The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has received a letter addressed to Congress from "current and former DOE employees" (pdf) calling for an investigation into persistent mismanagement at the NNSA's Los Alamos Site Office (LASO). Their concerns include understaffing, cronyism, constant and haphazard reorganizations, and inadequate training of employees. The letter draws from a wealth of knowledge and experience, and the issues raised deserve to be taken seriously:

The "we" who have authored this letter constitute a group of current and former employees of the Los Alamos Site Office (LASO) and the New Mexico DOE Complex. As a group our personnel have a sum of more that 100 years of experience. We can say with confidence that we have never in our careers, either in public service or the private sector witnessed such gross mismanagement as seen at the Los Alamos Site Office.

Last year, the University of California won, along with Bechtel, a questionable competition to continue their mismanagement of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with the stated purpose of correcting the problems that they, in part, created. The NNSA initiated a "pilot program" shortly thereafter that handed over contract oversight responsibility to the contractor itself. This program rendered the Site Office virtually powerless to correct problems and it's at the root of many of the issues discussed in the letter to Congress.

The "pilot program" makes little sense considering the track records of the contractors. The University of California already had a proven history of mismanagement at Los Alamos before the DOE decided to open their contract to competitive bidding. Bechtel, UC's current partner, not only has its own checkered contract history, but has often used its political clout to actively dodge accountability.

Thus it's no surprise that safety and security debacles continue unabated:  the partial blinding of an employee with a laser, incidents of losing classified information (e.g., CREM DE METH), americium contamination in four states that cost the governement $1 million in clean-up costs, and a nine-month shutdown of the lab due to lax security and safety that cost taxpayers roughly $500 million.

The employee letter states:

Given past problems, one must question why the LASO was thought to be the appropriate site for implementation of a pilot of reduced contractor oversight as a way of doing business. Why select a site that is-known to have had a history of serious management problems and serious problems with business systems. Audits and review of other documentation will verify the lack of a viable business system at LANL.

In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman last fall, POGO also addressed the Site Office's "pilot program."

The problem is clear: the lack of qualified safety basis experts in the Site Offices; the fact that DOE does not verify whether the safety directions created by the federal DOE overseers have been implemented by the contractor; and the decision-makers at DOE Headquarters do not support their people in the field when there is a conflict between the contractor and DOE. For instance, Headquarters assured the Los Alamos site office that it would get additional staff to work on safety verification.  However, that additional staff was never provided. Furthermore, former Los Alamos safety director Chris Steele was transferred because of complaints from the contractor, who said he was being too tough on them. The solution is not self-policing by the contractor: it is to have a sufficient number of adequately-qualified safety experts, and the support for those experts from DOE Headquarters. Oversight of contractors is an inherently governmental function.

On January 30 of this year, POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian testified before a House subcommittee once again reiterating that the situation has yet to improve. She stated, "In fact, I fear things may actually be getting worse. Not only has NNSA has failed to correct security issues, but the agency has determined that it wants even less oversight of Los Alamos and has implemented a new pilot program in which oversight has been handed over to the contractor itself."

Many of the DOE employees' concerns are widely known and pre-date the "pilot program." Retired Admiral Henry Chiles, presiding over a Security Workforce Panel, released a report in 2004 (pdf) that documented personnel problems within NNSA, particularly those related to understaffing. The following year, retired Admiral Richard Mies led an independent review of NNSA security operations at the national laboratories. His subsequent report (pdf) also detailed an extensive lack of proper training, oversight, and accountability.

Yet while paying lip-service to these and other reports' recommendations, the DOE and NNSA have failed to correct the underlying problems. At the same hearing where POGO's Brian noted that the situations may be getting worse, NNSA Acting Administrator Thomas D'Agostino persisted in the belief (pdf) that improvements were already underway. His conclusion:

We have received a number of reports from the Government Accountability Office, the DOE Inspector General, and the DOE Office of Independent Oversight. Like the Chiles and Mies studies, we have addressed the recommendations in these reports and have made major improvements.

The recent letter from "current and former DOE employees" proves D'Agostino's conclusion to be false. POGO supports their request for a congressional investigation into the matter. The "pilot program" has been a disaster and should be terminated immediately. The entire senior management staff should also be held accountable for LANL and LASO's failures.

-- John Pruett

A missile defense exercise this evening will be classified as Secret, according to an email sent to government personnel with the Missile Defense Agency and obtained by POGO, shutting off real-time media access to the general results, despite the fact that previous tests have been open to the media.  However, missile defense personnel will be able to monitor the voice communications and the target flyout if they RSVP.  (UPDATE: Down in the comments, Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, disagrees that media access will be curtailed.)

