Chairman Darrell Issa appeared at Nextgov Prime last week to discuss federal IT reform plans. You can read Chairman Issa’s proposal and his draft legislation at http://oversight.house.gov/ITReform.

WATCH Chairman Issa on the Impact of Major IT Reform
 

CIO overhaul: Issa plan would reinvent how IT is managed

12-10-12 by Nicole Blake Johnson

An ambitious plan is emerging in Congress that, if approved, would represent the most sweeping overhaul of the way agencies buy and manage information technology since the 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act, which created chief information officers at all agencies.

At its center is a redefinition of what is a federal CIO: The proposal by House Government Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., would reduce the number of CIOs in government — to one per agency — and empower those remaining with more authority to decide how their departments’ IT dollars are spent.

“The Clinger[-Cohen] Act … needs an overhaul for one most important reason, and that is: If you authorize CIOs, then by definition, the term should mean something,” Issa said at a Dec. 3 industry event. “When you have hundreds of them for 24 major agencies, you really don’t have chiefs. And that’s the most important thing that this bill is intended to do is to redefine the term ‘chief’ to mean the chief. … There has to be one responsible individual who then holds their staff at all levels, regardless of their titles and their paygrades, responsible. We really don’t have that in the federal government.”

The plan is outlined in a draft bill called the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act that Issa circulated to industry groups for feedback. Issa has not said when he will introduce the bill, but industry groups expect it will be next year. Other proposed reforms in the package include:

• Encouraging more use of open-source software.

• Consolidating contracting responsibilities so a few “centers of excellence” within the government are responsible for all agencies’ procurements in certain categories.

• Increasing the amount of multiagency bulk purchasing — known as “strategic sourcing” — of IT commodities.

• More training of IT acquisition staff.

The California Republican’s reform plan is gaining support from industry groups, as well as a key Democrat: Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, the ranking minority member on the House subcommittee that oversees federal IT issues.

Industry groups appear generally supportive of the measure, but they are taking aim at two specific measures in the draft bill: one that would encourage the use of open-source software and another that would designate acquisition centers of excellence within federal agencies. Those parts of the plan “raise serious concerns and must be modified if the bill is to earn our support,” four trade associations representing federal contractors told Issa in a joint Nov. 30 letter.

Acquisition centers of excellence

The bill could enable, for example, the Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services departments to serve as go-to centers for all agencies’ health IT acquisitions. But in their Nov. 30 letter to Issa, the four contractor trade associations said they are concerned this would create more duplicative contracts and undermine the General Services Administration’s federal supply schedules program, in which companies invest heavily. Those signing the letter were TechAmerica, The Coalition for Government Procurement, BSA The Software Alliance and the Information Technology Industry Council.

Under the draft bill, the Office of Management and Budget would designate certain agencies as acquisition centers of excellence to promote best practices in specialized areas of contracting, such as cybersecurity or financial management software. The centers would also perform fee-based services on behalf of other agencies, including consulting, awarding, administering or closing out contracts or task orders.

Agencies would be required to consult with the centers on IT acquisitions that exceed $5 million and fall under the expertise of a center. Should agencies not consult with them, they would have to justify their reasons to OMB.

Every two years, OMB would determine whether an agency remains a center of excellence.

Ali Ahmad, a spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said companies would benefit from the newly created centers because they would no longer have to spend money vying for business on numerous competing contracts, and the bill would save government administrative costs by reducing duplicative contracts.

“We are not convinced this structure would do that,” said Trey Hodgkins, senior vice president of global public-sector government affairs at TechAmerica. “In fact, what you may have is the exact opposite.“

Hodgkins said the draft bill would allow agencies to create new contracts to meet other agencies’ needs. There is no mention in the bill of what this could mean for existing contracts. Rather than potentially creating new contracts, Hodgkins said government should focus on improving existing governmentwide contracts, such as GSA’s federal supply schedule contracts.

Small and minority-owned businesses will be hard-pressed to stretch resources to compete for federal work, Hodgkins said. What happens if contracts at these centers fail to drive much business, or if an agency loses its status as a center, he asked.

A senior staffer for Issa’s committee said agencies serving as centers would mainly play a consulting role and would be expected to present their agency customers with all contracting options, including governmentwide contracts offered at other agencies.

Although the draft bill doesn’t mandate use of contracts offered by a center, there would be great scrutiny of IT projects that forfeited consultations from the centers and ended up failing, the staffer said.

The idea is that specialized acquisitions would be faster and cheaper through the centers, giving agencies an incentive to use them, he said.

One goal of the bill is to reduce duplicative IT contracts, but the bill doesn’t mandate the elimination of inefficient or redundant contracts. Instead, the assumption is that sales would increase on the most cost-effective governmentwide IT contracts, ultimately replacing any inefficient contracts.

