-22 have common aircraft oxygen system suppliers, but the systems are very different.”

But a ‘concerned’ POGO commenter asked us if there’s any chance the F-35 could have the same oxygen problems, anyways. Not content to simply parrot Lockheed’s answer, we decided to pose the question to two defense experts: Winslow Wheeler, the director of POGO's Straus Military Reform Project and Pierre Sprey, who co-designed the F-16 and A-10 jets.

You can read their full responses below, but the short answer is, there is still a lot more monitoring that needs to be done on the F-35 before Lockheed or the Air Force can conclusively say that the aircraft is safe (not to mention, the F-22—which very clearly appears to have problems—needs to be grounded until the oxygen malfunction is resolved.) The elite pilots who fly these planes deserve prompt, complete independent oversight. 

A Peek at Pentagon Pork: A Taxpayers' Guide

WINSLOW WHEELER

This article originally appeared in TIME's Battleland.

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee (sometimes called the HAC-D) have reported their separate defense bills to the House of Representatives (both bills purport to address both spending and policy). The House has already debated and passed the HASC's "National Defense Authorization Act" (NDAA); it will soon debate the defense appropriations bill. Let's check out what they’ve drafted and try to figure out which panel is the House’s reigning Pentagon pork king.

The press has covered both bills with multiple daily articles; the House debate, while truncated, got into all sorts of nuts and bolts, including amendments on labor practices in DOD contracting, military depot policy, and protection of sea otters in navy exercise areas, among many other things. In all, there were 141 amendments allowed for debate. That level of legislative and journalistic activity would suggest that the bill and its accompanying “committee report” were thoroughly scrubbed to make sure there were no slimy invertebrates hiding under rocks in the depths of the bill or its report.

Think no such thing.

The sea otters and other minutia addressed in amendments, for example, reflect the energy and thoroughness of lobbyists, not of congressional staff or others. Otherwise, some particularly odious elements of the HASC bill would hopefully have been challenged by one of the very few existing guardians of ethics and governance in the House. Had they or their staffs combed thoroughly through the bill and report they would have uncovered and, I hope, exposed that everlasting object of interest by Members of Congress: pork.

Surely, that’s impossible. Even if reluctantly, Congress reformed itself on pork. Right? Indeed, it says so right here on page 530:

POGO Opposes Bill to Shift Oversight of Investment Advisors to Industry

By ANDREW WYNER

POGO sent a letter today to the House Committee on Financial Services stating opposition to the Investment Oversight Act of 2012 (H.R. 4624), which would, as we argued in the letter, "delegate governmental authority for the oversight of investment advisers to one or more industry-funded self-regulatory organizations (SROs)."

The Committee is scheduled to examine the legislation at a hearing next Wednesday.

POGO’s disapproval of H.R. 4624 stems largely from the high costs associated with shifting governmental authority to SROs—including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the largest SRO—to regulate investment advisers. POGO is also concerned by FINRA’s conflicts of interest, lack of transparency and accountability, lobbying expenditures, and its executive compensation packages. Based on FINRA’s flaws, POGO believes Congress should reduce the authority of FINRA and other SROs instead of handing them more authority to oversee investment advisers.

According to a December 2011 analysis conducted by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), authorizing an SRO to oversee investment advisers will cost taxpayers anywhere from $550 million to $670 million each year.

Morning Smoke: Finding the Hidden Pork in the House Defense Bills

MORNING SMOKE

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

National Security

A Peek at Pentagon Pork: A Taxpayers' Guide
Winslow Wheeler, Battleland

Pentagon Spending Spree: Throwing Money at the Military Doesn't Buy Us Safety
Elizabeth Rose, Other Words

Does Anybody Still Need Aircraft Carriers?
Tom de Castella, BBC

Building a True 21st Century U.S. Military
Douglas A. Macgregor, Battleland

Lockheed: F-35 Oxygen System 'Very Different' Than Troubled Sibling
John T. Bennett, U.S. News & World Report

IT Company Helps Pentagon Try Out Fast-Track Acquisition Approach
Zachary Fryer-Biggs, Defense News

When the Tragedy of Two Marines Killed in a Crash Becomes a Nightmare
Miranda Green, The Daily Beast

Vintage Spy Plane Gives High-Tech Drone a Run for Its Money
Larry Abramson, NPR

Financial Oversight

Bank Regulators Under Scrutiny in JPMorgan Loss
Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess, The New York Times

Contract Oversight

DoD's Contract Audit Agency Hobbled by Backlog
Sarah Chacko, Federal Times

Energy Issues

BP Probed on Leak Estimates
Tom Fowler, The Wall Street Journal

Shifting Nuclear Boondoggles to the Pentagon Won't Make Them Any Less of a Boondoggle

By MIA STEINLE

Earlier this month, the House saw a desperate--and successful--attempt from Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) to transfer nuclear weapons construction projects from Department of Energy (DOE) authority to the Department of Defense (DoD) in the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As I wrote then, Turner's unusual amendment was an obvious attempt to undermine congressional appropriators and the White House, both of whom had already said no to funding a certain costly, proposed nuclear facility in FY 2013. While his amendment made it into the final version of the House NDAA, it looks like some powerful Senators are displeased.