According to a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget document (pdf), the exercise this evening is to help prepare for a flight test involving the Sea-Based X-band (SBX) radar platform slated for later this year.  Tonight's Field Training Exercise 02 (FTX-02) is to simulate an intercept of a live target to collect data and "provide system test risk reduction for" the actual interceptor test which will utilize the SBX and, in effect, test its radar abilities.  The SBX is the primary tracking instrument for the United States' Ground-based Missile Defense (GMD) system, and is meant to track warheads as they cross over the Northern Pacific and Arctic Oceans towards the U.S. West Coast.

The SBX operates in a largely unforgiving environment and its capabilities are vulnerable to a host of natural and man-made threats. 

The exercise tonight is to take place sometime between 9:30pm and 1:30am U.S. eastern time.

There have been a series of embarrassing failures in the missile defense program over the last several years, where interceptors have failed to intercept their targets, even failing to launch.

In the early years of the Bush Administration, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld enacted several measures which increased secrecy at the Missile Defense Agency and decreased accountability.

Taken in context, the secrecy surrounding the exercise tonight is part and parcel of MDA's desire to keep its troubles, if they occur, under wraps.  And if the simulated interception is a success, just wait for the full court press tomorrow.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

UPDATE: Here's the generic response from MDA's press guy Rick Lehner to any media or public inquiries into today's exercise:

FTX-02 is an important exercise involving missile defense sensors, especially the new sea-based X-band radar (SBX).  SBX will participate in the exercise by obtaining tracking data from a long-range missile launched from Vandenberg AFB, Calif.  The data will be used to exercise the SBX in a real-time environment as a part of its continuing development and testing program, tracking the target missile and processing target information that will be passed on through the command, control, battle management and  communications element.  The exercise will assist in the refinement and processing of radar information that will be used to support two upcoming intercept tests, with the SBX performing as the primary engagement radar in the second test, which is scheduled to take place later this year.

For years, POGO has documented the unbridled public policy disaster of government contracting in the era of "acquisition reform."   Simply put, "acquisition reform" has mostly been about loosening the competition and oversight requirements of the government contracting process in order to "feather the nests" of contractors.  Much of the impetus for acquisition reform came from the large government defense and information technology sector.  However, "acquisition reform" also gained traction as part of the Clinton-era reinventing government program.

The putative stated theory behind all this was that repeal of the "burdensome" competition and oversight requirements applicable to government contracting would get rid of "red tape" and make the process faster and more efficient.  Unfortunately, much of the so-called red tape was basic common-sense good government, including the need to obtain competition in contracts, get cost data, and engage in good old-fashioned hard bargaining and follow-up (i.e., oversight). 

The results of "acquisition reform" are visible everyday in the headlines, from price gouging by Haliburton in Iraq, to the failed U.S. VISIT border security identity contract (pdf), to wasteful sole source contracting by FEMA, to the purchase of the C-130J air cargo transport plane by the Air Force as a "commercial item" until finally changed last year (i.e., no ability of the government to review the contractor's costs).

Finally, after over a dozen years of fleecing the taxpayer by contractors and their Congressional allies, Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is to be congratulated for his "Accountability in Contracting Act" (H.R. 1362).  Predictably, the contractor trade associations and the Administration will vigorously oppose the more important provisions of this bill relating to revolving door restrictions and disclosure of contractor overcharges.  However, Chairman  Waxman is off to a fast start in his efforts toward correcting the wasteful government contracting system.

-- "Connie the Contractor"

Halfway through this year's national observance of Sunshine Week, Congress has really gotten the ball rolling on open government and oversight legislation. Here's a short rundown of the current legislation and relevant actions:

1) Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1255)

This bipartisan measure sponsored by Rep. Waxman passed overwhelmingly on the House floor today. It amends the Presidential Records Act of 1978 by clearly outlining the time stipulations and procedures for release of presidential records. It also repeals Executive Order 13233 issued in 2001 which effectively closed the records of former presidents.

2) Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1309)

Sponsored by Rep. Clay, this bill amends the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by creating:  financial incentives for timely agency responses to FOIA requests, a public hotline to track requests, an ombudsman's office to settle disputes without resorting to litigation, and a clarified right of requestors to recover attorney fees after successful litigation.