The staffer added that the bill would not steer business away from GSA schedules. In fact, GSA would be a likely candidate to house a newly created Federal Commodity IT Acquisition Center under the draft bill.

Unlike the specialized centers of excellence, the commodity IT center would be staffed by experts from across government who specialize in buying common IT goods and services, such as email or other cloud services. Agencies would be required to consult with the commodity IT center for contracts exceeding $50 million.

The commodity IT center would operate as a neutral entity, providing agencies with best practices for purchasing common IT, but could also provide contract vehicles for customers, similar to what GSA provides.

Congress and OMB would be tasked with ensuring that the commodity IT center and the centers of excellence weren’t biased in steering agencies’ business toward their contracts without considering the best contracting option across government, the staffer said.

Open-source software guidance

Another concern of industry is the bill’s promotion of open-source software.

The bill calls for streamlining the federal approval process of open-source software, maintenance and support of the software, and guidance clarifying that the government’s preference for commercial products includes open-source software.

In their letter to Issa, the industry groups argued that encouraging greater use of open-source software could prejudice agencies’ use of other commercial software when deciding what software to invest in.

“Technology neutrality is the official policy of the U.S. government,” said Katherine McGuire, vice president of government relations for BSA The Software Alliance, whose members include Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and Oracle.

McGuire said the provision is unnecessary because agencies already are encouraged to consider open-source software when planning new IT projects. She pointed to a January 2011 OMB memo to agencies that says “in the context of developing requirements and planning acquisitions for software … agencies should analyze alternatives that include proprietary, open source and mixed source technologies.”

Ahmad, with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the bill is not promoting or mandating the use of open-source software, but rather it makes it easier for agencies to use open source.

“I released the discussion draft to promote exactly this kind of dialogue amongst all stakeholders,” Issa said in a statement to Federal Times about industry’s concerns.

His staff is gathering comments on the draft bill, and the next step is to release a revised draft for additional comments, which may include revisions to clarify the role and intent of the centers and to ensure no one type of software is being promoted in the bill.

IT reform bill would cull the CIO herd, give them more power

Tuesday – 12/4/2012

Jared Serbu

By one count, there are 243 people across the government with a title of chief information officer on their business cards.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said it seems to be a case of too many chefs spoiling the IT soup.

Issa, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the proliferation of CIOs throughout government is one culprit behind failed federal IT projects. To make the system work, he said, each agency needs a single CIO with more authority and more gravitas.

He said all those chiefs is a basic contravention of the ideas behind the Clinger-Cohen Act, which created CIOs in the first place in 1996.

"If you authorize CIOs, then by definition the term should mean something. If you have hundreds of them for 24 major agencies, then you really don't have chiefs," Issa told a Monday IT reform forum hosted by NextGov in Washington. "That's the most important thing this bill is intended to do. The chief should be the chief. There's plenty of Indians, but there has to be one responsible individual who then holds their staff at all levels responsible regardless of their titles or pay grades. We don't have that in the federal government."

Who's in charge of the IT budget?

Issa's proposal to consolidate the authority of CIOs is one element of the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act he began circulating in draft form in September. The bill's proposed reforms encompass much of the universe of federal IT and aim to upright an acquisition system that observers almost universally agree is ill-suited for the fast-changing world of information technology.

But from his perspective as an overseer of agency decisions, Issa said one of the most important parts of the bill is the notion that one single person would have authority over an agency's IT budget.

"You want to know that somebody's in charge, but when you make them accountable you also want to give them the real ability to kill a program, enhance a program, move funds around, and candidly come to Congress or OMB with the kind of gravitas that can say, 'look, this is my $2 billion and I'm telling you we need to move it from here to there,'" he said. "It doesn't have to be the most technologically savvy individual, it has to be the best manager. It has to be somebody who understands whether a program is in trouble or it has a real opportunity to succeed."

There is one agency in government whose CIO has full authority over technology spending throughout the enterprise: the Department of Veterans Affairs gained that unique power following a data breach that compromised personal information on millions of veterans. Issa said Congress missed the boat by not extending that authority to the rest of government. Doing so now, he said, won't diminish Congress's power of the purse, but it will let agencies make the adaptations they need to within a quickly changing technology landscape.

"Reprogramming authority will probably continue to be within Congress, but the idea that you should have one source that looks at the system and comes in and says we can spend money better over here, that's what we intend to do," he said.

"I don't think it's going to be a situation where Congress gives you a big pot of money, you go spend it and call us in the morning. I don't think government is going that way, we are different. But the idea that you constantly come back to reprogram budget money and you have flexibility is a goal. So is the accountability of having less people coming to appropriations committees or even OMB. Imagine the Office of Management and Budget trying to deal with 243 different people who have the term chief. It would be hopeless."

