The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

FEMA Waiver Program Limits Debt Recoveries to 4 Cents for Every Dollar Improperly Spent

 

By SCOTT AMEY

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is operating a program that waives erroneous disaster payments in the vast majority of cases. FEMA errors resulted from manual processing errors, duplication of payments, failure of personnel to verify loss, and other mistakes.

According to a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report, the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011 (DARFA) waivers are being granted in nearly all cases. As of June 22, 2012, FEMA adjudicated 7,439 cases totaling $37,094,697 that were initially identified for recoupment. Of that amount, FEMA has granted waivers for applicants in approximately 96 percent of the cases it has reviewed. Specifically, FEMA has granted 7,160 waivers and denied 279 waivers totaling $35,497,327 and $1,594,129, respectively. Additionally, FEMA has expended an estimated $2,589,076 on the program, including planning and implementing provisions of the waiver process, training employees, and conducting waiver activities. For those who weren’t math majors, that means that the government debt waiver program is costing $1 million more than the amount of all program recoveries.

DARFA (see Sec. 565) authorizes FEMA to waive debt owed to the government because of an improper disaster assistance payment if the payment was caused by an error by FEMA, was not the fault of the debtor, and the collection would be against equity and good conscience. A waiver is also dependent on the debtor having a household income of less than $90,000 per year. A household with an annual income of more than $90,000 whose case meets the other qualifying criteria is eligible for a partial waiver. Waivers cannot be granted in cases of fraud by the debtor. The law applies to improper disaster payments made between August 28, 2005 and December 31, 2010.

Tweeting About the Pentagon Budget (#Defense Reporters Sound Off)

By JOE NEWMAN

We've already poked defense industry executives for their "Sky is falling" complaints about possible Pentagon budget cuts. We also sent a letter today to members of Congress arguing that if you're going to "talk the talk" about fiscal austerity, then, pardners, you need to "walk the walk." Hey, and it's just not us saying that -- we had 24 other groups -- conservatives, liberals and moderates -- sign on to our letter.

You'll likely read some of the news coverage, but we thought you might want to see what some of those reporters are tweeting as they listen to the briefings and hearings on the Pentagon budget. Click to the jump to see a Twitter roundup from our favorite defense reporters.

POGO and Allies Urge Senate to Kill Monster Nuclear Facility

By MIA STEINLE

Opposition is mounting to a costly and unnecessary nuclear weapons facility in New Mexico. Today, POGO and ten other organizations that are committed to issues ranging from taxpayer accountability to tracking defense projects sent a letter to Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman and ranking member respectively of the Senate committee that granted funds to this monster of a project for fiscal year 2013. The coalition is urging the senators to consider new government documents that we believe will bolster our calls to cancel the facility.

The monster in question is the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF), a proposed plutonium research facility with an estimated price tag of nearly $6 billion. While the cost for the building has skyrocketed over the past decade, the justification for it remains tenuous, especially given the expectation that existing facilities can carry out its intended nuclear weapons missions.

The President and the agency that oversees this project said as much this February, when they opted to delay CMRR-NF by at least five years. They noted that “existing infrastructure” can accommodate the missions that were to go to CMRR-NF—manufacturing and sustaining plutonium pits, a primary component of nuclear weapons.

The House and Senate appropriation committees that oversee nuclear weapons followed suit several months later by not appropriating any money to the project. So when the House and Senate defense authorizers disregarded these expert opinions, and the Senate authorizers granted the project $150 million for fiscal year 2013, we wondered if they had taken into account all of the facts.

POGO Tells Hill Staffers to Think Outside the MOX

The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, as seen in 2007.

By MELANIE KAUFMAN and CAROLINE CHEVAT

Last Thursday, POGO Senior Investigator Peter Stockton spoke on a panel to congressional staff about the Energy Department's (DOE) proposed Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina. The cost of construction for the MOX facility has tripled from a fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget estimate of $1.6 billion to its FY 2013 budget estimate of $4.9 billion. According to POGO’s recent report on opportunities for national security savings, halting the construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility could save taxpayers about $4.9 billion over the next ten years.

The panel was hosted by the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and featured the group’s nonproliferation policy director, Tom Clements, as well as Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The DOE justifies the MOX facility as a way to turn weapons-grade plutonium into mixed oxide fuel, a fuel used for nuclear power plants. However, the DOE has had a difficult time finding customers for the MOX fuel among nuclear reactor operators, which has gradually made the project more expensive and less justifiable over the past eight years.

