Agency Under Fire

Sorry Jason Bourne, you’ve got to lose the second job on Wall Street. On Feb. 25, 2010, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment,  to the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act, that restricts the ability of Central Intelligence Agency officers to hold a second job in the private sector. The amendment, which was sponsored by Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), came as a reaction to a story published on Feb. 1 by Politico.

The article revealed the CIA’s practice of allowing employees, like the fictional Jason Bourne, to use their skills in the corporate world (provided they get approval) as a source of secondary income. This amendment  allows far fewer forms of secondary employment for Agency personnel, which is a serious threat to the strength of our country’s intelligence force.

Eshoo proposed the amendment, which would make the review process for outside employment more stringent, because she feels it is currently “a rubber stamp deal. No one’s really looking at it or keeping a close eye on it.” Her statements have suggested that instead, the government should allow considerably fewer forms of secondary employment. This would mean, for example, reconsidering jobs in “deception detection,” in which officers help private firms tell when executives are lying about their companies.

It is true that CIA officers only have the skills that make them valuable to their secondary employers because of CIA training. If they leave, their training, an expensive investment for the CIA, leaves with them. However, the reality is that once someone has been trained, they own the skills they have acquired.

Moreover, this type of employment is exactly what Agency employees not engaged in the field need to have. For them to use the skills that make them good agents to make a little extra money is good for everyone.

It is good for the Agency, because working in a job such as deception detection is the equivalent of Jason Bourne doing trick shots in the circus; he gets practice, and the circus gets customers. Financial firms get to use tested intelligence skills to make better market decisions, and the Agency gets employees that are better practiced, without having to pay for it.

Second incomes are also good for the agents, because they yield a lot of money, and officers’ monetary satisfaction is vital to the CIA. Many CIA officials already fear they will lose their most talented employees to the private sector because of better pay and reduced stress.

Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and the Drug Enforcement Association give employees full retirement benefits after 20 years to compensate for the stress inherent in their work. CIA officers do not get the same treatment. Furthermore, the  compensation given to the family of a CIA officer killed in action is smaller than that which any of the other agencies provide. And additionally, this is anything but a unique practice. Many government agencies—including the military—allow employees to hold secondary jobs, with approval.

Shouldn’t CIA employees be allowed to use the skills that they have acquired to provide for themselves in a way that the government won’t, if they get approval? Shouldn’t we just be thankful that they use their skills primarily in our nation’s service, even though there are many higher-paying options? As noted by CIA staff, the option for employees to use their unique talents in the private sector is the only way to prevent a “brain-drain.”

Eshoo said in support of her amendment, “The American people must have confidence that government employees are working in the best interests of the nation, not in their personal self-interest.” It’s a nice sentiment, and in an ideal world it would be true. But if Eshoo gets her way, the next time Robert Ludlum publishes a story, don’t be surprised if Jason Bourne is working full-time for Goldman Sachs.

William V. Bergstrom ’13, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Grays Hall.