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), respectively the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote to leaders in the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, urging them to keep nuclear construction projects under DOE authority. Of particular interest were the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF)—multi-billion dollar projects that have been plagued by budget overruns and schedule delays. Turner made a point of specifically including these two projects in his amendment.

But, as Feinstein and Alexander wrote, the Army Corps of Engineers—which would oversee construction of these projects should they be transferred to DoD authority—doesn’t have the right experience to build these “one-of-a-kind facilities.” What’s more, the Senators expressed concern that these multi-billion dollar nuclear facilities would “compete” with military facilities projects for funding, citing training facilities for troops and modernized barracks.

SASC Completes Markup of $630 Billion Dollar Defense Budget, but the Public is Left in the Dark

By SUZANNE DERSHOWITZ

Yesterday the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) debated and voted on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, authorizing an enormous sum of taxpayer dollars—more than $630 billion--and defining important policy on issues ranging from nuclear weapons facilities to contractor pay. POGO would have liked to share our opinion on the bill's provisions, but we can’t.

That’s because the SASC markup takes place behind closed doors (even though the House process is open to the public), and even now that the votes have taken place, the Committee has not released the bill. Concerned citizens and watchdog organizations alike are effectively shut out of the debate and left in the dark.

All we have to go on is this cryptic 30-plus page press release.

Stay tuned...

Suzanne Dershowitz is POGO's public policy fellow.

Follow @suziedershowitz

Image via alumroot.

China Counterfeit Case Shows Importance of Holding Defense Contractors Accountable

By DANA LIEBELSON

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) released a report this week revealing that Chinese companies have been supplying counterfeit electronic parts to the U.S. military--and they're being used in everything from helicopters to missile interceptors. Unsurprisingly, U.S. taxpayers are outraged at the Chinese government, which not only failed to stop the problem, but occasionally stonewalled U.S. investigators.

But here's what taxpayers should also be outraged about: before this investigation, U.S. defense contractors used to bill taxpayers for replacing these counterfeit parts. 

According to the Senate report—which represents the culmination of a SASC investigation that began in March 2011—investigators found 1,800 cases of suspect counterfeit parts in the defense supply chain. In these cases, more than one million parts were supplied by more than 650 companies and their own networks of suppliers. As Bloomberg pointed out, suspect and questionable parts went into equipment or aircrafts produced by contractor giants Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and L-3 Communications.

“DoD and defense contractors [were] frequently unaware of the ultimate source of electronic parts used in defense systems,” the Committee wrote, adding that “the defense industry routinely failed to report cases of suspect counterfeit parts.”

Nuclear Amendments to Major Defense Bill Threaten Public Health

By MIA STEINLE

When the House Armed Services Committee finally called it a night on May 10 at 2:20 a.m., its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2013 weighed in at over 500 pages with about $600 billion in planned spending. After another week-long marathon, this time on the House floor, the bill had swelled to over 1,000 pages to accommodate dozens of amendments. Among these amendments—many of which will fly under the public’s radar, on account of the sheer size of the bill—are several that threaten to put at risk the health and safety of countless Americans.

As POGO Director of Public Policy Angela Canterbury and I wrote earlier this week, the bill signifies a significant roll back of oversight at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the independent Department of Energy (DOE) agency that oversees the nation’s contractor-operated nuclear weapons labs. This is a troubling move, given the labs’ track record of consistently poor management:

The House NDAA gives the troubled NNSA labs the ability to self-report and self-regulate their performance. It also lowers the bar for health, safety, and security standards by eliminating cabinet-level oversight of the labs by the Department of Energy (DOE) and shifting the power to the NNSA and its contractors. It also weakens the authority of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a panel that provides the only real independent oversight of nuclear safety.

Simply put, this means that fewer checks are in place to ensure the health and safety of the employees who work at the nuclear labs and the residents who live nearby.  It also means less scrutiny to ensure that taxpayers who foot the bill for these costly nuclear labs don’t take a huge hit.