I have sent numerous letters to all of my elected representatives, including Congressman Dave Reichert, regarding the continuing (and growing) problem with corruption within Defense Contracting, Defense contractors, such as The Boeing Company, the “Tanker Deal,” the more recent GAO decisions regarding the “Helicopter Deal” with the USAF, etc. (This information is posted previously on this site.)


My letters have all stated concerns for the corruption, no bid aspects, etc. and have asked for my elected officials to stand up and clean up the mess and my contention that business should be done in an ethical manner both by defense contractors, all government agencies and the Pentagon.

This is the response I got back 9-14-07 from Congressman Reichert, which makes it seem that they note the topic, but not the view and what they are being asked to do. I feel like he counted my letter as one supporting the current status quo, which to say the least, is NOT what I stated!

I am disgusted with what has been going on in the Boeing Company and others. I am further disgusted with the apparent lack of ethical and responsible government oversight of defense and other contracting. I asked Rep. Reichert to challenge Boeing and their corrupt counterparts within our government, not to continue to give them contracts at any cost, but to clean their act up and make them deal ethically and honestly with the government and the American people.


To date, I have not received any kind of response from Senator Patti Murray or Senator Maria Cantwell or any of the others I wrote to about this matter.
VM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Response from Congressman David Reichert on September 14, 2007

“Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Air Force tanker selection process. It was good to hear from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The United States Air Force is currently looking to purchase a new line of refueling tankers. They have come up with a list of 26 requirements that must be met by companies such as Boeing in order to receive a contract.

In 2004, the House Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to require the Air Force to enter into a multi-year contract for new tankers. The current line of tankers includes planes that are 40 years old, some of which are corroding and the Air Force now has an urgent need to replace these planes. The Department of Defense is currently considering all options for this contract to ensure that they get the best planes for the taxpayers' dollars. I believe that Boeing is the company that can provide the Air Force with the best possible planes for the taxpayers' money, and I am hopeful that Congress will work to continue a strong relationship with Boeing. Boeing has a proven track record of providing high-quality refueling tankers for the US Air Force.

Please know that I will continue to support Boeing and jobs in the Pacific Northwest. Boeing's Everett plant provides hundreds of jobs for Washington families. The impact that this contract could have on the economy of our region and the lives of thousands of Washingtonians is very significant. Please know that I will continue to fight on behalf of Washington families by advocating that this contract be awarded to Boeing.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me. Your interest and input are valued and I hope to hear from you in the future regarding other matters of importance. I encourage you to visit my website and sign up for my weekly e-newsletter at http://www.house.gov/reichert/ to learn more about other issues impacting the 8th Congressional District and our nation.”

Sincerely,

David G. Reichert
Member of Congress

Attention All POGO Bloggers:

A new document posted at the POGO Blog (http://www.pogoblog.typepad.com) shows detailed changes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act made since the 9/11 terrorist attacks including color coded breakdowns for each law which amended the Act. The document was written by David S. Kris, the former Associate Deputy Attorney General who was most responsible for tearing down "The Wall" between national security and criminal investigations, and co-author of National Security Investigations and Prosecutions. The document was posted by POGO’s new investigator Beverley Lumpkin who covered the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security for years at CBS, Associated Press and ABC before joining POGO a few weeks ago.

Marthena Cowart, Director of Comunications/POGO

Veco Exec Won Over Pol With Talk Of Barbados Warden Gig
By Laura McGann - September 11, 2007, 5:26 PM


It's the American dream to retire to a job as a prison warden near topless beaches in Barbados. Well, at least, that was former state Rep. Pete Kott's (R-AK) dream, and Veco CEO Bill Allen was going to do his best to make it happen -- in exchange for a lucrative oil pipeline, of course.

In opening statements in Kott's public corruption trial, the prosecution played the jury phone conversations recorded by the FBI where Kott jokes (at least once while audibly tipsy) about his hopes for the prison position, but is serious about a future with Veco after leaving his post.

The tapes also reveal how Allen -- also known for overseeing the doubling of Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) Girdwood home -- sees his relationships with politicians: In one lengthy call between Allen and [former Veco vice president Rick Smith] on Feb. 20, 2006, Allen goes on a tirade about Veco's new young lobbyist, Kris Knauss. Allen was angry that Knauss was using Allen's own well-cultivated influence with Kott as if it were his own, turning it to his advantage with Gov. Frank Murkowski's chief of staff, Jim Clark.

"Well f---. I put more money into Pete Kott than he's ever even thought about," Allen sputtered at one point.
Some investments are better than others.

From: www.tpmmuckraker.com

Suit claims worker fired for reporting violations at nuclear plant
The News Courier / Athens, Alabama
From staff and wire reports

A former construction foreman at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant filed a whistleblower lawsuit Friday, claiming he was fired in 2004 by a Tennessee Valley Authority contractor for reporting serious safety violations at the plant.

