By Tracy Connor,
Staff Writer,
NBC News
Self-professed NSA leaker Edward Snowden, shown here in an image taken from
video during an interview by The Guardian in his hotel room in Hong Kong June 6,
2013.
A growing chorus on Capitol Hill is questioning whether U.S.
intelligence agencies are farming out too much work to private contractors like
Edward Snowden, the Booz Allen Hamilton systems analyst who has claimed credit
leaking classified details about surveillance programs.
“Maybe we should bring some of that more in-house -- with
employees of the federal government, with the oath of office that we take to
protect and defend our country and that seriousness of purpose there,” House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.
In the days since Snowden professed to be the source of
reports on secret surveillance programs, others in Congress have also expressed
concern about the number of private employees who have access to sensitive
information and suggested it will be the subject of hearings.
While the average American may have been surprised to learn a
29-year-old civilian could tap into secret government files while drawing a
paycheck from a for-profit firm, there is nothing new or unusual about it.
Last year, 483,236 private contractors had top-secret
security clearances, compared to 791,200 government employees, according to a
report by the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Another 582,542 contractors had the less-stringent
confidential security clearance, compared to 2.7 million government workers, the
report said.
National Security Agency and CIA facilities have government
employees with blue badges working side by side with contractors, known as green
badges, performing similar work and reporting to the same boss at the site.
Because intelligence contracts are classified, it’s difficult
to nail down how much taxpayer money is going to firms like Booz Allen. In his
book, “Spies for Hire,” author Tim Shorrock reported that a DNI official told an
industry conference in 2007 that 70% of intelligence spending went to private
sources.
Experts say it’s part of trend that began two decades ago
when an intelligence community that shrunk after the Cold War needed to ramp up
and looked outside for technology and bodies without increasing the government
head count.
“The only reason we have contractors is because of a government that loves selling the myth of the smaller government,” said George Washington University law professor Steven Schooner, who specializes in government procurement law.
The amount of intelligence outsourcing skyrocketed after 9/11
as the budget and the demands for data collection and analysis and other
services ballooned. Giant firms like Booz, SAIC and Northrup Grumman got big
slices of the pie, but smaller firms also lined up.
Richard “Hollis” Helms, who worked on counter-terrorism for
the CIA for 30 years, started a company called Abraxas after retirement with
$5,000. Four years after 9/11, it had 225 employees, many of them government
retirees. In 2010, it was sold for $124 million.
The benefits of such outsourcing were being debated well
before the time when Snowden says he copied files at his office in Hawaii, fled
to Hong Kong and leaked the information to reporters.
One 2008 congressional report cautioned that the annual cost
of a private employee can be double the cost of a government worker, though
others note the feds can avoid pensions and other legacy costs on the back end
with contracts.
Contracts are also a way to get retired agency workers with
crucial experience back on the job. And using private companies allows the
government to surge on manpower in times of crisis without adding permanent
employees who may be not be needed in the long run.
“If I’m the government, I can hire this database
administration contractor because I have the money right now…and if I don’t have
the money in a couple of years, I can just cut the contract,” said Charles
Faddis, a retired CIA operations officer who is now a consultant who does work
for the government.
In the wake of Snowden's actions, the financial worries are
taking a back seat to security concerns.
While contractors and government workers go through the same
process for security clearances, Snowden’s ability to cull and share information
about secret programs raises the question of how private companies vet and
monitor their hires.
Faddis said the explosion in information technology that
drove the hiring of Snowden and his ilk also means they have access to such a
tremendous amount of data that a single breach could make Daniel Ellsberg’s
Pentagon Papers look like a post-it note.
“Then you have the post-9/11 focus on sharing information and
breaking down stovepipes,” he said. “I agree with that but we have gone in
typical Washington fashion so much farther that you now have throughout the
government all sorts of people at very junior levels who have access to
intelligence of staggering quantities.”
There are vague calls for a clampdown. Senate Intelligence
Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein said Thursday the public can expect
"legislation which will limit or prevent contractors from handling highly
classified technical data."
The government, of course, is not leak-proof. Snowden, a
onetime Army recruit, says he had worked directly for the CIA before Booz Allen
and other private firms, and Bradley Manning wore an Army uniform.
“There is no empirical evidence that contractors are better
or worse than people in the military or the government,” Schooner said.
But William Arkin, who has written extensively on
intelligence outsourcing, told NBC “Nightly News” that some of the contractors
are different from government employees.
“They’re not motivated necessarily by patriotism. They’re not
motivated necessarily by a scar of 9/11. This is a job,” he said.
It’s unclear whether there will be more or fewer of those
jobs when the smoke clears from the Snowden case.
Many of the big multibillion-dollar contracting corporations
have lobbyists. Some of their top executives worked for the CIA or NSA and
retain close ties to the intelligence agencies. The concept of a smaller
government is still prized by politicians, and the demand for intelligence
services is not waning.
“The train has left the station on outsourcing,” said
Schooner. “Do we think Congress will appropriate to hire tens of thousands of
employees for pick-your agency? It’s not going to happen.”
