Questions from Congress are mounting for the Department of Homeland Security about allegations that millions of tax dollars have been wasted on a chemical facilities security program, with lawmakers probing accusations that senior officials bottled up internal complaints about the matter.
At issue is the "CFATS" program, which stands for Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards; it was created in 2007 to let the feds review the threat to the public posed by attacks on chemical facilities around the country.
But lawmakers have been told that instead of using over $450 million to inspect chemical facilities and deal with security matters over the last five years, the program has been a magnet for bureacratic excess, waste and a concerted effort inside Homeland Security to paper over internal complaints.
“The Secretary said earlier this year that things had been fixed, but that doesn’t appear to be the case," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who sent Secretary Janet Napolitano a letter in recent days asking for a series of answers.
"If the allegations are true, there’s been a systemic failure of this security program and nearly $500 million has been wasted," Grassley said in a statement issued Tuesday.
This story has been bubbling for months, as Fox News reported last December about an internal report that was highly critical of the DHS program; last week, CBS followed up with its own review and I was given the heads up by a government source with detailed knowledge of the controversy.
Among the many complaints was the whistleblower charge, that CFATS workers were doing little on chemical security, even as they spent large sums of money on items that had nothing to do with their security reviews.
Workers were allegedly assigned to what Sen. Grassley labeled "phantom" field offices and received extra pay in some cases that was not merited.
The whistleblower charges include tales of the agency buying all kinds of equipment which wasn't needed - like hardened computers, chemical HAZMAT suits, gun racks for vehicles and even rapelling equipment.
Sen. Grassley said so many items were purchased that CFATS "had to ask for extra storage space."
As for how much work was done on actual security issues, I was told that in the last five years, only 11 chemical plant reviews had been completed by the Department of Homeland Security - out of almost 4,500 facilities around the nation.
Charges have also been made that CFATS employees wrongly used government vehicles for their own personal needs.
The allegations even include the pointed charge that a top Homeland Security official, Undersecretary Rand Beers, "refused to report the information to the Inspector General" of Homeland Security.
Grassley asked the Homeland Security Secretary a series of questions, asking for answers by next Monday:
1. From the inception of the CFATS program to the present, how many chemical facility inspections has DHS performed?
2. Of the field offices the CFATS program was authorized to create, how many were established from the inception of the program to January 2012? 3. Where were they established?
4. Were DHS employees being transferred to phantom field offices which in fact did not exist?
a. When did Under Secretary of Homeland Security for National Protection and Programs Rand Beers become aware of this?
b. When did Deputy Assistant Secretary Susan Armstrong become aware of this?
5. Were DHS employees who were transferred to these phantom field offices receiving increased locality pay to work in these non-existent field offices?
a. If so, how many employees?
b. How much more money were these employees paid as a result of these locality pay adjustments?
c. Was any effort made by DHS to recoup these payments?
d. If so, how much was recouped?
e. If not, why not?
f. Were any employees terminated as a result of this increased locality pay scheme?
g. Were any employees disciplined as a result of this increased locality pay scheme?
h. If so, what punishments did they receive?
6. How many chemical HAZMAT suits were procured through the CFATS program?
a. What was the total cost of purchasing chemical HAZMAT suits for the CFATS program?
b. Were any of these suits issued to employees?
c. Were any ever worn by employees? If so, when?
d. Is there any justifiable reason for an inspection-based program like CFATS to spend federal dollars on chemical HAZMAT suits?
e. Was Deputy Assistant Secretary Susan Armstrong aware of these procurement decisions? 7. How many Toughbook notebooks were procured though the CFATS program?
a. What was the total cost of purchasing Toughbook notebooks for the CFATS program?
b. Was Deputy Assistant Secretary Susan Armstrong aware of these procurement decisions?
8. Were any additional tools or equipment procured that have subsequently been deemed to be unnecessary?
9. In 2011, did the Director of the CFATS program request extra motor pool space for unauthorized take home vehicles?
a. How many vehicles did the CFATS program have in its motor pool?
10. When was Undersecretary Beers first aware of these allegations?
11. Did he at any time refuse to sign a report regarding these allegations?
12. DHS has promised a full accounting for the nearly $500 million spent on the CFATS program since its inception. Is that accounting complete?
While Grassley asked for answers by next Monday, he is not the only lawmaker pursuing this issue, as Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) plans to continue a hearing after Labor Day on the CFATS matter.
In late July, Aderholt had a pointed message at a hearing for officials from the Department of Homeland Security.
"Let me make it very clear to those of you from DHS in attendance today – this Subcommittee will not tolerate waste, fraud, and abuse...especially when we are dealing with vital security programs and our federal budget is hemorrhaging red ink," Aderholt said.
So, while we have focused on Las Vegas conventions for the GSA that cost $822,000, this issue centers on nearly $500 million in money, which DHS investigators say has resulted in “the hiring of inappropriate people, the expenditure of significant funds for what have since been determined to be unnecessary expenses and several false starts in the direction of the program.”