A growing knowledge gap

Issa spoke alongside Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), another collaborator on the draft reform bill. Connolly said government also needs to focus on developing a highly capable cadre of IT acquirers within agencies.

"We have to address personnel. One of the problems Darrell's identified in terms of federal management of IT is that there's a growing gap between the domain expertise in the public sector and the private sector," he said. "It is not uncommon for the federal contractor providing the services to have all of the expertise on their side of the table. When I was in the private sector, I can think of one contract we had where over three years, we had 14 different government program managers. There was no continuity, and every one of them had his or her own ideas about what the contract really meant. It meant that over time the contract got morphed into something else, and satisfaction on both sides was highly unlikely."

Connolly said now's the time to focus on reforming the way agencies buy IT and eliminate wasteful spending on projects that wind up getting cancelled, since budgets are under pressure.

But Issa said he actually wouldn't mind keeping IT funding where it is – as long as that spending winds up being effective. His committee has concluded the wasted funds amount to around $20 billion per year.

"What I believe is that we're going to invest that $20 billion in things that actually work rather than in things that get cancelled. That $20 billion will save us $200 billion in waste, fraud and abuse throughout government," he said.

"That's unusual from somebody for whom everything's about cutting. But you don't cut the tax collector if you want to cut taxes. You don't take the pilot out of the airplane. If you need to lighten the load, please do not have it be the pilots."

Industry comments on the bill

Connolly agreed more effective IT can be a force multiplier when it comes to the budget For instance, if IT systems were developed and improved more effectively at the IRS, the results would make the upcoming fiscal cliff look almost irrelevant, he said.

"Our subcommittee highlighted the fact that every year, about $135 billion is left on the table in uncollected or unassessed taxes. Not a tax increase, but money we actually ought to be collecting," he said. "Technology could help us. Beefing up the IRS a little bit could help us in getting our arms around some significant chunk of that. $135 billion times 10 is $1.35 trillion. It exceeds sequestration entirely."

Issa said he publicly released the bill in draft form prior to formally introducing it in Congress in order to begin gathering feedback from the technology community and other interested parties.

While specific parts of the bill have taken some industry criticism, Trey Hodgkins, a senior vice president at the trade group TechAmerica, said it was a good starting point for an IT reform conversation.

"Our members have begun telling us pretty vocally over the last year that they're increasingly convinced the whole process is broken. We no longer achieve best value for the taxpayer. This addresses several elements of it, but it doesn't get to full-scale acquisition reform," he said in an interview with Federal News Radio's Francis Rose. "The devils in the details and we've been talking with the staff and Mr. Issa about how we can create effective mechanisms that don't create unintended consequences."

In a Nov. 30 letter jointly signed by TechAmerica, the Business Software Alliance, the Coalition for Government Procurement and the Information Technology Industry Council, the trade groups flagged several of those alleged unintended consequences.

For instance, introducing the phrase "commodity IT" into federal law could confuse existing definitions of "commercial items" in federal procurement, the groups wrote. And the bill's emphasis on promoting the use of open source software would violate longstanding principles of technology neutrality in procurement law.

But Issa said the intent of the open source provision had been misunderstood. He said a key objective of the bill is to establish the federal government as one customer of IT products and services and allow agencies to share software innovations amongst themselves rather than repeatedly building and buying duplicative products.

"We're one entity, and once you define us that way, what we're really saying is that we can share within 24 or thousands of different subagencies in a collaborative way, so that when somebody comes up with something that works for them, somebody else can easily be aware that it's on the shelf and can take that base and build on it," he said.

"Not everything in the world is going to be COTS and walked in by a vendor, but at the same time we're so used to buying the same thing 24 times, slightly different. I want to be neutral though. I want to say that we're not prohibiting open source, but we will need legislation to define what open source is in government. I look forward to people who are concerned spending a lot of time with us to make sure we get it right. We're not trying to exactly match what open source is in the private sector, because government is different. But we believe we can be collaborative to the benefit of the private sector and the public sector."

Is it time to revisit Clinger-Cohen?

By Camille Tuutti

Dec 03, 2012

Rep. Darrell Issa argues that the time is right to revamp the law that created the CIO position and set IT procurement processes for agencies.

The time has come to revise the framework that dictates the acquisition process for federal IT, according to two lawmakers in what might be a rare moment of bipartisan agreement.

Kicking off the Dec. 3 Nextgov Prime event in Washington, D.C., Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) said the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 should be revamped to better serve the federal government’s technology acquisition needs. The law created the CIO role and has spurred many discussions over the years about whether it is necessary for CIOs to have budget control.