Attorneys for James Speegle filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Huntsville against the contractor, Massachusetts-based Stone & Webster Construction, seeking a jury trial.
Speegle alleges in the suit that he complained to the company’s management and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about serious safety problems with the protective coatings used in the plant’s cooling system.

He was fired May 22, 2004 - two days after he complained to the NRC and the company, the suit says.
Browns Ferry spokesman Jason Huffine Friday referred all questions about the lawsuit to NRC spokesman Ken Clark in Atlanta and to Stone and Webster. Telephone calls to those offices Friday by The News Courier were not returned.

“It’s really hard for us to comment on something like that,” Huffine said. “I really can’t speak for them.”

According to the suit, TVA removed Stone & Webster from the coatings project after Speegle was fired and hired another contractor to redo the work that led to the complaint.

The NRC later cited Stone & Webster for improper coatings work at Browns Ferry, according to the suit.

The suit follows Speegle’s whistleblower complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Labor after his firing.

In a statement, Speegle’s attorney, David J. Marshall of Washington, D.C., said people who live near the nuclear plant “rely on the workers there to blow the whistle on safety violations, and I’m confident that they want to see James Speegle vindicated for doing the right thing.”

At the time of the firing, Stone & Webster was under pressure to complete a $1.8 billion overhaul of the Unit 1 reactor at Browns Ferry, according to Marshall.

Unit 1, which had been shut down in 1985 due to safety concerns, was restarted in May after being off line for 22 years. It is one of three reactors at the north Alabama plant.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.

With all of the information being posted which shows runaway contractors, fraud and corruption in contracts and in contract oversight and management, particularly in the area of defense contracts, it is interesting to note that currently, the Oversight of such contracts is under the purvey of The Defense Security Service (formerly Defense Investigative Service) who’s employees have the charge of fulfilling their agencies assigned mission to “protect classified information and technology in the hands of industry.” It would appear that DSS is broken and that this critical mission is no longer being accomplished. I checked with someone who had access to the laws and policies and found out the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Industrial Security Program (NISP)

“DoD 5220.22-M, Chapter 1, Para. 1-101- Authority

The NISP was established by Executive Order 12829. The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) has been designated Executive Agent for the NISP by the President.

While the SecDef serves as the Executive Agent for inspecting and monitoring contractors, practical day-to-day administration of the program has been, and continues to be, the purvey of the Defense Security Service (DSS).

One of the responsibilities of the DSS is the administration of the Facility Clearance (FCL) program of defense contractors. DoD 5220.22-M, Chapter 2, Para. 2-102- Eligibility Requirements, Sub Para. c. stipulates “The company must have a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings.”

So why isn’t the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Security Service enforcing this requirement? They have the authority to revoke a defense contractor’s facility clearance and participation in the NISP until that contractor comes into compliance. It appears to be used very selectively on small defense contractors, but never as a compliance tool in large defense contractor transgressions.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, current law does provide legal means to enforce expectations, policies, and laws regarding the actions of defense contractors, but the expectations, policies, and laws are not being enforced. In fact, over less than a decade, it has become decidedly out of control. It appears that Congress is going to have to stand up and take this to the mat, or it will never be wrestled back into control. It would appear the following must be done:

1. Corruption within and connected to the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative Branches must be confronted and routed.

2. Government Agencies must also be audited, removing first appointed managers who are either not doing the job required, or who are actively thwarting the employee’s efforts to do the oversight work ethically. This will include on an agency by agency basis, determining which employees are a part of the problem and those who may be paralyzed victims of the corruption and the corrupted managers and/or coworkers.

3. Congressional intervention into defense contractor influence pedaling and lobbying, must be accomplished and violations of current laws stopped.

4. The Government needs to step up to its role as the governing authority. Far too often contractors, defense contractors in particular have much too much influence into decisions that should be inherently governmental decisions. This is not to say that defense contractors should not have input into the process. However the final determination of policy needs to squarely rest on the shoulders of government.

5. Government employees who have oversight responsibilities must be uncompromised and independent of pressures either directly or indirectly applied from defense contractors or corrupted employees or managers within the government who are “owned” by those contractors.

6. The defense contracting community is its own best advocate. It does not need government workers or agencies advocating on its behalf. The government should not be trying to be the “friend” of industry. In business dealings, the government and industry, must maintain appropriate separation because of the legal oversight responsibility government has. There are currently laws and policies, which have been in place a long time to assure that the lines between contractor and oversight authority are clear and clean. However, those policies have in some cases been corrupted, and in others ignored, and in all cases where problems are evident have not been enforced.

Will all of this be easy? No, although the path that must be taken is clear. The heaviest weight in responsibility at this time, due to the level of corruption and dysfunction in the Executive and Judicial branches, falls squarely on the shoulders of the Legislative Branch. The Senate and House must stand up and do the right thing for our country.

VM
9-9-07