The bill also reverses a 2001 directive by former Attorney General John Ashcroft that impeded public disclosure of information in cases where legal doubts arose. H.R. 1309 thus restores FOIA's traditional "presumption of disclosure" for such cases.

It passed this morning on the House floor with the following votes:

Yea – 228 Democrats, 80 Republicans
Nay – 0 Democrats, 117 Republicans
Not Voting – 5 Democrats, 4 Republicans

From the Associated Press:

The White House on Wednesday voiced opposition to the FOIA bill, saying it was "premature and counterproductive" to legislate new requirements on federal agencies before they have a chance to implement changes the president previously outlined.

3) Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 985)

Although generally bipartisan, this bill sponsored by Rep. Waxman faced extensive debate on the House floor today after some Republicans objected to Democratic rule-making decisions. Yesterday, the Democratic leadership in the Committee on Rules passed a resolution to allow floor debate on only 5 amendments to H.R. 985. Amendments 1 through 4 passed a floor vote. I'm not sure whether amendment 5 passed.

The Rules Committee noticeably omitted an amendment by Rep. Hoekstra that would have excluded national security employees from the whistleblower protections. This has been a source of major contention between those who believe national security employees deserve equal whistleblower protections and those who believe this could threaten national security interests.

POGO opposes excluding national security employees from such protections and notes that on many occasions whistleblowers have come forward in order to protect the nation from harm. Also, of the 5 amendments listed in the Rules Committee Resolution, POGO supports the first three and opposes the last two (as numbered in the resolution).

The bill passed this evening on the House floor with the amendments mentioned above and an additional amendment by Rep. Westmoreland. However, it could face a possible veto by the President. The House votes are as follows:

Yea – 229 Democrats, 102 Republicans
Nay – 94 Republicans
Not Voting - 4 Democrats, 5 Republicans

Visit here for an overview of the bill's provisions.

4) Accountability in Contracting Act (H.R. 1362)

Also sponsored by Rep. Waxman, this bill limits the awarding and duration of non-competitive contracts, expands reporting requirements for contracts, and tightens "revolving door" restrictions for procurement officials.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the legislation during a mark up hearing yesterday. According to The Hill:

The bill approved by the Armed Services panel differs from the one approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week in particular when it comes to ethics rules, and wrinkles will have to be ironed out before the bill is brought to the floor later this week.    

5) OPEN Government Act of 2007 (S. 849)

This bill was reintroduced yesterday by Sen. Leahy and Sen. Cornyn after it failed to pass during the last Congress. It is similar in substance to H.R. 1309. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Leahy, conducted a hearing today entitled "Open Government: Reinvigorating the Freedom of Information Act" to discuss some of the issues addressed in the legislation.

-- John Pruett

A new -- very excellent -- report from the National Security Archive finds that ten years after the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, "Only one in five federal agencies (21 percent) posts on the Web all four categories of records that the law specifically requires."

The National Security Archive makes the excellent point that, if government agencies would post more of the kinds of information the public seeks through FOIA, they would save money by avoiding the staffing costs needed to answer the public's requests.

The important issues raised by this report are timely, and should be included in the public dialogue as Capitol Hill prepares to consider improvements to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the first time in years. On Wednesday, the House is slated to vote on HR 1309 "Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007." A similar bill will be introduced in the Senate tomorrow with Senate Judiciary hearings planned for Wednesday.

These bills deserve widespread support from the public as the federal government has become increasingly secretive and unwilling to comply with its own open government rules. POGO awarded the bill's Senate sponsors -- Senator John Cornyn and Senator Patrick Leahy – with its Good Government Award in 2005 for their heroic efforts in working on a bi-partisan basis to draft and introduce the first version of the Senate bill. 

According to Christine Tatum, President of the Society of Professional Journalists:

If approved, the bill also would reverse draconian policy established and staunchly backed by the Bush administration.

In 2001, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft directed federal officials to look for legal grounds on which to deny FOIA requests rather than to presume the public has the right to the information it seeks.

The Ashcroft Memo has been a sticking point for many organizations and journalists who immediately recognized that the memo was aimed at slowing the release of documents and forcing the public to litigate disclosure.

-- Beth Daley

The Office of Government Ethics, at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, yesterday announced that senior officials leaving the agency would no longer be able to lobby any part of DHS for one year.  This move closes a large loophole in the agency's ethics rules that had allowed senior officials leaving one directorate or section of DHS to lobby other sections of the agency immediately after leaving the agency's employment.