In September, Issa released a draft of a bill intended for the next Congress, called the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act. It would grant more power to agency CIOs to control the technology government acquires while also promoting strategic sourcing.

Bill Text

Read the draft Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act. 

But some industry groups say certain parts of Issa’s bill should be modified to gain the support from the private sector. In a Nov. 30 letter to Issa, TechAmerica, the Business Software Alliance, the Coalition for Government Procurement and the Information Technology Industry Council wrote that the current version of FITARA could cause confusion for federal procurement officials. Instead of streamlining the acquisition process, these new provisions could instead stall it, the groups said.

The letter also states the group supports the goal of government becoming more sophisticated as a customer of IT, but calls for investments in the acquisition workforce and the consolidation of governmentwide and multiagency purchasing agreements that the groups believe to be unnecessary.

“We truly appreciate the effort of Chairman Issa and his staff and look forward to continuing to discuss our serious concerns,” Trey Hodgkins, senior vice president for global public sector at TechAmerica, said in a Nov. 30 statement. “Ensuring that the federal acquisition system is working as it should be, the government has access to the latest innovation and that taxpayers are getting the best value for their money is the top priority for all of us.”

Meanwhile, Issa said he and Connolly are both in a position to see the long-term effects of Clinger-Cohen and how it could be improved.

“This is not a partisan issue,” he said. “Clinger-Cohen, which was passed before either of us was in Congress, needs an overhaul for one most important reason, and that is: If you authorize CIOs, then by definition the term should mean something. When you have hundreds of them for 24 agencies, you really don’t have chiefs.”

Issa’s bill intends to redefine the term “chief” to mean “the chief,” Issa stressed. “There are plenty of … people controlling at the lower levels, but there has to be one responsible individual that holds their staff [accountable] at all levels regardless of their titles or pay grade. We don’t have that in the federal government.”

“If something goes wrong, you can have in one agency 20 people who bear the name ‘chief,’ but none has budget authority,” he added.

In praising Issa’s draft proposal, Connolly acknowledged the long road ahead, in particular in the areas of the acquisition workforce.

“I think we have a lot of work to do; I’m hopeful and I think Chairman Issa’s draft bill gives us a framework that we’re still working on and I’m thanking you for including a number of us in that effort,” he said. “But we have a long way to go in making the federal government a lot more efficient and its management of IT resources, and the criticality of that when we look at the fiscal situation.” 
    
In a separate interview, Connolly told FCW that he intends to be a chief co-sponsor when Issa introduces the measure next year.

Every year, $80 billion is funneled into government technology, $20 billion of which is spent on wasteful projects, Issa said. Those projects have a ripple effect and add hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. “I would throw that $20 billion into the mix if it meant the rest of the government was efficient and effective and had the kinds of information and accountability that, let’s say, Walmart insists on for its equipment,” Issa said. “If you’re a Walmart today…you have complete transparency and your vendors have complete transparency as to where the information is, where the incoming goods are.”

Issa’s bill also aims to fix the contentious issue of budget authority for CIOs. Some have argued that it would allow CIOs to get things done faster and more efficiently; others say plenty can be done without it. Issa said what is needed is one person who has the power to stop a program and tell Congress, “This is my $2 billion, and I’m telling you, we need to move it here and there.”

That person does not have to be the most technologically savvy individual, Issa added, or even the best manager, but rather someone who recognizes when a program is struggling or when it has an opportunity to succeed.

“Chairman Issa and I share a lot in common on this subject, and I very much look forward to working with him on trying to find a statutory framework to move forward,” Connolly said, adding that the government faces a host of challenges with respect to technology, including addressing such issues as how well the existing resources are being used.

“Whatever happens with the fiscal cliff [or] a contracted federal presence over the next 10 years to get the debt down … then technology becomes more important than ever,” he added. “Can I deploy technology in such a way that I more than make up for the aggregate resources we are using? That is the essential task for every federal agency.”

In many ways, the federal government is lagging behind the private sector, Connolly said. “We’re less nimble, and it takes us a lot more time to make decisions when we see something isn’t working,” he said. “And it takes us a lot more time than the private sector to pull back and acknowledge a mistake and move on and not stick with it and waste even more money.”

About the Author

Camille Tuutti is a staff writer covering federal IT and the federal workforce. Connect with her on Twitter: @camilletuutti. 

House oversight leaders find rare bipartisan agreement on IT reform

By Joseph Marks

December 3, 2012

One key to rationalizing the way information technology is managed in government is to mandate transparency about what agencies are buying and from whom, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said during Nextgov Prime Monday.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who appeared onstage with Issa, agreed.

