Downloald the Full Report as a PDF
Executive Summary
The Committee’s investigation into the management of the State Department’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) has descended to governing by personal attack. Chairman Waxman’s September 18 letter made multiple allegations of wrongdoing against the State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard. These allegations, unsubstantiated at the time, remain unsubstantiated even after interviewing or deposing on the record 13 current and former State Department OIG employees, including employees whose initial allegations formed the basis for the Chairman’s September 18 letter. Even they were unable to substantiate, or even direct the Committee to evidence that would support, their claims, other than that the State Department IG had an abrasive and abusive personality.
The Majority’s expenditure of time and taxpayer funds spent proving that the State Department IG is abrasive and abusive is itself an abuse of the Committee’s authority. Concerns about the direction and management of the State Department’s OIG could have been addressed calmly and professionally. For example, the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency often conducts investigations of allegations of mismanagement or misconduct by inspectors general.
Instead, these issues were aired publicly with highly charged personal attacks against the IG for which there was no evidence, other than the unsupported allegations of current and former employees. These attacks and the ensuing investigation have sapped the morale of the already demoralized State Department OIG, belying the Majority’s alleged desire for the State Department’s OIG to be more aggressive in investigating waste, fraud, and abuse. Under attack by this Committee, including a direction from the Chairman that senior staff not speak with any staff called as a witness by the Committee, the OIG has even less capacity to do its job.
The Majority has simply fabricated the claim that the State Department IG believed his “foremost mission [was] to support the Bush Administration . . . rather than act as an independent and objective check on waste fraud and abuse of U.S. taxpayers.” Nor is there any evidence that he had a “strong affinity with State Department leadership” or had “partisan political ties” that would suggest any motive to protect the Department.
Witness after witness denied any first-hand knowledge of any evidence of such connections. One witness called it a “hunch.” If these whistleblowers told the Majority before the September 18 letter that there was such motivation, they quickly recanted when they were questioned about it in their interviews or depositions. Not one of them could identify a shred of evidence linking the IG to the White House or the leadership of the State Department. Some admitted that they knew there was no connection.
Even if underlying claims regarding the way investigations were handled were true, these allegations of improper motives were and are outrageous abuses of the Committee’s prestige. This Committee should be known for the credibility of its investigations, not the credulousness of the Majority whenever witnesses appear who say what the Majority wants to hear. The failure to conduct even a modicum of inquiry into the allegations has resulted in these wild attacks that garner headlines but then evaporate under even a cursory examination.
Even accusations regarding the IG’s involvement in specific investigations could have been examined without the wild public accusations contained in the Chairman’s September 18 letter. The letter is filled with bogus accusations that the State Department OIG failed to investigate matters in Iraq and Afghanistan. These accusations reflect a willful disregard of the budget and capabilities of the State Department OIG and the multiple other investigative bodies conducting the very same investigations: the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Multinational Force - Iraq Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, the FBI, and even the State Department’s own Bureau of Diplomatic Security, to name a few. It is like accusing the Metropolitan Police Department of not investigating the theft of millions of dollars from the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue. The FBI handled it. It did not require interviewing or deposing 13 witnesses and several hearings on State Department OIG matters to learn this.
The public can and should justly wonder at the purpose of the Majority’s sensational charges. It is irresponsible for the Committee to make charges that it cannot support. It is even more irresponsible for the Committee to fabricate claims of partisan political or other corrupt motives and ascribe them to political appointees.
It is not enough to say that whistleblowers raised questions the Committee should examine. Such an examination need not include public and personal accusations that do great injury to the reputation and morale of the State Department OIG and inhibit its ability to carry out its work. The public has a right to responsible investigations, not just efforts to get headlines in pursuit of partisan political objectives.
The Majority recognizes the hallmark of inspectors general is their independence. That independence gives them credibility. The Majority, however, fails to recognize that an inspector general must also be independent from the partisan political agenda of the majority in Congress. Wearing the sheep’s clothing of good government, the Majority seeks to co-opt agencies into doing their bidding. This is Congress’s version of politicizing the agencies.