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:

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.

Watchdog Found: White House Fills SIGAR Vacancy with Veteran Investigator

Loose translation: the White House has appointed a swell pick to lead SIGAR.

By BRYAN RAHIJA

Good news for accountability fanatics: a leadership void at a key oversight position will soon be filled. 

The White House announced yesterday that President Obama will appoint John Sopko to lead the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the watchdog tasked with rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse in U.S. taxpayer-funded projects to rebuild the war-torn country. 

Sopko has exactly the kind of oversight pedigree that we like to see for this kind of watchdogging.

“This vacancy was among the most important positions to fill, and they have found an excellent person for the job,” said POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian, who also tweeted enthusiastically after hearing the news. “We look forward to seeing serious oversight of the tens of billions of dollars being spent on Afghanistan reconstruction under Sopko.”

Nine Amendments for More Savings, Security, and Accountability in the Defense Budget

By BRYAN RAHIJA

Just yesterday, POGO sent a letter to the House of Representatives calling for support of nine amendments to the House's National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2013 that would lead to more savings, security, and accountability. These amendments reflect many of the recommendations POGO made in its updated Spending Less, Spending Smarter report. 

In a nutshell, these amendments would:

• Prevent U.S. taxpayer-financed human trafficking
• Bring the amount that defense contractors can bill taxpayers for their employees' compensation down to a more reasonable level 
• Reduce funding for a billion-dollar nuclear boondoggle
• Defer development of a super high-tech bomber for which there is no urgent need
• Stop the rollback of oversight of nuclear weapons laboratories
• Replace the most expensive variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with affordable jets that we already have
• Shed light on the true cost of service contractors
• Close a contracting loophole that allows contractors to NOT disclose costs that went into certain goods and services
• Trim the fat in the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy

Good stuff, right?

We'll be taking a closer look at each amendment on the blog throughout the week. In the meantime—big ups to the following Reps. for their hard work and support on these amendments:

• Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 
• Mike Coffman (R-CO) 
• Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
• John Conyers (D-MI) 
• Keith Ellison (D-MN) 
• Hank Johnson (D-GA)
• James Lankford (R-OK) 
• Ed Markey (D-MA)
• George Miller (D-CA)
• Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
• Jackie Speier (D-CA) 
• Paul Tonko (D-NY) 
• Peter Visclosky (D-IN) 
• Peter Welch (D-VT)

Get the full rundown on the amendments and their sponsors here, and stay tuned for more.

Bryan Rahija is POGO's blog editor.

Rep. Turner's Never-Say-Die Effort to Squander Taxpayer Money on Nuclear Boondoggles

By MIA STEINLE

For fans of responsible nuclear weapons spending, this week has brought a lot of disappointing news from the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) as it marks up the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Defying reason (and regard for taxpayer dollars) yet again, HASC approved two amendments yesterday from Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) that disregard the advice and expertise of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) regarding a troubled multi-billion dollar nuclear facility.

The first of Turner’s amendments would appropriate $160 million to the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF). That’s $60 million more than HASC Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) recommended in his mark-up on Monday. Furthermore, the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee provided zero funding for CMRR-NF in its FY 2013 bill. As we noted earlier this week, anything more than $0 is too much for this project, considering the NNSA itself said it found existing facilities to fulfill CMRR-NF’s proposed missions. What’s more, we argued:

Spending Even Less, Spending Even Smarter: Updated Recommendations for Nearly $700 Billion in National Security Savings

By SUZANNE DERSHOWITZ

Today the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) and Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) released updated recommendations for reducing wasteful national security spending. After analyzing the proposed national security budget, we crunched the latest numbers and this time our recs would reduce the deficit by nearly $700 billion from fiscal year (FY) 2013 to 2022—even more savings than before.

The House Armed Services Committee will mark up the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year (FY) 2013 tomorrow, and the Senate markup is scheduled for the week of May 21.

Now that U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is drawing down, it is clear that any serious proposal to diminish the U.S. deficit must include cuts to the national security budget.  According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), current national security spending is higher than at any point during the Cold War and accounts for more than half of all discretionary spending. Military spending at the Department of Defense (DoD) has nearly doubled since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

Our recommendations for smarter spending center on cutting flawed, costly weapons systems, canceling or delaying nuclear programs we don’t need, and limiting out-of-control contract spending. We found cheaper yet equally effective alternatives that won’t risk U.S. security. Read on for a rundown of the highlights.