“Off the shelf software for agency X, identical to that same software for agency Y, ought not to be proprietary information,” Connolly said. “Right now, often, it is. The same company selling the same software to two agencies can insist that one agency can’t know what the other one is paying for it. And it is not uncommon, as Darrell indicated, that, as a result, we have 24 different price structures for the same item.”

Issa has proposed legislation to reform federal information technology acquisitions that, among other things, would urge agencies to use open source software when possible. A coalition of industry groups criticized that provision and others in an open letter to Issa Friday, saying they could not endorse the legislation in its current form.

Issa responded Monday that he intended the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act to be neutral about how technology is developed.

Some open source software may not be an ideal fit for government because government’s needs are sometimes unique, he said. But government agencies often have similar needs and one agency ought to be able to benefit from software that’s developed or retrofitted for another agency, he said.

Issa is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which oversees many government efficiency efforts. Connolly is the ranking Democrat on the panel’s technology subcommittee.

The two have a historically combative relationship but agreed with each other numerous times during Monday’s discussion.

Connolly has praised Issa’s reform plan, but said he hopes to make some changes before the legislation is passed out of committee. Technology reform can help drastically reduce waste and fraud in government, clawing back $200 billion or more, he said Monday.

That reform could help ease the pain of any budget deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff in January, he said.

Issa’s bill would also mandate that each federal agency has a single chief information officer with broad budget authority, a power that only Veterans Affairs CIO Roger Baker has now.

“What we want to do is redefine the word ‘chief’ to mean chief,” Issa said during Monday’s panel. “There has to be one responsible individual who then holds their staff — at all levels, regardless of their titles and their pay grades — responsible. We don’t have that in the federal government.”

Congressmen Tie Federal IT Reforms To Economy

By Deanna Glick

Published: December 4, 2012

Reps. Darrell Issa and Gerry Connolly say federal IT mismanagement has not only cost taxpayers billions, but has a dire effect on the economy. 

The two congressmen with a history of butting heads agree sweeping federal IT reforms and giving CIOs budget authority would fix the problem. They talked about why on a stage in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. on Monday.

"That $80 or $81 billion [spent on federal IT this year] was intended to provide information in a multi-trillion dollar world, a $17 trillion dollar economy," Issa said. "The loss is the information — the facts, the figures, the transparency — are not available to the decision makers. Therefore, the $80 billion dollars of bad IT has a ripple effect that is certainly hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy."

Issa (R-Calif) and Connolly (D-Va) point to $20 billion in wasted spending on federal IT in 2012 as they make their case for legislation Issa proposed in September. The legislation would provide sweeping reforms in the way technology is managed and acquired at federal agencies in an effort to eliminate duplication and waste. 

"I would throw that $20 billion into the mix if it meant the rest of government was efficient and effective and had the kind of information and accountability that, say, WalMart would insist on," Issa said.

He later added: "I don't believe we're going to wring out one penny of that $20 billion dollars. What I believe is we're going to invest that $20 billion into things that actually work… and will ultimately save us 200 billion in waste fraud and abuse throughout government and that's unu … You don't cut the tax collector if you want to collect taxes and you don't take the airplane pilot out of the airplane. IF you need to lighten the load, please do not let it be the pilots."

Provisions in the draft bill would also grant significantly more power to federal chief information officers to control the technology that agencies acquire. Despite authorities granted to CIOs in the 1996 Clinger Cohen Act, IT planning and acquisition decisions typically fall under the control of bureau and program heads within federal agencies and departments. As a result, with the exception of CIOs such as Roger Baker at the Department of Veterans Affairs, most federal CIOs have limited control to standardize and streamline the IT used throughout their agencies.

"We need to redefine the term chief to mean chief," Issa said Monday. "When something goes wrong you can have 20 people in an agency with the name chief that have no budget authority."

Connolly said Monday reforms would also address cybersecurity and a growing gap between domain expertise and managing IT resources as well as redundancy in acquisitions.

"All expertise is in contractors," he said. "There's no continuity. We need highly skilled contract managers in acquisition to make sure taxpayer resources are protected."

Connolly also said that while he's in favor of BYOD and open source relationships, legislation would provide necessary definition and guidelines. Software, he said, "should not be proprietary between agencies. It's sold several times. … If I'm a private company selling it I may not like that change. But we have to take a look at that."

He later added: "We need to build in flexibility and not kill innovation … while at the same time save the taxpers money. … Congress itself maybe needs to give up some of its control to achieve more flexibility and efficiency."

While no one at Monday's forum criticized the proposed legislation, not everyone in Washington has been sold on the current draft. When it was introduced, Mark Forman, former administrator, Office of E-Government and IT, White House Office of Management and Budget during the George W. Bush Administration, said he hoped "several key improvements" would be made to the legislation. He also cautioned that "the reason for redundancy is not IT buying, but significant redundancy in programs funded," which he said is well documented by Sen. Coburn and two major GAO reports on redundancy.

For more news and insights on innovations at work in government, please sign up for the AOL Gov newsletter. For the quickest updates, like us on Facebook.

WASHINGTON – Today, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa made the following statement in response to Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General (FHFA-OIG) report finding that FHFA compensation system needs additional improvement:

“The report issued today by the FHFA Inspector General indicates clear progress after the Committee’s calls last year for reform of lavish executive compensation packages at taxpayer-funded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” said Chairman Issa. “Although today’s news shows some meaningful improvements in executive compensation at this taxpayer funded entity, it is clear additional work remains.  I commend the FHFA Inspector General for continuing to examine compensation at Fannie and Freddie, and look forward to continue working with Acting Director DeMarco to ensure the implementation of necessary reforms to preserve and conserve taxpayer assets exposed by the Enterprises’ conservatorship.”

Read the IG’s report here.

Nov. 16, 2011 Staff Report, “Government-Sponsored Moguls: Executive Compensation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”: http://1.usa.gov/YV7bKR

Nov. 16, 2011 Hearing, “Pay for Performance: Should Fannie and Freddie Executives Be Receiving Millions In Bonuses?”: http://1.usa.gov/YJZAA5

Nov. 16, 2011 Release on staff report, “Issa Releases Report on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Executive Compensation”: http://1.usa.gov/11S0SaS

WASHINGTON – Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., today released a staff report entitled “None of the Below: The Truth About President Obama’s Actions Against Domestic Energy Production,” summarizing the steps President Obama’s political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior have taken to restrict or regulate into nonexistence the production of oil, natural gas, and coal.

“This report details numerous specific rules and regulatory actions advanced by the Obama Administration which will severely restrict the development of abundant and reliable energy resources,” Issa said. “While President Obama says he supports domestic energy production when he’s staging a photo op for a pipeline he didn’t help build, his actions, and the actions of his radical appointees, undermine his rhetoric.”

According to the report, after denying a Presidential Permit from the U.S. Department of State for the Keystone XL Pipeline, President Obama staged a photo-op in Cushing, Oklahoma in March to announce he was “fast-tracking” the southern leg of the Keystone project, the Keystone Gulf Pipeline running from Cushing to Port Arthur, Texas.

“Such an assertion was at best inaccurate and at worst disingenuous,” the report concludes. “[T]he southern leg does not even require a Presidential Permit from the U.S. Department of State, and the applicable permitting process was effectively complete.  The Presidential Memorandum issued in conjunction with the event – which directed no specific action and explicitly stated it did not change any existing law – was little more than a press release.”

WASHINGTON – Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, today released the second installment of their final report on Operation Fast and Furious. This report chronicles the U.S. Department of Justice’s management failures, specifically finding fault with five senior Justice Department officials for failing to identify red flags indicating reckless tactics.

“The report discloses widespread management failures within the hierarchy of the Justice Department,” said Issa.  “The Justice Department has yet to evaluate these management issues and implement structural changes to prevent another disaster like Operation Fast and Furious from occurring. Furthermore, the Justice Department has taken limited action against these negligent managers.”

“Officials in the Justice Department saw any number of warnings and some even had the gunwalking information right in front of them, yet nothing was done to stop it.  Countless people may be murdered with these weapons, yet the Attorney General appears to be letting his employees slide by with little to no accountability.  The Attorney General needs to make changes to ensure that department leadership provides oversight of the agencies they are tasked with supervising,  instead of pointing fingers at somebody else,” Grassley said.

Operation Fast and Furious contributed to the deaths of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and an unknown number of Mexican citizens.  It also created an ongoing public safety hazard on both sides of the border.  The failures happened because of conscious decisions to encourage gun dealers to sell to known traffickers and avoid interdicting those weapons or even questioning suspects, all in the hope that would lead law enforcement to cartel connections and a larger case.

The report can be found here and exhibits here.

The first installment of the final report focusing on ATF failures can be found here.

• A detailed account of the interview with former ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson.
• The Obama Administration’s new focus on trafficking and targeting of drug cartels, which led to the strategy behind Operation Fast and Furious.
• Testimony from senior Justice Department officials about Operation Fast and Furious and the management problems it entailed. The report finds fault with five senior DOJ Officials for failing to supervise and for missing basic red flags.  Those officials are Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein and Associate Deputy Attorney General Ed Siskel. Attorney General Holder’s Deputy Chief of Staff Robert “Monty” Wilkinson also bears some responsibility for the poor management that lead to Operation Fast and Furious.
• Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler, Associate Deputy Attorney General Ed Siskel, and other officials from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General attended a detailed briefing on Operation Fast and Furious in March 2010.  Despite the evidence presented at the briefing of illegally-purchased firearms being recovered in Mexico and in the U.S., Grindler and Siskel failed to ask probing questions or take any significant follow-up action to monitor and supervise the conduct of the case.
• ATF officials asked both the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and ODAG for assistance in speeding up the indictments in Fast and Furious.  The Justice Department, however, took no action to intervene.  Instead, officials at Department headquarters only showed concern about preparing for the press impact of the indictments.
• Deputy Chief of Staff to the Attorney General Monty Wilkinson discussed Attorney General Holder participating in the press conference announcing the take-down of Operation Fast and Furious prior to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
• Both Monty Wilkinson and Gary Grindler were informed about the connection between Operation Fast and Furious and U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder.  Grindler received detailed information about the connection.  He took no additional action, however, to properly supervise the operation.
• No one at Justice Department headquarters have provided complete and accurate answers to the Terry family.  During their respective transcribed interviews, Monty Wilkinson stated 38 times that he “did not recall” or “did not know.”  In a similar fashion, Gary Grindler did so 29 times, and Ed Siskel 21 times.  In two different transcribed interviews, Dennis Burke said he “did not recall” or “did not know” a combined total of 161 times.
• Recommendations for future management of DOJ.

WASHINGTON – The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today released a new video illustrating Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius’s convoluted scheme to mask ObamaCare’s $200 billion in cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program. Without Sebelius’ $8.3 billion scheme to postpone the pain, American seniors would have felt the cuts beginning this week.  The billions spent through the extralegal project is enough to offset 71% of ObamaCare’s Medicare Advantage cuts until after President Obama faces seniors in the November elections. Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Congressman James Lankford (R-OK) yesterday sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius threatening compulsory action should she continue stonewalling the Oversight Committee’s investigation.

Click here to watch “ObamaCare Guts Medicare Advantage”

“Your staff has run out of excuses and the long delay in providing these documents is inexcusable,” Issa and Lankford wrote to Sebelius.  “Your reluctance to provide the Committee with these documents suggests that the documents and communications do not justify the Administration’s assertion that there is no limit to what the Secretary of HHS can spend on demonstrations…Since GAO experts testified the Demonstration’s design makes it impossible for the project to ‘demonstrate anything,’ we are concerned that the only plausible explanation for the Demonstration is that you decided to utilize a loophole in the Social Security Act to temporarily cover up ObamaCare’s large cuts to the 13 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage until after this year’s election.”

Under current law, HHS may conduct “demonstration projects” to test the impact of payment changes to Medicare programs.  However, the “Medicare Advantage Quality Demonstration Project” spent $8.3 billion – an amount greater than all 85 previous demonstrations combined. 

The Department authorized a “demonstration project” in which it spent $8.3 billion taxpayer dollars outside of its lawful authority to temporarily offset ObamaCare’s controversial cuts to the program serving 13 million seniors, or 27% of the Medicare population.  Last March, the Government Accountability Office recommended that the project be canceled. Currently, the project is set to expire in 2014.

In a July 25 hearing, Medicare Director Jonathan Blum asserted that HHS can spend an unlimited amount of unappropriated, unauthorized money on a Medicare demonstration project – simply ignoring the rules in place designed to keep demonstration projects budget-neutral.

Despite repeated promises, HHS has thus far refused to respond to the Committee’s request for additional information about their election-year “demonstration.”

You can read the Committee’s October 17th letter here. You can read the Committee’s September 27th letter here. You can read the August 1st letter here. You can watch video of the Committee’s July 25th hearing here. For more facts about the extralegal $8.3 billion project, click here.

WASHINGTON- House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection were denied to the U.S. mission in Libya by Washington officials prior to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The denials came after repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel.

“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, As Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter outlines 13 security threats over the six months prior to the attack.

“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” the chairmen write.

The Committee indicated it intends to convene a hearing in Washington on Wednesday October 10, 2012, on the security failures that preceded the attack.

Click here for Chairman Issa and Rep. Chaffetz’s letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Click here for photos obtained by the Oversight Committee of the badly damaged vehicle from the June attempt to assassinate the British Ambassador.

Text of the letter is below:

October 2, 2012

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC  20520

Dear Madam Secretary:

            The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been conducting an investigation of the events surrounding the assassination of J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, on September 11, 2012.   The Full Committee anticipates convening a hearing on Wednesday, October 10, 2012, to consider the security situation in Benghazi leading up to the September 11 attack.  This will include State Department security assessments and security related decision making.

            Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the Ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.  It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest.  In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi.  The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.

Below is a list of attacks and events compiled by the Committee from the six months prior to the murder of Ambassador Stevens that we understand were a basis for repeated resource requests: 

·         April 6, 2012, BENGHAZI – Two Libyans who had been fired from a contractor providing unarmed static security for Consulate Benghazi, threw a small IED over the Consulate fence.  There were no casualties or damage and the suspects were arrested but not prosecuted.

·         April 11, 2012, BENGHAZI – A gun battle between an unidentified armed group and forces loyal to the Transitional National Council (TNC) occurred about 4km from Consulate Benghazi.  The unidentified armed group attacked a Ministry of the Interior building in an attempt to seize a fleet of vehicles that had belonged to the Gaddafi regime.   The gun battle included use of antiaircraft guns and RPGs.

·         April 25, 2012, TRIPOLI – A US Embassy Local Guard Force officer traveling in a diplomatically-plated vehicle was detained and his Embassy-issued radio seized at a militia checkpoint.  He was released without further incident.

·         April 26, 2012, BENGHAZI – While a Foreign Service officer stationed at Consulate Benghazi was attending a trade-related event at the International Medical University, a fistfight escalated to gunfire between security forces for the trade delegation and militia providing security for the University.  A US Foreign Service officer was evacuated by members of the 17^th of February Martyrs Brigade, a Libyan militia, stationed at Consulate Benghazi.

·         April 27, 2012, BENGHAZI – Two South African contractors were kidnapped by armed men while walking through a residential area of Benghazi.  After a brief interrogation about their nationality and purpose in Libya, they were released unharmed. 

·         May 1, 2012, TRIPOLI – The Deputy Commander of Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force was carjacked, beaten and detained by a group of armed youth.  He escaped by climbing over a fence and notifying the Embassy by phone.  Libyan security forces fought a gun battle with the assailants in order to recover a number of stolen vehicles and release other detainees.

·         May 22, 2012, BENGHAZI – Two RPG rounds were fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), approximately 1 km from Consulate Benghazi.  The attack occurred during the early morning hours and there were no casualties.  A Facebook posting that claimed responsibility for the attack said: “After we confirmed that the ICRC were giving out the Bible to the refugees of Tuwerga in Benghazi, a group of Mujaheddin attacked the HQ of the ICRC with an RPG and it targeted the meeting room inside the building. We didn't want to hurt the Christians it is just a warning, we also didn't want to hurt any Muslims working there. We recorded it on video and will publish it soon – so the ICRC must take down their flag with the red cross and close its offices in Libya. We announce that Libya is an Islamic State. We did not attack the Sahara Bank.  Finally, now we are preparing a message for the Americans for disturbing the skies over Derna.”

·         June 2012 – Ambassador Stevens was in the habit of taking early morning runs around Tripoli along with members of his security detail.  According to sources, sometime in June 2012, a posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page trumpeted these runs and directed a threat against Ambassador Stevens along with a stock photo of him.  It is reported that, after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them. 

·         June 6, 2012, BENGHAZI – Under cover of darkness, assailants placed an IED on the north gate of Consulate Benghazi, blowing a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as, “big enough for forty men to go through.”

·         June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG.  This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers.  Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.

·         Late June 2012, BENGHAZI – The ICRC building was attacked again, this time in broad daylight while people were inside.  Once the ICRC pulled out, the US Consulate was the last Western flag flying in Benghazi, making it an ideal target for militants. 

·         August 6, 2012, TRIPOLI – Armed assailants attempted to carjack a vehicle bearing diplomatic plates operated by U.S. security personnel. 

·         WEEKS BEFORE September 11, 2012, BENGHAZI – The unarmed Libyan guards employed by British contractor Blue Mountain Group were being warned by their family members to quit their jobs guarding Consulate Benghazi because there were rumors in the community of an impending attack.

   Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi.

            To help the Committee in its assessment of the security situation in Benghazi before Ambassador Stevens’ murder please prepare a written response to the following no later than October 8, 2012, and make the appropriate officials from the Department available for a briefing for Members of the Committee by the same date:

1.      Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all of the above incidents? If not, why not?

2.      If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?

3.      Please detail any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks mentioned above.  How did the Department respond to each of those requests?

            The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and may at “any time” investigate “any matter” as set forth in House Rule X.

            When producing documents to the Committee, please deliver production sets to the Majority Staff in Room 2157 of the Rayburn House Office Building and the Minority Staff in Room 2471 of the Rayburn House Office Building.  The Committee prefers, if possible, to receive all documents in electronic format.

            If you have any questions about these requests, please contact Tom Alexander or Brien Beattie of the Committee staff at (202) 225-5074.  Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa                                                                            Jason Chaffetz  

Chairman                                                                              Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations               

###