Each year government agencies may request that OGE add or remove a conflict of interest prohibition that applies to positions within or components of an agency. Agencies, including DHS, DoD, Commerce, Energy, Health & Human Services, and Justice have claimed that some of their agency components are so distinct that there is "no potential" for former senior officials who left for the private sector to use "undue influence or [receive an] unfair advantage based on past Government service."

Prior to the DHS rule change, senior officials leaving the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response, the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, the Directorate of Science & Technology, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, TSA, the Secret Service, and the Coast Guard were exempt from the one-year lobbying ban and could immediately lobby other parts of DHS. Sound confusing? It is and it's another reason why Congress needs to turn its attention to improving the integrity of the federal government. The new rule takes effect June 6, 2007.

-- Scott Amey

An insight into the views of the Republic's founders can be found in their response to the English royal perogative "the King can do no wrong," that imparts immunity to the Sovereign from suit.  James Iredell, before the North Carolina constitutional ratifying convention in 1788, remarked of this British maxim, "We have experienced that he can do wrong, yet no man can say so in his own country."  The founders intended to leave sovereign immunity behind by making the United States government one where ambition is made to counteract ambition by separating powers between different branches and by enshrining the rule of law, rather than rule by man, as the DNA of the government.

Unfortunately the Republic's system of accountability and rule of law has been undermined by increasing assertions of the state secrets privilege by an agressive and excessively secretive executive branch and an overly deferential judicial branch often unwilling to examine the assertion (a notable and hopeful exception occurred last year in one of the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping cases). Ever since the 1953 Supreme Court ruling in United States versus Reynolds, a ruling which "rests on a lie," the state secrets privilege has shut down court proceedings by denying access to documents and information necessary in order to have a fair adversarial process in court, thus thwarting accountability.

One of the most egregious examples of executive abuse of the state secrets privilege is the Justice Department invocation of the privilege in the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI contract linquist, who blew the whistle, who has alleged corruption in the FBI.   But Edmonds was the wrong whistleblower to pick on: Edmonds and her allies are fighting back and Congress needs to hold hearings on the use and abuse of the state secrets privilege.  After all, we fought a war for independence so that when the people's government does wrong, we can say so.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

In case you missed it, POGO friend Winslow Wheeler at the Straus Military Reform Project was profiled in the Politico. Win personified the concept of "Anonymous Activism" when he penned stinging critiques of wasteful military spending while serving on Capitol Hill under the pseudonym Spartacus.

-- Beth Daley

Editor's Note: Today's issue of Counterpunch published an article by Wheeler on the President's FY2008 defense budget request.

Today House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman put to rest recent reports that GSA Administrator Lurita Doan may have been acting in good faith when she steered a $20,000 contract to an old friend. According to a release from Waxman's office, "Ms. Fraser used her professional connections to advance Doan's nomination to GSA and to provide personal favors, and that Ms. Fraser continued to provide services with the expectation of payment to Ms. Doan after she became GSA Administrator." Kudos to Washington Post reporters Robert O'Harrow and Scott Higham for first exposing the Doan scandal.

Besides being caught with her hand in the cookie jar, Doan apparently urged her staff at GSA "to find opportunities to help Republican political candidates." That has been referred to the GSA Inspector General and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for investigation under the Hatch Act which prohibits government resources from being used to advance political agendas. There is no love lost between the Inspector General (IG) and Doan, who recently attempted cutting the IG's budget, comparing their work to "terrorism." Don't expect much from the Office of Special Counsel which has a reputation for protecting Administration appointees and is under investigation itself for cronyism.

As if that wasn't enough, Doan intervened to help Sun Microsystems overcome a dispute with GSA and the "federal taxpayers could pay millions more for the IT services provided by Sun Microsystems."

With all kinds of things to interfere with, when does Doan have time in the day to do her job of running the government's largest buying agency?

It turns out that putting a contractor in charge of the government's buying arm might not have been a good idea after all. Lurita Doan personifies a breed of political appointee who treats the federal government like their personal ATM machine.

-- Beth Daley

Another wee little suggestion for major systems acquisition that the Defense Science Board makes (pdf), that POGO seconds, is to create incentives for performance:

Competition, accountability, and earned award fees provide incentives to value innovation, speed, agility, and prudent risk taking. (emphasis on "earned" is the Defense Science Board's)

As the Center for Public Integrity found, nearly half of Defense Department contracts are no-bid contracts.  And POGO keeps beating the drum against "award" fee after another given to contractors despite poor performance.

-- Nick Schwellenbach