To the Victor Go the Spoils: USDA, Interior and Attorney Fee Awards

By NEIL GORDON

How carefully is the federal government keeping track of the money it pays in attorney fees in environmental, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), labor, and discrimination lawsuits? In the case of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior, the answer is not carefully enough.

In the United States, parties involved in litigation generally pay their own attorney fees—the so-called American Rule—but there are exceptions to this rule in federal litigation where specific laws authorize the federal government to pay attorney fees, costs, or expenses if the opposing party prevails. The purpose is to level the playing field by ensuring that individuals, corporations, or other private litigants are not discouraged to challenge unreasonable government actions because of the expense involved and the disparity in resources between them and the government. A requirement to pay attorney fees may also discourage government wrongdoing in the first place.

However, a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 65 of the 75 USDA and Interior offices it contacted do not track attorney fee information. Without this information, both departments are unable to keep track of who made claims for attorney fees, how much was paid in attorney fees, who received the payments, and the statutes under which the cases were brought.

USDA and Interior tried to downplay the severity of the problem. The reason so few offices keep track of attorney fee information, they told the GAO, is because they deal with few or no attorney fee cases and the payment amounts are minimal.

But the GAO’s findings should shake both departments out of their complacency. From the 10 offices that do keep track of attorney fee information, the GAO determined that, from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, USDA, Interior, and the Treasury Department (on behalf of USDA and Interior) paid roughly $73 million for opposing parties’ attorney fees in more than 1,300 civil and administrative proceedings.

Fees ranged from as little as $1 to a whopping $5.6 million payout in one Endangered Species Act lawsuit in 2010. In short, attorney fees are a significant source of government spending that, if the findings in this particular GAO report are more or less consistent throughout the rest of the executive departments, is not being adequately monitored.

Some in Congress have also expressed concerns about federal agencies’ payout of attorney fees, if only because they dislike the political leanings of certain recipients. Last year, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced the Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2011 (H.R. 1446), which would require Treasury to make public a variety of data pertaining to judgments, awards, or settlements against the federal government, including a breakdown of attorney fees. 

The public has the right to know the cost of the federal government’s programmatic decisions, including attorney fee payments. The offices within USDA and Interior that track attorney fee information told the GAO that they do so because it provides for increased transparency and better decision making. It helps them determine if attorney fee claims are reasonable. It also helps them better understand where they spend their funds, providing a more accurate budget picture. 

Neil Gordon is a POGO investigator.

Follow @NEGordon

McKeon Wants Taxpayers to Spend Millions on Nuclear Boondoggle and NATO's Bombs

By MIA STEINLE

With the House Armed Services Committee scheduled to mark up the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this Wednesday, committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) has just released his markup of the bill. Alarmingly, McKeon's NDAA markup includes an unjustified $100 million increase in funding to a proposed boondoggle of a nuclear weapons facility, the funding for which the House Appropriations Committee zeroed out last month. The Obama Administration had earlier requested that construction for the project be delayed by at least five years. 

McKeon’s suggestion to authorize funding for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) flies in the face of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) itself (the agency that would oversee the construction of CMRR-NF), which told the Obama Administration this February that “the nuclear complex has the inherent capacity” to fulfill its missions without CMRR-NF.

The proposed facility would enable the U.S. to increase its production of plutonium pits, a primary component of nuclear weapons. However, as POGO wrote in a report this January, there are more than enough good reasons not to build CMRR-NF, not the least of which is the facility’s estimated cost of $3.7 to $5.9 billion. That’s a hefty price tag for a facility that the NNSA says it doesn’t need, that nuclear weapons experts agree doesn’t serve a vital purpose, and that our research shows is not needed in light of the existing U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

But increased funding for CMRR-NF isn’t the only way McKeon’s NDAA mark-up gets it wrong. McKeon’s suggestion would increase the Administration’s request to modernize B61 nuclear bombs by $66 million, to a total of $435 million. Nearly 200 American B61s are stored at bases in five European countries as part of NATO’s defense. However, the cost to modernize these European-based B61s (in a process known as a life extension program, or LEP) would fall squarely on the shoulders of American taxpayers. McKeon’s suggested increase means that Americans would pay even more for these bombs on behalf of NATO.

At Wednesday’s full committee markup, other representatives will have the opportunity to offer up amendments to the NDAA. Hopefully, they’ll do the right thing and decrease wasteful nuclear weapons spending.

Mia Steinle is a POGO investigator.

Follow @miasteinle

Image via Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus.