[House Prints 105-D]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                           [COMMITTEE PRINT]
105th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                  Print
                                                                  105-D
_______________________________________________________________________
 
                             INTERIM REPORT

                                 of the

                               ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                     HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT

                          REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                  1997

                                     
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS.#13


                               MARCH 1998
                                     

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight





                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-663                          WASHINGTON : 1998
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800  
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001









              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

                     DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois          TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico            EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California          PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California             THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia                DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania \3\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona             DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    Carolina                         JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        JIM TURNER, Texas
PETE SESSIONS, Texas                 THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey           HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee \2\
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas                         ------
BOB BARR, Georgia                    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio \1\                    (Independent)
DAN MILLER, Florida \4\
                      Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                 Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
         William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                       Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
                 Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director

----------
\1\ Elected to committee on April 9, 1997, resigned from committee on 
November 13, 1997.
\2\ Elected to committee on April 17, 1997.
\3\ Resigned from committee on April 17, 1997.
\4\ Elected to committee on November 13, 1997.









                                PREFACE

    This report outlines the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight's activities for the first session of the 105th 
Congress. A separate and final report covering activities 
during both sessions will be published at the conclusion of the 
105th Congress in accordance with House Rule XI, 1(d).
    As the primary investigative body of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, my committee's jurisdiction encompasses the 
responsibility of ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse to make 
government smaller and smarter. In addition, the full committee 
investigation into illegal campaign fundraising showed and 
continues to show the American people the infiltration of 
foreign funds to American political candidates during the 1996 
election cycle.
                                               Dan Burton, Chairman

                                 (iii)

                                     












                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Part One. General statement of organization and activities.......     1
  I. Jurisdiction, authority, powers, duties..........................1
 II. Historical background............................................9
III. Organization....................................................15
        A. Subcommittees.........................................    15
        B. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and 
            Oversight............................................    16
 IV. Activities, 1st Session, 105th Congress.........................25
        A. Investigative reports.................................    25
        B. Legislation...........................................    26
        C. Reorganization plans..................................    31
        D. Committee Prints......................................    31
        E. Committee Action on Reports of the Comptroller General    31
Part Two. Report of committee activities.........................    33

                 I. Matters of Interest, Full Committee

        A. General...............................................    33
              1. Oversight plans of the committees of the U.S. 
                House of Representatives.........................    33
              2. Investigations..................................    37
                  a. Oversight of Implementation of the 
                      Government Performance and Results Act of 
                      1993.......................................    37
                  b. The Campaign Fundraising Investigation......    39

                           II. Investigations
             a. investigations resulting in formal reports

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
  Technology, Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman........................    51
      1. ``A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information 
          Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government 
          Records,'' House Report No. 105-37, March 20, 1997, 
          First Report by the Committee on Government Reform and 
          Oversight..............................................    51
Subcommittee on Human Resources, Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman    52
      1. ``Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DOD Continue to 
          Resist Strong Evidence Linking Toxic Causes to Chronic 
          Health Effects,'' House Report No. 105-388, November 7, 
          1997, Second Report by the Committee on Government 
          Reform and Oversight, Together with Additional Views...    52

                        b. other investigations

Full Committee...................................................    56
      1. Review of the Federal Government's Aquisition Strategy 
          Regarding the Federal Telecommunications System of 2001 
          Program................................................    56
      2. Elimination of Section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition 
          Streamlining Act of 1994 [FASA] (Public Law 103-355)...    58
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................    58
      1. Impact of the President's FY 1998 Budget on Federal 
          Employees..............................................    58
      2. Federal Hiring from the Welfare Rolls...................    61
      3. Assisting the District of Columbia with it's Pension 
          Liabilities............................................    65
      4. Review of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance [FEGLI] 
          Program................................................    68
      5. Erroneous Enrollments in the Federal Retirement System..    70
      6. Employment Discrimination in the Federal Workplace......    74
      7. Employment Discrimination in the Pursuit of Diversity...    78
      8. Oversight of Contracting Out Practices..................    81
      9. Review of Premiums Under the Federal Employees Health 
          Benefits Program [FEHBP]...............................    85
      10. Suspension of Affirmative Action at the IRS............    85
      11. The Merits of Holding a CSRS to FERS Open Season.......    87
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.........................    89
      1. Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant..................    89
      2. Public Law 104-8, District of Columbia Financial 
          Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority 
          (D.C. Control Board)...................................    90
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
  Technology.....................................................    92
      1. GAO High-Risk Series....................................    92
      2. Year 2000 Computer Date Problem.........................    93
      3. Implementation of the Government Performance and Results 
          Act....................................................    97
      4. Internal Revenue Service Management.....................   102
      5. Debt Collection.........................................   103
      6. Federal Measures of Race and Ethnicity..................   104
      7. The Post FTS-2000 Telecommunications Contract...........   107
      8. White House Management Issues...........................   107
      9. Executive Branch Information Dissemination..............   108
      10. The Medicare Transaction System........................   109
      11. Total Quality Management...............................   109
      12. Electronic Funds Transfer..............................   110
      13. Inspectors General.....................................   111
      14. Performance-Based Organizations........................   112
      15. Governors Island.......................................   113
      16. Government Sponsored Enterprises.......................   114
      17. Metropolitan Statistical Areas.........................   116
      18. Statistical Proposals..................................   117
      19. Defense Surplus Equipment..............................   117
      20. U.S. Customs Service...................................   119
      21. U.S. Forest Service....................................   120
      22. Clinger-Cohen Act......................................   120
      23. Management Practices in State and Local Governments....   123
      24. Federal Advisory Committee Act.........................   124
Subcommittee on Human Resources..................................   125
      1. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Steps Against the 
          Health Threat Posed by ``Mad Cow Disease'' and Other 
          Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies [TSEs].......   125
      2. The Need for Better Focus in the Rural Health Clinic 
          Program................................................   126
      3. Cabinet Department and Agency Oversight.................   127
      4. Oversight of the Department of Health and Human 
          Services' Healthy Start Program........................   128
      5. Nursing Home Fraud......................................   129
      6. Fixing the Consumer Price Index [CPI]...................   130
      7. Bio-Ethics and Informed Consent.........................   130
      8. Analysis of the Medicare Transaction System [MTS].......   131
      9. Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] Enforcement of 
          Blood Safety Regulations...............................   131
      10. Reducing Education Mandates............................   132
      11. Restructuring the Department of Veterans Affair [VA] 
          Medical Services.......................................   132
      12. Pfiesteria and Public Health...........................   133
      13. Job Corps..............................................   133
      14. Privatization of Child Support Enforcement Services....   134
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and 
  Regulatory Affairs.............................................   135
      1. Investigation of the White House Database...............   135
      2. Investigation of the Misuse of Statistics by the 
          Department of Energy...................................   135
      3. Investigation of OIRA's Review of NAAQS Rules...........   135
      4. Securities and Exchange Commission......................   136
      5. Oversight of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands 
          Programs...............................................   137
      6. Oversight of the Security and Exchange Commission's 
          ``Disclosure of Accounting Policies for Derivative 
          Financial Instruments and Derivative Commodity 
          Instruments''..........................................   140
      7. EPA's Particulate and Ozone Rulemaking..................   143
      8. GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup.......................   149
      9. Office of Management and Budget's ``Report to Congress 
          on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations''.....   152
      10. EPA's Strategic Plan...................................   154
      11. Oversight of EPA and the Regulatory Process............   155
      12. Brookhaven National Laboratory.........................   157
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
  Criminal Justice...............................................   159
      1. National Drug Control Policy............................   159
      2. Department of Defense Inventory Management..............   172
      3. Immigration and Naturalization Service's Program 
          Citizenship USA........................................   177
      4. Force Protection and Antiterrorism......................   181
      5. Oversight of the National Aeronautics and Space 
          Administration.........................................   185
      6. Oversight of the Census Bureau and Census 2000..........   186
Subcommittee on the Postal Service...............................   190
      1. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The 
          Inspector General of the Postal Service and the Board 
          of Governors...........................................   190
      2. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The 
          General Accounting Office and the Postmaster General...   192
      3. U.S. Postal Service: Little Progress Made in Addressing 
          Persistent Labor-Management Problems...................   195
      4. International Mail Market...............................   202
      5. Electronic Commerce.....................................   202
      6. Outsourcing.............................................   203
      7. Investigation of the Postmaster General: For Knowingly 
          Participating as a Government Officer or Employee in 
          Which he had a Financial Interest......................   203

                            III. Legislation
                            a. new measures

Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................   205
      1. H.R. 240, Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997.   205
      2. H.R. 1316, to amend chapter 87, of title 5, U.S.C., with 
          respect to the order of precedence to be applied in the 
          payment of life insurance benefits.....................   205
      3. H.R. 1836, Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act 
          of 1997................................................   206
      4. H.R. 2675, the Federal Employees Life Insurance 
          Improvement Act........................................   207
      5. H.J. Res. 56, Celebrating the end of slavery in the 
          United States..........................................   207
      6. H. Con. Res. 95, recognizing and commending American 
          airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald 
          concentration camp during World War II for their 
          service, bravery, and fortitude........................   208
      7. H. Con. Res. 109, recognizing the many talents of the 
          actor Jimmy Stewart and honoring the contributions he 
          made to the Nation.....................................   208
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.........................   209
      1. H.R. 514, to permit the waiver of District of Columbia 
          residency requirements for certain employees of the 
          Office of Inspector General of the District of 
          Columbia, and for other purposes.......................   209
      2. H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997..............   209
      3. H.R. 3025, to amend the Federal charter for Group 
          Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., and for 
          other purposes.........................................   213
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
  Technology.....................................................   214
      1. H.R. 173, to amend the Federal Property and 
          Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize 
          donation of surplus Federal law enforcement canines to 
          their handlers.........................................   214
      2. H.R. 680, to amend the Federal Property and 
          Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the 
          transfer to States of surplus personal property for 
          donation to nonprofit providers of necessaries to 
          impoverished families and individuals..................   214
      3. H.R. 930, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1997..   215
      4. H.R. 404, to amend the Federal Property and 
          Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the 
          transfer to State and local governments of certain 
          surplus property for use for law enforcement and public 
          safety purposes........................................   216
      5. H.R. 52, Fair Health Information Practices Act of 1997..   217
      6. H.R. 1962, Presidential and Executive Office............   218
      7. H.R. 716, Freedom from Government Competition Act of 
          1997...................................................   219
Subcommittee on Human Resources..................................   219
      1. H.R. 399, the Subsidy Termination for Overdue Payments 
          [STOP] Act.............................................   219
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
  Criminal Justice...............................................   220
      1. H.R. 956, Drug Free Communities Act of 1997.............   220
      2. H.R. 1553, to amend the President John F. Kennedy 
          Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend 
          the authorization of the Assassination Records Review 
          Board until September 30, 1998.........................   222
      3. H.R. 2610, a bill to amend the National Narcotics 
          Leadership Act of 1988 to extend the authorization for 
          the Office of National Drug Control Policy until 
          September 30, 1999, to expand the responsibilities and 
          powers of the Director of the Office of National Drug 
          Control Policy, and for other purposes.................   224
Subcommittee on the Postal Service...............................   227
      1. H.R. 22, the Postal Reform Act of 1997..................   227
      2. H.R. 282, to designate the United States Post Office 
          building located at 153 East 110th Street, New York, 
          New York, as the ``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office 
          Building''.............................................   229
      3. H.R. 499, to designate the facility of the United States 
          Postal Service under construction at 7411 Barlite 
          Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Frank M. 
          Tejada Post Office Building''..........................   230
      4. H.R. 681, to designate the United States Post Office 
          building located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale, 
          California, as the ``Carlos J. Moorehead Post Office 
          Building''.............................................   231
      5. H.R. 1057, to designate the building in Indianapolis, 
          Indiana, which houses the operations of the Circle City 
          Station Post Office as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post 
          Office Building''......................................   231
      6. H.R. 1058, to designate the facility of the United 
          States Postal Service under construction at 150 West 
          Margaret Drive in Terre Haute, Indiana as the ``John T. 
          Myers Post Office Building''...........................   232
      7. H.R. 1231, the ``Post Office Relocation Act of 1997''...   233
      8. H.R. 1254, to designate the United States Post Office 
          building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in 
          Springfield, Missouri, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post 
          Office Building''......................................   233
      9. H.R. 1585, to allow postal patrons to contribute to 
          funding for breast cancer research through the 
          voluntary purchase of certain specially issued United 
          States postage stamps..................................   234
      10. H.R. 2013, to designate the facility of the United 
          States Postal Service located at 551 Kingstown Road in 
          South Kingston, Rhode Island, as the ``David B. 
          Champagne Post Office Building''.......................   234
      11. H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (also known as 
          the Budget Reconciliation bill)........................   235
      12. H.R. 2129, to designate the United States Post Office 
          located at 150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, Ohio, 
          as the ``Douglas Applegate Post Office''...............   236
      13. H.R. 2378 (S. 1023), Making appropriations for the 
          Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, 
          the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
          Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
          September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.............   236
      14. H.R. 2564, to designate the United States Post Office 
          located at 450 North Centre Street in Pottsville, 
          Pennsylvania, as the ``Peter J. McCloskey Postal 
          Facility''.............................................   237
      15. S. 1378, a bill to extend the authorization of use of 
          official mail in the location and recovery of missing 
          children, and for other purposes.......................   238

           b. review of laws within committee's jurisdiction

Standing Committee...............................................   239
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................   242
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.........................   246
Subcommittee on Human Resources..................................   277
Subcommittee on the Postal Service...............................   278

                      IV. Other Current Activities
                  a. general accounting office reports

Standing Committee...............................................   281
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................   286
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
  Technology.....................................................   301
Subcommittee on Human Resources..................................   320
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
  Criminal Justice...............................................   325
Subcommittee on the Postal Service...............................   329

               V. Prior Activities of Continuing Interest

Standing Committee...............................................   337
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.........................   337
Subcommittee on Human Resources..................................   337
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
  Criminal Justice...............................................   338
Subcommittee on the Postal Service...............................   339

       VI. Projected Program for the 105th Congress, 2nd Session

Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................   340
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.........................   342
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
  Technology.....................................................   342
Subcommittee on Human Resources..................................   344
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
  Criminal Justice...............................................   344
Subcommittee on the Postal Service...............................   345

               VII. Views of the Ranking Minority Member

Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman....................................   349















 INTERIM REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT 
        REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 105TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, 1997

       PART ONE. GENERAL STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITIES

             I. Jurisdiction, Authority, Powers, and Duties

    The Rules of the House of Representatives provide for 
election by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, of 
19 named standing committees, 1 of which is the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.\1\ Pursuant to House 
Resolutions 12 and 13 (adopted January 7, 1997), and House 
Resolution 14 (adopted January 7, 1997), establishing the 
membership at 44, with 6 vacancies. Subsequent membership was 
set at 45 pursuant to House Resolution 32 (adopted January 21, 
1997), membership was decreased to 44 pursuant to communication 
to the Speaker on February 5, 1997, House Resolution 36 
(adopted February 5, 1997) filled the vacancies of the 
membership, on March 21, 1997, membership was decreased to 43 
pursuant to communication to the Speaker, House Resolution 108 
(adopted April 9, 1997) increased the membership to 44, on 
April 17, 1997, membership was decreased to 43 pursuant to 
communication to the Speaker, membership increased to 44 
pursuant to House Resolution 120 on April 17, 1997, membership 
was decreased to 43 pursuant to communication to the Speaker on 
November 13, 1997, and on November 13, 1997, membership was 
increased to 44 pursuant to House Resolution 331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rule X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule X sets forth the committee's jurisdiction, functions, 
and responsibilities as follows:

                                 RULE X

         Establishment and Jurisdiction of Standing Committees


                 the committees and their jurisdiction


    1. There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and 
related functions assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2, 
3, and 4; and all bills, resolutions, and other matters 
relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of any standing 
committee as listed in this clause shall (in accordance with 
and subject to clause 5) be referred to such committees, as 
follows:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


            (g) Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

    (1) The Federal Civil Service, including intergovernmental 
personnel; the status of officers and employees of the United 
States, including their compensation, classification, and 
retirement.
    (2) Measures relating to the municipal affairs of the 
District of Columbia in general, other than appropriations.
    (3) Federal paperwork reduction.
    (4) Budget and accounting measures, other than 
appropriations.
    (5) Holidays and celebrations.
    (6) The overall economy and efficiency of Government 
operations and activities, including Federal procurement.
    (7) National archives.
    (8) Population and demography generally, including the 
Census.
    (9) Postal service generally, including the transportation 
of the mails.
    (10) Public information and records.
    (11) Relationship of the Federal Government to the States 
and municipalities generally.
    (12) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the 
Government.
    In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the 
preceding provisions of this paragraph (and its oversight 
functions under clause 2(b) (1) and (2)), the committee shall 
have the function of performing the activities and conducting 
the studies which are provided for in clause 4(c).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                   general oversight responsibilities


    2. (a) In order to assist the House in--
          (1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of (A) 
        the application, administration, execution, and 
        effectiveness of the laws enacted by the Congress, or 
        (B) conditions and circumstances which may indicate the 
        necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional 
        legislation, and
          (2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of 
        such modifications of or changes in those laws, and of 
        such additional legislation, as may be necessary or 
        appropriate,
the various standing committees shall have oversight 
responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b).
    (b)(1) Each standing committee (other than the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget) shall review 
and study, on a continuing basis, the application, 
administration, execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or 
parts of laws, the subject matter of which is within the 
jurisdiction of that committee, and the organization and 
operation of the Federal agencies and entities having 
responsibilities in or for the administration and execution 
thereof, in order to determine whether such laws and the 
programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in 
accordance with the intent of the Congress and whether such 
programs should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated. In 
addition, each such committee shall review and study any 
conditions or circumstances which may indicate the necessity or 
desirability of enacting new or additional legislation within 
the jurisdiction of that committee (whether or not any bill or 
resolution has been introduced with respect thereto) and shall 
on a continuing basis undertake future research and forecasting 
on matters within the jurisdiction of that committee. Each such 
committee having more than twenty members shall establish an 
oversight subcommittee, or require its subcommittees, if any, 
to conduct oversight in the area of their respective 
jurisdiction, to assist in carrying out its responsibilities 
under this subparagraph. The establishment of oversight 
subcommittees shall in no way limit the responsibility of the 
subcommittee with legislative jurisdiction from carrying out 
their oversight responsibilities.
    (2) The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight shall 
review and study, on a continuing basis, the operation of 
Government activities at all levels with a view to determining 
their economy and efficiency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Each standing committee of the House shall have the 
function of reviewing and studying on a continuing basis the 
impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects 
within its jurisdiction as described in clauses 1 and 3.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                   additional functions of committees


    4. * * *
    (c)(1) The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
shall have the general function of--
          (A) receiving and examining reports of the 
        Comptroller General of the United States and of 
        submitting such recommendations to the House as it 
        deems necessary or desirable in connection with the 
        subject matter of such reports;
          (B) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to 
        reorganize the legislative and executive branches of 
        the Government; and
          (C) studying intergovernmental relationships between 
        the United States and the States, and municipalities, 
        and between the United States and international 
        organizations of which the United States is a member.
    (2) In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight may at any time 
conduct investigations of any matter without regard to the 
provisions of clause 1, 2, or 3 (or this clause) conferring 
jurisdiction over such matter upon another standing committee. 
The committee's findings and recommendations in any such 
investigation shall be made available to the other standing 
committee or committees having jurisdiction over the matter 
involved (and included in the report of any such other 
committee when required by clause 2(1)(3) of Rule XI).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Rule XI provides authority for investigations and studies, 
as follows:

                                RULE XI

              Rules of Procedure for Committees in General

    1. * * *
    (b) Each committee is authorized at any time to consider 
such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or 
appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under Rule 
X, and (subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as 
required by clause 5) to incur expenses (including travel 
expenses) in connection therewith.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Each committee shall submit to the House, not later 
than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a report on the 
activities of that committee under this rule and Rule X during 
the Congress ending at noon on January 3 of such year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



committee rules

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Power to sit and act; subpoena power
    (m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions 
and duties under this rule and Rule X (including any matters 
referred to it under clause 5 of Rule X), any committee, or any 
subcommittee thereof, is authorized (subject to subparagraph 
(2)(A) of this paragraph)--
          (A) to sit and act at such times and places within 
        the United States, whether the House is in session, has 
        recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings, 
        and
          (B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the 
        attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
        production of such books, records, correspondence, 
        memorandums, papers, and documents as it deems 
        necessary.
The chairman of the committee, or any member designated by such 
chairman, may administer oaths to any witness.
    (2)(A) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by a 
committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the 
conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or 
activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members 
voting, a majority being present. The power to authorize and 
issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to 
the chairman of the committee pursuant to such rules and under 
such limitations as the committee may prescribe. Authorized 
subpoenas shall be signed by the chairman of the committee or 
by any member designated by the committee.
    (B) Compliance with any subpoena issued by a committee or 
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as 
authorized or directed by the House.
Use of committee funds for travel
    (n)(1) Funds authorized for a committee under clause 5 are 
for expenses incurred in the committee's activities; however, 
local currencies owned by the United States shall be made 
available to the committee and its employees engaged in 
carrying out their official duties outside the United States, 
its territories or possessions. No appropriated funds, 
including those authorized under clause 5, shall be expended 
for the purpose of defraying expenses of members of the 
committee or its employees in any country where local 
currencies are available for this purpose; and the following 
conditions shall apply with respect to travel outside the 
United States or its territories or possessions:
          (A) No Member or employee of the committee shall 
        receive or expend local currencies for subsistence in 
        any country for any day at a rate in excess of the 
        maximum per diem set forth in applicable Federal law, 
        or if the Member or employee is reimbursed for any 
        expenses for such day, then the lesser of the per diem 
        or the actual, unreimbursed expenses (other than for 
        transportation) incurred by the Member or employee 
        during that day.
          (B) Each Member or employee of the committee shall 
        make to the chairman of the committee an itemized 
        report showing the dates each country was visited, the 
        amount of per diem furnished, the cost of 
        transportation furnished, any funds expended for any 
        other official purpose and shall summarize in these 
        categories the total foreign currencies and/or 
        appropriated funds expended. All such individual 
        reports shall be filed no later than sixty days 
        following the completion of travel with the chairman of 
        the committee for use in complying with reporting 
        requirements in applicable Federal law and shall be 
        open for public inspection.
    (2) In carrying out the committee's activities outside of 
the United States in any country where local currencies are 
unavailable, a member or employee of the committee may not 
receive reimbursement for expenses (other than for 
transportation) in excess of the maximum per diem set forth in 
applicable Federal law, or if the member or employee is 
reimbursed for any expenses for such day, then the lesser of 
the per diem or the actual, unreimbursed expenses (other than 
for transportation) incurred, by the member or employee during 
any day.
    (3) A member or employee of a committee may not receive 
reimbursement for the cost of any transportation in connection 
with travel outside the United States unless the member or 
employee has actually paid for the transportation.
    (4) The restrictions respecting travel outside of the 
United States set forth in subparagraphs (2) and (3) shall also 
apply to travel outside of the United States by Members, 
officers, and employees of the House authorized under clause 8 
of rule I, clause 1(b) of this rule, or any other provision of 
these Rules of the House of Representatives.
    (5) No local currencies owned by the United States may be 
made available under this paragraph for the use outside of the 
United States for defraying the expenses of a member of any 
committee after--
          (A) the date of the general election of Members in 
        which the Member has not been elected to the succeeding 
        Congress; or
          (B) in the case of a Member who is not a candidate in 
        such general election, the earlier of the date of such 
        general election or the adjournment sine die of the 
        last regular session of the Congress.
The committee also exercises authority under a number of 
congressional mandates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ For legislation imposing duties specifically on the committee, 
see, for example, sec. 203(e)(6) of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(6)(e)), relating to 
negotiated disposal of Federal surplus property. It requires that, with 
limited exceptions, explanatory statements be sent ``to the appropriate 
committees of the Congress'' in advance of negotiated disposal under 
the Act. It covers disposal of all real and personal property whose 
estimated fair market is over $15,000 in the case of personal property 
and over $100,000 in the case of real property. The current language 
stems from a 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-612), which retained the 
explanatory statement requirement but changed the dollar value 
thresholds, which theretofore had been $1,000 for both personal 
property and real property. The House and Senate Government Operations 
Committees are expressly identified as the appropriate panels in House 
Report 1763, 85th Congress, which accompanied the measure that 
contained the 1958 amendment. See also GSA's Federal Property 
Management Regulations at 41 CFR-47.304-12(d).
    [N. B. The further examples given in the original footnote text 
cover sections (section 414 of the 1969 Housing Act and section 304 of 
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act) have been repealed. The 
reference to sections 191-194 of title 2, U.S. Code, does not deem 
pertinent here.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           5 U.S.C. Sec. 2954

            Information to committees of Congress on request

    An Executive agency, on request of the Committee on 
Government Operations of the House of Representatives or of any 
seven members thereof, or on request of the Committee on 
Government Operations of the Senate, or any five members 
thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating 
to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.

                          18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505

Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

    Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct 
compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigation 
demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process 
Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any 
place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by 
other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to 
written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the 
subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits 
another to do so; or
    Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any 
threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or 
impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due 
and proper administration of the law under which any pending 
proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the 
United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of 
inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had 
by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint 
committee of the Congress--
    Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more 
than five years, or both.

                           31 U.S.C. Sec. 712

                 Investigating the use of public money

    The Comptroller General shall--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) analyze expenditures of each executive agency the 
Comptroller General believes will help Congress decide whether 
public money has been used and expended economically and 
efficiently;
    (4) make an investigation and report ordered by either 
House of Congress or a committee of Congress having 
jurisdiction over revenue, appropriations, or expenditures; and
    (5) give a committee of Congress having jurisdiction over 
revenue, appropriations, or expenditures the help and 
information the committee requests.

                           31 U.S.C. Sec. 719

Comptroller General reports

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (e) The Comptroller General shall report on analyses 
carried out under section 712(3) of this title to the 
Committees on Governmental Affairs and Appropriations of the 
Senate, the Committee on Government Operations and 
Appropriations of the House, and the committees with 
jurisdiction over legislation related to the operation of each 
executive agency.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ For other requirements which relate to General Accounting 
Office reports to Congress and which affect the committee, see secs. 
232 and 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law 
91-510).
                       II. Historical Background

    The committee was initially named the ``Committee on 
Expenditures in the Executive Departments.'' Its antecedents 
are summarized in Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
Representatives, vol. VII, sec. 2041, p. 831 (1935), as 
follows:
          This committee was created, December 5, 1927, by the 
        consolidation of the eleven Committees on Expenditures 
        in the various Departments of the Government, the 
        earliest of which has been in existence since 1816. As 
        adopted in 1816, the rule did not include the 
        committees for the Departments of Interior, Justice, 
        Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. The committees for 
        these Departments date, respectively, from 1860, 1874, 
        1889, 1905 and 1913.
    The resolution providing for the adoption of the rules of 
the 70th Congress discontinued the several committees on 
expenditures and transferred their functions to the newly 
created Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments:
          On March 17, 1928, the jurisdiction of the committee 
        was further enlarged by the adoption of a resolution, 
        reported from the Committee on Rules, including within 
        its jurisdiction the independent establishments and 
        commissions of the Government.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Examples of the wide-ranging scope of the committee's 
jurisdiction may be found in Cannon's Precedents, supra VII, secs. 
2042-2046, pp. 831-833 (1935).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From 1928 until January 2, 1947, when the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 became effective, the committee's 
jurisdiction was set forth in Rule XI, 34, of the House Rules 
then in force (H. Doc. 810, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. (1945)), as 
follows:

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    34. The examination of the account and expenditures of the 
several departments, independent establishments, and 
commissions of the Government, and the manner of keeping the 
same; the economy, justness, and correctness of such 
expenditures; their conformity with appropriation laws; the 
proper application of public moneys; the security of the 
Government against unjust and extravagant demands; 
retrenchment; and enforcement of the payment of moneys due the 
United States; the economy and accountability of public 
officers; the abolishment of useless offices, shall all be 
subjects within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Expenditures in the Executive Departments.
    The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, section 121(b), 
as adopted in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Rule XI, 8, of 
later Rules of the House (XI, 9, the 93d Congress), provided:

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

    (a) Budget and accounting measures, other than 
appropriations.
    (b) Reorganizations in the executive branch of Government.
    (c) Such committee shall have the duty of--
          (1) receiving and examining reports of the 
        Comptroller General of the United States and of 
        submitting such recommendations to the House as it 
        deems necessary or desirable in connection with the 
        subject matter of such reports;
          (2) studying the operation of Government activities 
        at all levels with a view to determining the economy 
        and efficiency;
          (3) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to 
        reorganize the legislative and executive branches of 
        the Government;
          (4) studying intergovernmental relationships between 
        the United States and the States and municipalities, 
        and between the United States and international 
        organizations of which the United States is a member.
          (d) For the purpose of performing such duties the 
        committee, or any subcommittee thereof when authorized 
        by the committee, is authorized to sit, hold hearings, 
        and act at such times and places within the United 
        States, whether or not the House is in session, is in 
        recess, or has adjourned, to require by subpoena or 
        otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the 
        production of such papers, documents, and books, and to 
        take such testimony as it deems necessary. Subpoenas 
        may be issued under the signature of the chairman of 
        the committee or of any subcommittee, or by any member 
        designated by any such chairman, and may be served by 
        any person designated by any such chairman or 
        member.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Paragraph (d) was adopted by the House Feb. 10, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rule X, 1(h), of later Rules of the House, effective 
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Congress), added the 
additional jurisdiction of general revenue sharing (formerly 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means), 
and the National Archives (formerly within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
    Rule X, 1(j)(6), of later Rules of the House listed the 
additional jurisdiction of measures providing for off-budget 
treatment of Federal agencies or programs, which was added by 
sec. 225 of Public Law 99-177, the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (December 12, 1985).
    The 1946 Act contained the following proviso:
          Provided: That unless otherwise provided herein, any 
        matter within the jurisdiction of a standing committee 
        prior to January 2, 1947, shall remain subject to the 
        jurisdiction of that committee or of the consolidated 
        committee succeeding to the jurisdiction of that 
        committee.
This proviso was omitted from the Rules of the House adopted 
January 3, 1954.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ H. Res. 5, 83d Cong. (99 Cong. Rec. 15). Cf. rules in H. Doc. 
562, 82d Congress, 2d session p. 328 and in H. Doc. 739, 81st Congress, 
2d session, p. 326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 5, cl. 2), ``Each 
House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' Omission of 
the proviso made no substantive change, since the scope of the 
committee's jurisdiction prior to January 2, 1947, was embraced 
within the committee's jurisdiction as stated in existing rules 
and precedents.
    The committee's membership, which was fixed at 21 when it 
was consolidated on December 5, 1927, was increased to 25 when 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 became effective on 
January 2, 1947. In 1951, the committee's membership was 
increased to 27.\7\ From 1953 until January 1963, the 
committee's membership remained at 30.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ H. Res. 60, 83d Congress, 1st session (97 Cong. Rec. 194).
    \8\ H. Res. 98, 83d Cong. (99 Cong. Rec. 436); H. Res. 94, 84th 
Cong. (101 Cong. Rec. 484); H. Res. 89, 85th Cong. (103 Cong. Rec. 
412); H. Res. 120, 86th Cong. (105 Cong. Rec. 841); H. Res. 137, 87th 
Cong. (107 Cong. Rec. 1677).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to H. Res. 108, 88th Congress, adopted January 17, 
1963, the committee was enlarged to 31 members. In the 89th 
Congress the membership of the committee was increased to 34 
through passage of H. Res. 114, January 14, 1965. The committee 
membership in the 90th and 91st Congresses of 35 was first 
established by H. Res. 128, 90th Congress, approved January 16, 
1967. The committee membership in the 92d Congress of 39 was 
established by H. Res. 192, approved February 4, 1971. It was 
raised to 41 by H. Res. 158, adopted January 24, 1973. The 
committee membership of 42 was established by H. Res. 1238, 
adopted July 17, 1974. It was increased to 43 by H. Res. 76 and 
101, adopted January 20 and 28, 1975. Membership was maintained 
at 43 in the 95th Congress by H. Res. 117 and 118, adopted 
January 19, 1977. The committee membership was set at 39 in the 
96th Congress by H. Res. 62 and 63, adopted January 24, 1979. 
The committee membership was set at 40 in the 97th Congress by 
H. Res. 44 and 45, adopted January 28, 1981. The committee size 
was increased to 41 by the adoption of H. Res. 370 on February 
24, 1982. Pursuant to House Res. 26 and 27, adopted January 6, 
1983, the committee membership for the 98th Congress was set at 
39.
    In the 99th Congress, the membership of the committee was 
set at 39, pursuant to House Res. 34 and 35, adopted January 
30, 1985.
    In the 100th Congress, the membership of the committee was 
set at 39, pursuant to House Res. 45 and 54, adopted January 21 
and 22, 1987, respectively.
    The committee membership in the 101st Congress was 
established at 39 by H. Res. 29 and H. Res. 45, adopted January 
19 and 20, 1989. In the 102d Congress, the membership of the 
committee was set at 41, pursuant to H. Res. 43, 44, and 45, 
adopted January 24, 1991. The committee membership was set at 
42 in the 103d Congress by adoption of H. Res. 8 and 9 on 
January 5, 1993; H. Res. 34 on January 21, 1993; H. Res. 67 on 
February 4, 1993; and H. Res. 92 and 93 on February 18, 1993. 
The membership was increased to 44 by the adoption of H. Res. 
185 on May 26, 1993 and H. Res. 219 on July 21, 1993. Beginning 
September 28, 1949, the moneys appropriated to the committee 
were, by House resolution in each session of Congress, 
available for expenses incurred in conducting studies and 
investigations authorized under Rule XI, whether made within or 
without the United States.\9\ In the 103d Congress, these 
matters are covered in paragraph (b) of clause 1 of Rule XI, as 
set forth above and by clause 5 of Rule XI. The funds for the 
committee's studies and oversight function during the first 
session of the 103d Congress were provided by H. Res. 107 
adopted March 30, 1993 (H. Rept. 103-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See items under (1) in footnote 3, of the final calendar of the 
committee for the 93d Congress (Dec. 31, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The committee's name was changed to ``Committee on 
Government Operations'' by House resolution adopted July 3, 
1952.\10\ The Congressional Record indicates the reasons 
underlying that change in name were, in part, as follows: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ H. Res. 647, 82d Cong. (98 Cong. Rec. 9217). The Senate had 
made a similar change of name on Mar. 3, 1952, after conference between 
the chairman of the House and Senate Committees on Expenditures in the 
Executive Departments to ensure both Houses would adopt the change in 
name. S. Res. 280, 82d Cong. (98 Cong. Rec. 1701-1702). See also S. 
Rept. No. 1231, 80th Congress, 2d Session, p. 3 (May 3, 1948).
    \11\ Letter of Feb. 19, 1952, from the chairman, Senate Committee 
on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Senator McCellan to 
Senator Hayden (98 Cong. Rec. 1702).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          This committee is proposing the indicated change in 
        the present title, in view of the fact that it is 
        misleading and the committees' functions and duties are 
        generally misunderstood by the public.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    In suggesting the proposed change the committee based its 
decision on what it considers to be the major or primary 
function of the committee under the prescribed duties assigned 
to it to study ``the operations of Government activities at all 
levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency.'' 
It was the unanimous view of the members of the committee that 
the proposed new title would be more accurate in defining the 
purposes for which the committee was created and in clearly 
establishing the major purpose it serves.
    On January 4, 1995, the 104th Congress opened with a 
Republican majority for the first time in forty years. The 
shift in power from Democrats to Republicans has resulted in a 
realignment of the legislative priorities and committee 
structure of the House of Representatives. Perhaps more than 
any other committee, the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee embodies the changes taking place in the House of 
Representatives. The committee itself was created by 
consolidating three committees into one, resulting in budget 
and staff cuts of nearly 50 percent. The committees that were 
merged include the Committee on Government Operations, the 
Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service, and the 
Committee on the District of Columbia.
    In order to fulfill the Republican Contract with America, 
the committee held a record number of hearings and mark-ups, 
and members cast more votes during this 100 day period than in 
any of the previous committees' histories. Over the course of 
the first session, 295 bills and resolutions were referred to 
the committee and its subcommittees, and 180 hearings and mark-
ups were held. Five of these measures have been signed into 
law.
    In addition to its greatly expanded legislative 
jurisdiction, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee 
serves as the chief investigative committee of the House, with 
the authority to conduct governmentwide oversight. Because the 
committee only authorizes money for a small number of Federal 
agencies and programs, it is able to review government 
activities with an independent eye.
    The 105th Congress and the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight under the leadership of Chairman Dan Burton (R-
IN) enjoyed a productive year as Congress continued to move 
closer to its goals established with the Contract of America to 
seek to achieve a smaller, smarter and more efficient common 
sense government.
    In addition to the committee's oversight responsibilities, 
the Government Reform and Oversight Committee has pursued an 
active, ambitious agenda throughout the first session of the 
105th Congress with its ongoing investigation of suspected 
illegal activities during the 1996 elections. The committee's 
and its seven subcommittees conducted 129 hearings during the 
first half of the 105th Congress. Hearings covered an 
incredibly diverse range of subjects including the year 2000 
computer crisis, the Federal employee health benefit program, 
and the Persian Gulf war veterans illnesses. The committee 
staff developed a web site (www.house.gov/reform) to post up-
to-minute witness testimonies and reports for quick 
availability.
                           III. Organization

                         A. SUBCOMMITTEES \12\

    In the 104th Congress, significant steps were taken to 
reduce the number of committees, subcommittees, and the number 
of congressional staff. As a result, the Congress eliminated 
the District of Columbia Committee and the Post Office and 
Civil Service Committee. The jurisdiction of these committees 
were merged into the Government Operations Committee and its 
name was changed to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ The chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee 
are ex-officio members of all subcommittees on which they do not hold a 
regular assignment (Committee Rule 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to perform its functions and to carry out its 
duties as fully and as effectively as possible, the committee 
under the leadership of its chairman, the Honorable Dan Burton 
of Indiana, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, established 
seven standing subcommittees, which cover the entire field of 
executive expenditures and operations. The names, chairpersons, 
and members of these subcommittees are as follows:
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL SERVICE, John L. Mica, 
        Chairman; members: Michael Pappas, Constance A. 
        Morella, Christopher Cox, Pete Sessions, Elijah E. 
        Cummings, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Harold E. Ford, 
        Jr.
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Thomas M. 
        Davis, Chairman; members: Constance A. Morella, Ileana 
        Ros-Lehtinen, Stephen Horn, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and 
        Thomas H. Allen.
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, 
        AND TECHNOLOGY, Stephen Horn, Chairman; members: Pete 
        Sessions, Thomas M. Davis, Joe Scarborough, Marshall 
        ``Mark'' Sanford, John E. Sununu, vacant, Carolyn B. 
        Maloney, Paul E. Kanjorski, Major R. Owens, Rod R. 
        Blagojevich, and Danny K. Davis.
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Christopher Shays, 
        Chairman; members: Vince Snowbarger, Benjamin A. 
        Gilman, David M. McIntosh, Mark E. Souder, Michael 
        Pappas, Steven Schiff, Edolphus Towns, Dennis J. 
        Kucinich, Thomas H. Allen, Tom Lantos, Bernard Sanders, 
        and Thomas M. Barrett.
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, NATURAL 
        RESOURCES, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, David M. McIntosh, 
        Chairman; members: John E. Sununu, J. Dennis Hastert, 
        Joe Scarborough, John B. Shadegg, Steven C. LaTourette, 
        Vince Snowbarger, Bob Barr, Pete Sessions, Bernard 
        Sanders, John F. Tierney, Jim Turner, Paul E. 
        Kanjorski, Gary A. Condit, Dennis J. Kucinich, and 
        Chaka Fattah.
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL 
        AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, J. Dennis Hastert, 
        Chairman; members: Mark E. Souder, Christopher Shays, 
        Steven Schiff, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John M. McHugh, 
        John L. Mica, John B. Shadegg, Steven C. LaTourette, 
        Bob Barr, Thomas M. Barrett, Tom Lantos, Robert E. 
        Wise, Jr., Gary A. Condit, Rod R. Blagojevich, Carolyn 
        B. Maloney, Elijah E. Cummings, and Jim Turner.
          SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE POSTAL SERVICE, John M. McHugh, 
        Chairman; members: Marshall ``Mark'' Sanford, Benjamin 
        A. Gilman, Steven C. LaTourette, Pete Sessions, Chaka 
        Fattah, Major R. Owens, and Danny K. Davis.

      B. RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

    Rule XI, 1(a)(1) of the House of Representatives provides:
          The Rules of the House are the rules of its 
        committees and subcommittees so far as applicable, 
        except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a 
        motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of 
        a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, 
        are nondebatable motions of high privilege in 
        committees and subcommittees.
    Rule XI, 2(a) of the House of Representatives provides, in 
part:
          Each standing committee of the House shall adopt 
        written rules governing its procedures.
    In accordance with the foregoing, the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, on February 12, 1997, adopted 
the rules of the committee. The rules read as follows:

                     Rule 1.--Application of Rules

    Except where the terms ``full committee'' and 
``subcommittee'' are specifically referred to, the following 
rules shall apply to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and its subcommittees as well as to the respective 
chairmen.
        [See House Rule XI, 1.]

                           Rule 2.--Meetings

    The regular meetings of the full committee shall be held on 
the second Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., when the House is 
in session. The chairman is authorized to dispense with a 
regular meeting or to change the date thereof, and to call and 
convene additional meetings, when circumstances warrant. A 
special meeting of the committee may be requested by members of 
the committee following the provisions of House Rule XI, 2(c)2. 
Subcommittees shall meet at the call of the subcommittee 
chairmen. Every member of the committee or the appropriate 
subcommittee, unless prevented by unusual circumstances, shall 
be provided with a memorandum at least three calendar days 
before each meeting or hearing explaining (1) the purpose of 
the meeting or hearing; and (2) the names, titles, background 
and reasons for appearance of any witnesses. The ranking 
minority member shall be responsible for providing the same 
information on witnesses whom the minority may request.
        [See House Rule XI, 2(b).]

                            Rule 3.--Quorums

    A majority of the members of the committee shall form a 
quorum, except that two members shall constitute a quorum for 
taking testimony and receiving evidence, and one-third of the 
members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than 
the reporting of a measure or recommendation. If the chairman 
is not present at any meeting of the committee or subcommittee, 
the ranking member of the majority party on the committee or 
subcommittee who is present shall preside at that meeting.
        [See House Rule XI, 2(h).]

                       Rule 4.--Committee Reports

    Bills and resolutions approved by the committee shall be 
reported by the chairman following House Rule XI, 2(l).
    Every investigative report shall be approved by a majority 
vote of the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is 
present. Supplemental, minority, or additional views may be 
filed following House Rule XI, 2(l)(5). The time allowed for 
filing such views shall be three calendar days, beginning on 
the day of notice but excluding Saturday, Sundays, and legal 
holidays (unless the House is in session on such a day), unless 
the committee agrees to a different time, but agreement on a 
shorter time shall require the concurrence of each member 
seeking to file such views. A proposed report shall not be 
considered in subcommittee or full committee unless the 
proposed report has been available to the members of such 
subcommittee or full committee for at least three calendar days 
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before 
consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or full 
committee. An investigative report or oversight report will be 
considered as read if available, to the members, at least 24 
hours before consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and 
legal holidays unless the House is in session on such days. If 
hearings have been held on the matter reported upon, every 
reasonable effort shall be made to have such hearings available 
to the members of the subcommittee or full committee before the 
consideration of the proposed report in such subcommittee or 
full committee. An investigative or oversight report may be 
filed after sine die adjournment of the last regular session of 
the Congress, provided that if a member gives timely notice of 
intention to file supplemental, minority or additional views, 
that member shall be entitled to not less than seven calendar 
days in which to submit such views for inclusion with the 
report.
    Only those reports approved by a majority vote of the 
committee may be ordered printed, unless otherwise required by 
the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                          Rule 5.--Proxy Votes

    In accordance with the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, members may not vote by proxy on any measure 
or matter before
the committee or any subcommittee.
        [See House Rule XI, 2(f).]

                          Rule 6.--Roll Calls

    A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of 
any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote.
        [See House Rule XI, 2(e).]

                  Rule 7.--Record of Committee Actions

    The committee staff shall maintain in the committee offices 
a complete record of committee actions from the current 
Congress including a record of the rollcall votes taken at 
committee business meetings. The original records, or true 
copies thereof, as appropriate, shall be available for public 
inspection whenever the committee offices are open for public 
business. The staff shall assure that such original records are 
preserved with no unauthorized alteration, additions, or 
defacement.
        [See House Rule XI, 2(e).]

                   Rule 8.--Subcommittees; Referrals

    There shall be seven subcommittees with appropriate party 
ratios that shall have fixed jurisdictions. Bills, resolutions, 
and other matters shall be referred by the chairman to 
subcommittees within two weeks for consideration or 
investigation in accordance with their fixed jurisdictions. 
Where the subject matter of the referral involves the 
jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee or does not fall 
within any previously assigned jurisdiction, the chairman shall 
refer the matter as he may deem advisable. Bills, resolutions, 
and other matters referred to subcommittees may be reassigned 
by the chairman when, in his judgement, the subcommittee is not 
able to complete its work or cannot reach agreement therein. In 
a subcommittee having an even number of members, if there is a 
tie vote with all members voting on any measure, the measure 
shall be placed on the agenda for full committee consideration 
as if it had been ordered reported by the subcommittee without 
recommendation. This provision shall not preclude further 
action on the measure by the subcommittee.
        [See House Rule XI, 1(a)(2).]

                      Rule 9.--Ex Officio Members

    The chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
committee shall be ex officio members of all subcommittees. 
They are authorized to vote on subcommittee matters; but, 
unless they are regular members of the subcommittee, they shall 
not be counted in determining a subcommittee quorum other than 
a quorum for taking testimony.

                            Rule 10.--Staff

    Except as otherwise provided by House Rule XI, 5 and 6, the 
chairman of the full committee shall have the authority to hire 
and discharge employees of the professional and clerical staff 
of the full committee and of subcommittees.

                       Rule 11.--Staff Direction

    Except as otherwise provided by House Rule XI, 5 and 6, the 
staff of the committee shall be subject to the direction of the 
chairman of the full committee and shall perform such duties as 
he may assign.

                 Rule 12.--Hearing Dates and Witnesses

    The chairman of the full committee will announce the date, 
place, and subject matter of all hearings at least one week 
before the commencement of any hearings, unless he determines, 
with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the 
committee determines by a vote, that there is good cause to 
begin such hearings sooner. So that the chairman of the full 
committee may coordinate the committee facilities and hearings 
plans, each subcommittee chairman shall notify him of any 
hearing plans at least two weeks before the date of 
commencement of hearings, including the date, place, subject 
matter, and the names of witnesses, willing and unwilling, who 
would be called to testify, including, to the extent he is 
advised thereof, witnesses whom the minority members may 
request. The minority members shall supply the names of 
witnesses they intend to call to the chairman of the full 
committee or subcommittee at the earliest possible date. 
Witnesses appearing before the committee shall so far as 
practicable, submit written statements at least 24 hours before 
their appearance and, when appearing in a non-governmental 
capacity, provide a curriculum vitae and a listing of any 
Federal Government grants and contracts received in the 
previous fiscal year.
        [See House Rules XI, 2(g)(3), (g)(4), (j) and (k).]

                        Rule 13.--Open Meetings

    Meetings for the transaction of business and hearings of 
the committee shall be open to the public or closed in 
accordance with Rule XI of the House of Representatives.
        [See House Rules XI, 2 (g) and (k).]

                       Rule 14.--Five-Minute Rule

    (1) A committee member may question a witness only when 
recognized by the chairman for that purpose. In accordance with 
House Rule XI, 2(j)(2), each committee member may request up to 
five minutes to question a witness until each member who so 
desires has had such opportunity. Until all such requests have 
been satisfied, the chairman shall, so far as practicable, 
recognize alternately based on seniority of those majority and 
minority members present at the time the hearing was called to 
order and others based on their arrival at the hearing. After 
that, additional time may be extended at the direction of the 
chairman.
    (2) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking 
minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit an 
equal number of majority and minority members to question a 
witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each 
side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side.
    (3) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking 
minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit 
committee staff of the majority and minority to question a 
witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each 
side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side.
    (4) Nothing in paragraph (2) or (3) affects the rights of a 
Member (other than a Member designated under paragraph (2)) to 
question a witness for 5 minutes in accordance with paragraph 
(1) after the questioning permitted under paragraph (2) or (3). 
In any extended questioning permitted under paragraph (2) or 
(3), the chairman shall determine how to allocate the time 
permitted for extended questioning by majority members or 
majority committee staff and the ranking minority member shall 
determine how to allocate the time permitted for extended 
questioning by minority members or minority committee staff. 
The chairman or the ranking minority member, as applicable, may 
allocate the time for any extended questioning permitted to 
staff under paragraph (3) to members.

              Rule 15.--Investigative Hearings; Procedure

    Investigative hearings shall be conducted according to the 
procedures in House Rule XI, 2(k). All questions put to 
witnesses before the committee shall be relevant to the subject 
matter before the committee for consideration, and the chairman 
shall rule on the relevance of any questions put to the 
witnesses.

                     Rule 16.--Stenographic Record

    A stenographic record of all testimony shall be kept of 
public hearings and shall be made available on such conditions 
as the chairman may prescribe.

                  Rule 17.--TV, Radio, and Photographs

    An open meeting or hearing of the committee or a 
subcommittee may be covered, in whole or in part, by television 
broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any 
such methods of coverage, unless closed subject to the 
provisions of House Rule XI, 3.

                Rule 18.--Additional Duties of Chairman

    The chairman of the full committee shall:
          (a) Make available to other committees the findings 
        and recommendations resulting from the investigations 
        of the committee or its subcommittees as required by 
        House Rule X, 4(c)(2);
          (b) Direct such review and studies on the impact or 
        probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects 
        within the committee's jurisdiction as required by 
        House Rule X, 2(c);
          (c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and 
        estimates required by House Rule X, 4(g), and to file 
        reports with the House as required by the Congressional 
        Budget Act;
          (d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in 
        House Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any 
        investigation or activity or series of investigations 
        or activities within the jurisdiction of the committee;
          (e) Prepare, after consultation with subcommittee 
        chairmen and the minority, a budget for the committee 
        which shall include an adequate budget for the 
        subcommittees to discharge their responsibilities;
          (f) Make any necessary technical and conforming 
        changes to legislation reported by the committee upon 
        unanimous consent; and
          (g) Will designate a vice chairman from the majority 
        party.

                     Rule 19.--Commemorative Stamps

    The committee has adopted the policy that the determination 
of the subject matter of commemorative stamps properly is for 
consideration by the Postmaster General and that the committee 
will not give consideration to legislative proposals for the 
issuance of commemorative stamps. It is suggested that 
recommendations for the issuance of commemorative stamps be 
submitted to the Postmaster General.

               Rule 20.--Interrogatories and Depositions

    The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority 
member, may order the taking of interrogatories or depositions, 
under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena. Such 
authorization may occur on a case-by-case basis, or by 
instructions to take a series of interrogatories or 
depositions. Notices for the taking of depositions shall 
specify the date, time, and place of examination. Answers to 
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing under oath 
and depositions shall be taken under oath administered by a 
member or a person otherwise authorized by law to administer 
oaths. Consultation with the ranking minority member shall 
include three business day's written notice before any 
deposition is taken. All members shall also receive three 
business day's written notice that a deposition has been 
scheduled.
    The committee shall not initiate contempt proceedings based 
on the failure of a witness to appear at a deposition unless 
the deposition notice was accompanied by a committee subpoena 
issued by the chairman.
    Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to 
advise them of their rights. No one may be present at 
depositions except members, committee staff designated by the 
chairman or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the 
witness, and the witness's counsel. Observers or counsel for 
other persons or for agencies under investigation may not 
attend.
    A deposition shall be conducted by any member or committee 
staff attorney designated by the chairman or ranking minority 
member. When depositions are conducted by committee staff 
attorneys, there shall be no more than two committee staff 
attorneys of the committee permitted to question a witness per 
round. One of the committee staff attorneys shall be designated 
by the chairman and the other shall be designated by the 
ranking minority member. Other committee staff members 
designated by the chairman or the ranking minority member may 
attend, but are not permitted to pose questions to the witness.
    Questions in the deposition will be propounded in rounds. A 
round shall include as much time as is necessary to ask all 
pending questions. In each round, a member or committee staff 
attorney designated by the chairman shall ask questions first, 
and the member or committee staff attorney designated by the 
ranking minority member shall ask questions second.
    An objection by the witness as to the form of a question 
shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a 
question and refuses to answer, the member or committee staff 
attorney may proceed with the deposition, or may obtain, at 
that time or a subsequent time, a ruling on the objection by 
telephone or otherwise from the chairman or a member designated 
chairman. The committee shall not initiate procedures leading 
to contempt proceedings based on a refusal to answer a question 
at a deposition unless the witness refuses to testify after an 
objection of the witness has been overruled and after the 
witness has been ordered by the chairman or a member designated 
by the chairman to answer the question. Overruled objections 
shall be preserved for committee consideration within the 
meaning of clause 2(k)(8) of House Rule XI.
    Committee staff shall insure that the testimony is either 
transcribed or electronically recorded, or both. If a witness's 
testimony is transcribed, the witness or the witness's counsel 
shall be afforded an opportunity to review a copy. No later 
than five days thereafter, the witness may submit suggested 
changes to the chairman. Committee staff may make any 
typographical and technical changes requested by the witness. 
Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or 
amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the 
witness must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes 
and a statement of the witness's reasons for each proposed 
change. A letter requesting any substantive changes, 
modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed by 
the witness. Any substantive changes, modifications, 
clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an appendix 
to the transcript conditioned upon the witness signing the 
transcript.
    The individual administering the oath, if other than a 
member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was 
duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript 
is a true record of the testimony and the transcript shall be 
filed, together with any electronic recording, with the clerk 
of the committee in Washington, DC. Interrogatories and 
depositions shall be considered to have been taken in 
Washington, DC, as well as at the location actually taken once 
filed there with the clerk of the committee for the committee's 
use. The chairman and the ranking minority member shall be 
provided with a copy of the transcripts of the deposition at 
the same time.
    All depositions and interrogatories received pursuant to 
this rule shall be considered as taken in executive session.
    A witness shall not be required to testify unless the 
witness has been provided with a copy of the committee's rules.
    This rule is applicable to the committee's investigation of 
political fundraising improprieties and possible violations of 
law, and is effective upon adoption of a resolution, in the 
House of Representatives, providing the committee with special 
investigative authorities.

   Rule 21.--Letters Rogatory and International Government Assistance

    The chairman, after consultation with the ranking minority 
member, may obtain testimony and evidence in other countries 
through letters rogatory and other means of international 
government cooperation and assistance. This rule is applicable 
to the committee's investigation of political fundraising 
improprieties and possible violations of law, and is effective 
upon adoption of a resolution, in the House of Representatives, 
providing the committee with special investigative authorities.
              IV. Activities, 1st Session, 105th Congress

                                SUMMARY

    1. In the 105th Congress, first session, the committee 
approved and submitted to the House of Representatives 2 
investigative reports. In addition, the committee issued 4 
committee prints.
    2. In the 105th Congress, first session, 288 bills and 
resolutions were referred to the committee and studied. Of 
these, the committee reported 21. In addition, 11 Memorials, 2 
Petitions, and 5 Presidential messages were referred to the 
committee.
    3. Pursuant to its duty of studying reports of the 
Comptroller General, the Congress received officially 986 such 
reports during the first session, 105th Congress, and the 
committee studied 88. In addition, 889 executive 
communications, were referred to the committee under clause 2 
of Rule XXIV of the House of Representatives.
    4. The full committee met 24 days during the 105th 
Congress, first session, while the subcommittees met a total of 
128 days in public hearings, markups, and meetings.
    The significant actions taken by the committee with respect 
to these and a considerable number of other matters are 
discussed in detail below.

                        A. INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS

    During the first session, 105th Congress, the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight approved and submitted to the 
Congress 2 reports of an investigative nature. A number of 
other reports were in preparation and a number of 
investigations were underway. These will be considered by the 
subcommittees and the full committee during the second session 
of the 105th Congress.
    For convenience, the published reports are listed here with 
the names of the originating subcommittees. A more detailed 
discussion of the material will be found in part two below in 
the breakdown of the committee's activities by subcommittee:
          First Report (H. Rept. 105-37): ``A Citizen's Guide 
        on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy 
        Act of 1974 to Request Government Records.'' 
        (Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, 
        and Technology)
          Second Report (H. Rept. 105-388): ``Gulf War 
        Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DOD Continue to Resist Strong 
        Evidence Linking Toxic Causes to Chronic Health 
        Effects.'' * (Subcommittee on Human Resources)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Denotes report accompanied by additional, dissenting, minority, 
separate, or supplemental views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             B. LEGISLATION

    The legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight covers a wide range of important 
governmental operations. In accordance with jurisdiction 
assumed from the former Committee on Government Operations, the 
committee receives all budget and accounting measures other 
than appropriations; all measures relating to the overall 
economy and efficiency of Government operations and activities, 
including Federal procurement, intergovernmental relationships, 
general revenue sharing (the latter subject was formerly within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means), and the 
National Archives (formerly within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service); all reorganization 
plans and bills providing for the establishment of new 
departments in the executive branch such as the Department of 
Energy and the Department of Education; and most other 
reorganization legislation, examples of which are legislation 
to reorganize the intelligence community, international trade, 
and regulatory agencies. Other legislation includes debt 
collection and proposals relating to delinquent payments and 
paperwork reduction. It also receives legislation dealing with 
the General Services Administration, including the Federal 
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 and special 
bills authorizing the Administrator of General Services to make 
specific transfers of property, plus legislation dealing with 
the General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and 
Budget, the Administrative Expenses Act, the Travel Expenses 
Act, the Employment Act of 1946, and the Javits-Wagner-O'Day 
Act relating to the sale of products and services of blind and 
other handicapped persons. In addition, the committee has 
jurisdiction over the Freedom of Information provisions of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the Government 
in the Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee as well 
as the Inspector General Act.
    Rule X, 2(b) of the standing Rules of the House, requires 
the committee to see and review the administration of all laws 
in the legislative jurisdiction, and Rule XI, 1(d) requires 
that the committee report to the House thereon by the end of 
each Congress. The present report outlines the extent and 
nature of the committee and subcommittee activities 
constituting the review.
    During the first session of the 105th Congress, the 
committee studied 288 bills and resolutions referred to it and 
reported 21 to the House. The measures reported or ordered 
reported are discussed more fully in part two below. However, 
they are listed with the name of the subcommittee that 
initially considered them:
          H.R. 173, a bill to amend the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949, to authorize 
        donation of surplus Federal Law Enforcement canines to 
        their handlers. (Subcommittee on Government Management, 
        Information, and Technology; passed House amended; 
        passed Senate June 26, 1997; Public Law 105-27.)
          H.R. 240, to amend title 5, United States Code, to 
        provide that consideration may not be denied to 
        preference eligibles applying for certain positions in 
        the competitive service, and for other purposes. 
        (Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H. Rept. 105-40, 
        Pt.1; passed House amended on April 9, 1997; received 
        in Senate on April 10, 1997; referred to Senate 
        Committee on Governmental Affairs.)
          H.R. 514, to permit the waiver of District of 
        Columbia residency requirements for certain employees 
        of the Office of the Inspector General of the District 
        of Columbia, and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on 
        the District of Columbia, H. Rept. 105-29; Public Law 
        105-7.)
          H.R. 680, a bill to amend the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949, to authorize the 
        transfer to States of surplus personal property for 
        donation to nonprofit providers of necessaries to 
        impoverished families and individuals. (Subcommittee on 
        Government Management, Information, and Technology; 
        passed House amended April 29. 1997; Roll Call Vote 
        418-0; passed Senate amended on July 9, 1997, and the 
        House agreed to these amendments on September 18, 1997; 
        Public Law 105-50.)
          H.R. 930, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 
        1997. (Subcommittee on Government Management, 
        Information, and Technology; passed House amended April 
        16, 1997; received in the Senate and referred to the 
        Committee on Governmental Affairs.)
          H.R. 1057, to designate the building in Indianapolis, 
        Indiana, which houses the operations of the Circle City 
        Station Post Office as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post 
        Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service; 
        passed House amended June 17, 1997; Roll Call Vote 413-
        0; passed Senate November 9, 1997; Public Law 105-90.)
          H.R. 1058, to designate the facility of the United 
        States Postal Service under construction at 150 West 
        Margaret Drive in Terre Haute, Indiana, as the ``John 
        T. Myers Post Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on the 
        Postal Service; passed House June 17, 1997; Roll Call 
        Vote 416-0; passed Senate November 9, 1997; Public Law 
        105-91.)
          H.J. Res. 56 (S.J. Res. 11), Celebrating the end of 
        slavery in the United States. (Subcommittee on the 
        Civil Service; passed House June 17, 1997; Roll Call 
        Vote 419-0; received in Senate on June 18, 1997.)
          H.R. 956, to amend the National Narcotics Leadership 
        Act of 1988 to establish a program to support and 
        encourage local communities that first demonstrate a 
        comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce substance 
        among youth, and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on 
        National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
        Justice, H. Rept. 105-105, Pt I; passed House amended 
        May 22, 1997; Roll Call Vote 420-1; passed Senate; 
        Public Law 105-20.)
          H.R. 1316, to amend chapter 87 of title 5, United 
        States Code, with respect to the order of precedence to 
        be applied in the payment of life insurance benefits. 
        (Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H. Rept. 105-134; 
        passed House amended on June 24, 1997; received and 
        referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
        on June 25, 1997.)
          H.R. 1553, to amend the President John F. Kennedy 
        Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend 
        the authorization of the Assassination Records Review 
        Board until September 30, 1998. (Subcommittee on 
        National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
        Justice, H. Rept. 105-138, Pt. I; passed House June 23, 
        1997; passed Senate June 27, 1997; Public Law 105-25.)
          H.R. 404, to amend the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the 
        transfer to State and local governments of certain 
        surplus property for use for law enforcement of public 
        safety purposes. (Subcommittee on Government 
        Management, Information, and Technology; passed House 
        amended November 4, 1997; received in the Senate and 
        referred to Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on 
        November 13, 1997.)
          H.R. 1962, to provide for the appointment of a Chief 
        Financial Officer and Deputy Chief Financial Officer in 
        the Executive Office of the President. (Subcommittee on 
        Government Management, Information, and Technology; H. 
        Rept. 105-331; passed House amended on October 21, 
        1997; Roll Call Vote 413-3; received in the Senate and 
        referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs on 
        October 22, 1997.)
          H.R. 282, to designate the United States Post Office 
        building located at 153 East 110th Street, New York, 
        New York, as the ``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office 
        Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service; passed 
        House October 21, 1997; passed Senate November 9, 1997; 
        Public Law 105-87.)
          H.R. 681, to designate the United States Post Office 
        building located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale, 
        California, as the ``Carlos J. Moorhead Post Office 
        Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service; passed 
        House October 21, 1997; passed Senate November 9, 1997; 
        Public Law 105-88.)
          H.R. 2013 (S. 973), to designate the facility of the 
        United States Postal Service located at 551 Kingstown 
        Road in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, as the ``David 
        B. Champagne Post Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on 
        the Postal Service; passed House October 21, 1997; 
        passed Senate October 24, 1997; Public Law 105-70.)
          H.R. 2129, to designate the United States Post Office 
        located at 150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, Ohio, 
        as the ``Douglas Applegate Post Office.'' (Subcommittee 
        on the Postal Service; passed House October 21, 1997; 
        passed Senate November 9, 1997; Public Law 105-97.)
          H.R. 2564, to designate the United States Post Office 
        located at 450 North Centre Street in Pottsville, 
        Pennsylvania, as the ``Peter J. McCloskey Facility.'' 
        (Subcommittee on the Postal Service; passed House 
        October 21, 1997; passed Senate November 9, 1997; 
        Public Law 105-99.)
          H.R. 2610, to amend the National Narcotics Leadership 
        Act of 1988 to extend the authorization for the Office 
        of National Drug Control Policy until September 30, 
        1999, to expand the responsibilities and powers of the 
        Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
        and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on National 
        Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice; 
        passed House amended under suspension of rules on 
        October 21, 1997; received and referred to the Senate 
        Committee on the Judiciary; reported with amendment 
        November 6, 1997; no written report.)
          H.R. 1836, to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United 
        States Code, to improve administration of sanctions 
        against unfit health care providers under the Federal 
        Employees Health Benefits Program, and for other 
        purposes. (Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H. Rept. 
        105-374; passed House amended on November 4, 1997 under 
        suspension of the rules; received and referred to the 
        Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on November 5, 
        1997.)
          H.R. 2675, to require that the Office of Personnel 
        Management submit proposed legislation under which 
        group universal life insurance and group variable 
        universal life insurance would be available under 
        chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, and for 
        other purposes. (Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H. 
        Rept. 105-373; passed House amended on November 4, 1997 
        under suspension of the rules; received in the Senate 
        and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
        on November 5, 1997.)

                        OTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION

    The following bills were referred to the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, the committee was discharged 
from further consideration, and, therefore, the bills were not 
reported by the committee. Latest action is shown:
          H.R. 497, to repeal the Federal charter of Group 
        Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., and for 
        other purposes. (Subcommittee on the District of 
        Columbia; passed House under suspension of the rules; 
        Roll Call Vote 417-0; passed Senate with amendments on 
        November 8, 1997.)
          H.R. 499, to designate the facility of the United 
        States Postal Service under construction at 7411 
        Barlite Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Frank 
        M. Tejeda Post Office Building.'' (Passed House 400-0; 
        passed Senate; Public Law 105-4.)
          H.R. 852 (H. Res. 88), to amend chapter 35 of title 
        44, United States Code, popularly known as the 
        Paperwork Reduction Act, to minimize the burden of 
        Federal paperwork demands upon small businesses, 
        educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal 
        contractors, State and local governments, and other 
        persons through the sponsorship and use of alternative 
        information technologies. (Subcommittee on National 
        Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory 
        Affairs; H. Rept. 105-7, Pt. 1; passed House; received 
        in the Senate.)
          H.R. 513, to exempt certain contracts entered into by 
        the government of the District of Columbia from review 
        by the Council of the District of Columbia. 
        (Subcommittee on the District of Columbia; passed House 
        under suspension of rules; Roll Call Vote 390-7 on 
        March 6, 1997; received in the Senate and referred to 
        Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on March 6, 
        1997.)
          H.R. 1003, to clarify Federal law with respect to 
        restricting the use of Federal funds in support of 
        assisted suicide. (Subcommittee on Human Resources; 
        passed amended; passed Senate.)
          H. Con. Res. 61, Honoring the lifetime achievements 
        of Jackie Robinson. (Subcommittee on the Civil Service; 
        passed House under suspension of rules; passed Senate.)
          H.R. 1778, to reform the Department of Defense. (H. 
        Rept. 105-133, Pt. I.)
          H. Con. Res. 102, Expressing the sense of the 
        Congress that the cost of government spending and 
        regulatory programs should be reduced so that American 
        families will be able to keep more of what they earn. 
        (Passed Housed under suspension of rules; Roll Call 
        Vote 386-20; received in the Senate on June 25, 1997.)
          H.R. 1585, to allow postal patrons to contribute to 
        funding for breast cancer research through the 
        voluntary purchases of certain specially issued United 
        States postage stamps. (Subcommittee on the Postal 
        Service; passed House amended; passed Senate July 24, 
        1997; Public Law 105-41.)
          H.R. 1254, to designate the United States Post Office 
        building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in 
        Springfield, Missouri, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post 
        Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service; 
        passed House amended September 16, 1997; passed Senate 
        November 13, 1997; Public Law 105-131.)
          H. Con. Res. 95, recognizing and commending American 
        airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald 
        concentration camp during World War II for their 
        service, bravery, and fortitude. (Subcommittee on the 
        Civil Service; passed House on September 16, 1997, 
        under suspension of the rules; received and referred to 
        the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 17, 
        1997.)
          H. Con. Res. 109, recognizing the many talents of the 
        actor Jimmy Stewart and honoring the contributions he 
        made to the Nation. (Passed House on September 16, 
        1997, under suspension of the rules; received and 
        referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on 
        September 17, 1997.)
          H.R. 2977, to amend the Federal Advisory Committee 
        Act to clarify public disclosure requirements that are 
        applicable to the National Academy of Sciences and the 
        National Academy of Public Administration. 
        (Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, 
        and Technology; passed the House November 9, 1997; 
        passed Senate November 13, 1997; Public Law 105-153.)
          H.R. 3025 (H.R. 497), to repeal the Federal charter 
        of Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., 
        and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on the District 
        of Columbia; passed House November 13, 1997; passed 
        Senate November 13, 1997; Public Law 105-149.)
          S. 1378, to extend the authorization of use of 
        official mail in the location and recovery of missing 
        children, and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on the 
        Postal Service; passed Senate November 5, 1997; passed 
        House on November 12, 1997; Public Law 105-126.)
          H.R. 2676, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
        to restructure and reform the Internal Revenue Service, 
        and for other purposes.
          H.R. 2366, to transfer the Secretary of Agriculture 
        the authority to conduct the census of agriculture, and 
        for other purposes. (Subcommittee on National Security, 
        International Affairs, and Criminal Justice; passed 
        House on October 21, 1997; passed Senate on November 
        10, 1997; Public Law 105-113.)
          ``Oversight Plans for all House Committees,'' (H. 
        Rept. 105-44). (Full Committee)

                        C. REORGANIZATION PLANS

    The most recent authority of the President to transmit 
reorganization plans to Congress was reestablished by Public 
Law 98-614. Approved November 8, 1984, this authority expired 
on December 31, 1984. Legislation extending executive 
reorganization authority was not enacted during the first 
session of the 105th Congress.

                          D. COMMITTEE PRINTS

    Four committee prints, resulting from work by the committee 
staff, were issued during the first session, 105th Congress, as 
follows:
          ``Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and 
        Oversight, House of Representatives, Together with 
        Selected Rules of the House of Representatives 
        (Including Clause 2 of House Rule XI) and Selected 
        Statutes of Interest.'' (Full Committee.) (February 
        1997.)
          ``Title 5, United States Code: Government 
        Organization and Employees'' (Subcommittee on Civil 
        Service.) (February 1997.)
          ``Oversight Plans for all House Committees with 
        Accompanying Recommendations by the Committee on 
        Government Reform and Oversight, House of 
        Representatives (Required by Clause 2 of House Rule 
        XI).'' (Full Committee.) (March 1997.)
          ``Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and 
        Oversight, House of Representatives, Together with 
        Selected Rules of the House of Representatives 
        (Including Clause 2 of House Rule XI) and Selected 
        Statutes of Interest.'' (Full Committee.) (June 1997.)

       E. COMMITTEE ACTION ON REPORTS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL

    Rule X, 4(c)(1)(A), of the rules of the House, imposes the 
duty upon this committee to receive and examine reports of the 
Comptroller General referred to and to make such 
recommendations to the House as it deems necessary or desirable 
in connection with the subject matter of the reports.
    In discharging this responsibility, each report of the 
Comptroller General received by the committee is studied and 
analyzed by the staff and referred to the subcommittee of this 
committee to which has been assigned general jurisdiction over 
the subject matter involved. The committee has received a total 
of 986 General Accounting Office Reports to the Congress for 
processing during the first session of the 105th Congress. 
After preliminary staff study, these reports were referred to 
subcommittees of this committee as follows:

Subcommittee on the Civil Service.................................     6
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia..........................     2
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology    18
Subcommittee on Human Resources...................................    19
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and 
    Regulatory Affairs............................................    20
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
    Criminal Justice..............................................     9
Subcommittee on the Postal Service................................    10
                                                                  ______
      Total.......................................................    84

    Furthermore, in implementation of section 236 of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, the committee now 
regularly receives GAO reports that are not addressed to 
Congress but contain recommendations to heads of the Federal 
agencies. These are generally reports to the agency heads their 
written statements of actions taken with respect to such 
recommendations, as required by section 236. The committee 
received a total of 986 such GAO reports to Federal agencies or 
other committees and Members within the legislative branch.
    Periodic reports are received from the subcommittees on 
actions taken with respect to individual reports, and monthly 
reports are made to the chairman as to reports received. During 
the session, the committees used the reports to further 
specific investigations and reviews. In most cases, additional 
information concerning the findings and recommendations of the 
Comptroller General was requested and received from the 
administrative agency involved, as well as from the General 
Accounting Office. More specific information on the actions 
taken appears in part two below.
    Complete files are maintained by the committee on all 
Comptroller General's reports received. Detailed records are 
kept showing the subcommittee to which the report is referred, 
the date of referral, and the subsequent action taken.
    The committee will review all of the Comptroller General's 
reports received during the Congress in the light of additional 
information obtained and actions taken by the subcommittees, 
and the terminations will be made whether specific 
recommendations to the House are necessary or desirable under 
rule X.
                PART TWO. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

                 I. Matters of Interest, Full Committee

                               A. GENERAL

1. Oversight Plans of the Committees of the U.S. House of 
        Representatives.
    The 104th Congress adopted a new Rule that provides for 
each standing committee of the House to formally adopt 
oversight plans at the beginning of each year. Specifically, 
the Rule states in part:

          Rule X, clause (2)(d)(1). Not later than February 15 
        of the first session of a Congress, each standing 
        committee of the House shall, in a meeting that is open 
        to the public and with a quorum present, adopt its 
        oversight plans for that Congress. Such plans shall be 
        submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Government 
        Reform and Oversight and to the Committee on House 
        Oversight.

    On March 31, 1997, Committee Chairman Dan Burton submitted 
the oversight plans of each House committee together with 
recommendations to ensure the most effective coordination of 
such plans.

  RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

             Oversight Plans of the Committees of the House

    Congressional oversight, as envisioned by the majority 
leadership of the House, is ultimately about the public 
interest, the liberty of citizens, and the taxpayers' dollars. 
The ability, and duty, of popularly-elected representatives to 
oversee the executive branch is a fundamental component of the 
system of checks and balances established by the founding 
fathers. The Rules of the House of Representatives ensure 
Congress' responsibility to the public in this regard. Pursuant 
to House Rule X, clause 2(b)(1), each standing committee of the 
House ``shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the 
application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of 
those laws, or parts of laws, the subject matter of which is 
within the jurisdiction of the committee and the organization 
and operation of the Federal agencies and entities having 
responsibilities in or for the administration and execution 
thereof, in order to determine whether such laws and the 
programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in 
accordance with the intent of the Congress and whether such 
programs should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated.''
    Congressional oversight in the 105th Congress should focus 
on three fundamental efforts:
          (1) Review the implementation by the Executive Branch 
        of recent policy changes enacted by Congress to assess 
        their effectiveness. Congress enacted significant 
        reform legislation in the 104th Congress. These reforms 
        include the termination of 270 useless Federal 
        programs, offices, agencies and projects, and the 
        privatization of four major government programs. Other 
        reform efforts, such as the Unfunded Federal Mandates 
        Reform Act, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the 
        Line-Item Veto Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 
        Debt Collection Improvement Act, and the Information 
        Technology Management Reform Act, will enhance 
        management practices governmentwide, and help reduce 
        unnecessary burdens placed upon State and local 
        governments. Still other legislative reforms make 
        improvements in specific programs areas. These include 
        the enactment of comprehensive welfare reform, 
        telecommunications reform, and lawsuit abuse reform. 
        Many of these reforms have already resulted in major 
        cost savings and improvements in the efficiency of the 
        Federal Government. But they will need continued 
        monitoring and oversight by the Congress to ensure 
        their success as effective legislative changes. In 
        their oversight plans for the 105th Congress, House 
        committees recognize the importance of their 
        responsibility to oversee the implementation of recent 
        legislative reforms. The Government Reform and 
        Oversight Committee recommends that committees fully 
        utilize the auditing and oversight services of the 
        General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research 
        Service, and agency Inspectors General to augment their 
        efforts to oversee implementation of these critical 
        legislative reforms.
          (2) Review existing Government programs in order to 
        inform the public and build a compelling case for 
        further change and reform. While the legislative 
        successes of the 104th Congress are laudable, many 
        other opportunities for streamlining, improving 
        efficiency, and reducing costs to the American taxpayer 
        exist. The following committee oversight plans reveal 
        priority areas for programmatic and agency reform 
        efforts in the 105th Congress, including: fundamental 
        reform of the tax code; structural reform of the 
        Internal Revenue Service; Medicare reform; reform of 
        the Immigration and Naturalization Service; reform of 
        the General Services Administration; reform/
        restructuring of the Commerce Department, State 
        Department, Labor Department, and Department of Housing 
        and Urban Development; reform of the National Park 
        Service; deregulation of electric utilities; and, 
        reform of the U.S. intelligence community. All but a 
        small handful of House committees have incorporated 
        into their oversight plans their intentions with regard 
        to the GPRA, or Results Act. This important act 
        codifies the fundamental way Congress and the executive 
        branches should be assessing Federal Government 
        missions and activities. The Government Reform and 
        Oversight Committee recommends that each committee take 
        full advantage of the House Leadership's current 
        efforts to coordinate agency and program review as 
        legislated by the Government Performance and Results 
        Act of 1993. This includes reaching out to our minority 
        counterparts as well as the Senate.
          (3) Review Government programs to root out waste, 
        fraud and abuse, thereby maximizing accountability in 
        the Federal Government to the public. The merits of 
        Federal programs and activities are, of course, subject 
        to intense debate--particularly in times of budget 
        deficits and keen competition for limited Federal 
        resources. However, the importance of efficient, 
        effective, and honest management is not a debatable 
        issue. Fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement serve no 
        legitimate constituency or political interest. They 
        cheat both the taxpayers and the intended beneficiaries 
        of the programs and activities they affect. They also 
        undermine the confidence of the American people in the 
        capacity and will of the Federal Government to perform 
        its functions effectively. The Government Reform and 
        Oversight Committee recommends that committees 
        carefully review the findings in (1) the General 
        Accounting Office's ``High Risk List'' of 25 Federal 
        programs at risk for serious fraud, waste, and abuse; 
        (2) agency Inspector General semi-annual and annual 
        reports to Congress; and (3) the Government Reform and 
        Oversight Committee September 1996 Report entitled 
        ``Federal Government Management: Examining Government 
        Performance As We Near the Next Century.'' These 
        documents are an important source of serious problems 
        currently existing in the Federal Government that need 
        immediate attention by Congress.
    Collectively, the committee oversight plans cover a wide 
array of Federal programs and management issues. The challenges 
of dealing with the serious, pervasive problems that continue 
to impede effective management and efficient program delivery 
is formidable.
    A major breakthrough in prospects for improving Federal 
management, as well as congressional oversight of Federal 
programs, has been provided by two recent laws: the Chief 
Financial Officers Act and Government Performance and Results 
Act. Together, these acts provide a framework necessary to help 
achieve improved government accountability and stewardship and 
to lower costs by focusing on results. The Congress framed it 
this way: Set goals, operate programs, and measure results 
using reliable financial and management information.
    While these acts are still in the process of being 
implemented, efforts already completed or underway in response 
to both acts offer committees a valuable source of information 
and insight into the management problems and issues. These 
include issues that impact individual programs, as well as 
those that cut across agency programs and organizational 
boundaries.
    The committees of the House should: (1) conduct oversight 
to ensure that these statutes are being aggressively 
implemented, and (2) use the information produced by the 
implementation of these statutes and the General Accounting 
Office's [GAO] high risk list to assess the management 
weaknesses in the agencies within their jurisdiction.

                      Chief Financial Officers Act

    One of the underlying historical impediments to better 
management of Government programs has been the lack of reliable 
financial information. With passage of the CFO Act, the 
Congress has said that this must change and change quickly. The 
long-needed fiscal accountability that the act is designed to 
bring about is essential to effective program management and 
congressional oversight.
    Agencies, which represent organizations larger than the 
Nation's largest private corporations, have typically not been 
able to perform even the most rudimentary bookkeeping 
functions. Agency financial management systems are badly 
deteriorated--OMB reports that most do not meet standards and 
almost all agencies have been unable to pass the test of an 
independent financial statement audit.
    A primary element of the Chief Financial Officers Act, as 
expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, is 
the requirement for all 24 major agencies to have audited 
financial statements. (The act also calls for governmentwide 
financial statements, audited by GAO, by fiscal year 1997.) 
Also, agencies must now have
         financial information that is linked with 
        program and budget data for use in both management 
        control and planning;
         reports on program cost trends and other 
        performance indicators from which managers can make 
        informed decisions on running government operations 
        effectively and efficiently
    Since passage of the initial legislation in 1990, the CFO 
Act has already provided:
         significantly more accurate information on the 
        Government's financial status and operations, as well 
        as an understanding of how unreliable the financial 
        information being provided to the Congress and program 
        managers has been;
         a better understanding of the pervasiveness of 
        management control problems; and
         substantial savings from recoveries and better 
        use of funds.
    Annual financial statement audits, which are done by the 
agency Inspectors General [IGs] or by GAO, continue to provide 
valuable information on the results of program operations and 
the current financial condition of agencies. This information 
can be of great use to committees in their oversight efforts. 
Audits, for example, have identified
         Despite over $400 billion in adjustments 
        needed to correct errors in Defense's financial data 
        over the last 3 years, Defense is still unable to 
        render an accurate accounting of its hundreds of 
        billions of dollars in assets. This unreliable data has 
        traditionally served as the basis for Defense's reports 
        to the Congress.
         Duplicate, erroneous, and even fraudulent 
        payments to Defense contractors totaling billions of 
        dollars.
         Unneeded Defense inventories of almost $40 
        billion.
         The IRS being unable to effectively collect or 
        accurately account for $1.25 billion in annual 
        revenues; audits show that only a fraction of over $100 
        billion in recorded tax receivables was collectible.
    GAO's ongoing financial audit work includes the IRS, the 
Bank Insurance Fund, the Resolution Trust Corporation, and the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, all for fiscal year 1994, 
and the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 1995. IGs are 
conducting (in some instances with contracted assistance from 
accounting firms) fiscal year 1994 audits in the Departments of 
Education, HHS, Army, Air Force, NASA, Veterans Affairs, EPA, 
Labor, Agriculture, HUD, Interior, and other agencies.

                 Government Performance and Results Act

    Effective implementation of the Chief Financial Officers 
Act is also a vital element to the success of the Government 
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. GPRA seeks to change the 
focus of Federal management and accountability from a 
preoccupation with inputs, such as the amount of program 
appropriations, to measured results and outcomes of Federal 
programs. Successful implementation of the act will help 
address the question: What are the American people getting for 
their investment in the Federal Government? Information on 
performance in relation to agency goals can also be helpful to 
the Congress.
    Experiences of State governments and foreign countries that 
are leaders in public management show that GPRA's three key 
elements: strategic planning; performance measurement; and 
public reporting and accountability could influence the basic 
culture of the government so that is more results-oriented. 
Accurate results-oriented information will greatly assist the 
Congress in its efforts to oversee current programs and in 
making informed decisions for the future.
    But making the major changes in the way Federal agencies 
are managed and held accountable called for under GPRA will 
require agencies to develop the capacity to manage for results. 
This will not be accomplished quickly or easily. Therefore, the 
act's provisions are being phased in with a series of pilot 
projects over the next several years.
    Already, 70 pilots have been designated ranging in size 
from small programs to entire agencies, including the IRS, SSA, 
and the Defense Logistics Agency. As agencies implement the 
act, oversight committees should have opportunities to work 
with agencies in improving performance by providing managers 
freedom to experiment and find innovative ways to improve 
program results, while increasing accountability for achieving 
those results.
2. Investigations.
    a. Oversight of Implementation of the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993.--The Government 
Performance and Results Act (Results Act) is designed to 
provide policymakers and the public with systematic, reliable 
information about where Federal programs and activities are 
going, how they will get there, and how we will know when they 
have arrived. This is to be accomplished through agency reports 
to Congress providing strategic and performance planning. The 
act will only succeed if Congress then uses the information to 
better inform authorizing and budgetary decisionmaking.
    As described in the section on ``Review of Laws Within the 
Committee's Jurisdiction,'' the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee has worked closely with the House Republican 
leadership during 1997 to educate and involve all congressional 
committees in the successful implementation of the Results Act. 
Part of that educational process has included two full 
committee hearings highlighting the potential of the act as a 
tool for more productive oversight and ultimately, better 
informed policy decisions.
    The first hearing, entitled ``The Government Performance 
and Results Act: Sensible Government for the Next Century,'' 
was held on February 12, and was chaired by Dan Burton. In his 
opening statement, Chairman Burton stressed the practical 
elements of the Act--setting performance goals and linking 
budget to performance--as such elements are often applied in 
private sector businesses. The chairman hoped that the hearing 
would signal to the administration and the American public the 
importance of using the Results Act to make sure citizens are 
getting what they expect and pay for from Federal programs.
    The lead witness, Majority Leader Dick Armey, testified 
regarding the importance the House Republican leadership places 
on the Results Act. He spoke of the opportunity the act 
presents for Democrats, Republicans and those in the executive 
branch to work together to improve the way Washington works--to 
alleviate waste, inefficiencies, ineffectiveness, fraud, and 
bad management. The majority leader stressed that for the act 
to be successful, each congressional committee and each elected 
representative must devote more attention to agencies' major 
plans and objectives, and show a new willingness to reexamine 
pet projects with an ear toward objective, credible information 
about the results of these programs. He concluded his prepared 
testimony by reiterating a point Chairman Burton had made about 
the Results Act's similarity to processes widely used by 
private businesses to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
    The second panel of witnesses included James Hinchman, 
Acting Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office 
[GAO], and John Koskinen, Deputy Director for Management, 
Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. Mr. Hinchman testified 
that GAO had made three important conclusions as a result of 
examining management issues throughout the Federal Government. 
The first is that the Federal Government is rift with 
management problems. The second is that Congress has put in 
place a sound statutory framework for addressing such 
management problems, including the Chief Financial Officers 
Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, and as 
cornerstone, the Results Act. And the third conclusion of the 
GAO is that Congress has an important role to play in the 
implementation of the Results Act, beginning with consultations 
with the agencies on their strategic plans. Mr. Hinchman also 
stressed the important role of congressional oversight hearings 
to improve management in Federal agencies.
    Mr. Koskinen, the last witness for this hearing, testified 
on behalf of OMB that the agencies had been encouraged to 
consult with Congress on their strategic plans for over a year 
(although at the time of the hearing, no consultations had 
occurred). He discussed OMB's guidance which had been issued 18 
months earlier on the preparation and submission of strategic 
plans. He indicated his belief that the draft agency strategic 
plans OMB had reviewed allowed them to conclude that the final 
plans due in the fall of 1997 would be useful and informative 
strategic plans.
    Another Results Act hearing entitled, ``The Results Act: 
Are We Getting Results?'' was held on October 30. Chairman 
Burton opened the hearing by expressing his disappointment in 
the dismal lack of compliance found in the agency draft 
strategic plans, and his greater disappointment that it 
appeared the final plans were only marginally improved over the 
drafts.
    For the second time, the lead witness was Majority Leader 
Armey, who was only able to give part of his testimony before 
being called to vote. His written statement reflected on a year 
of hard work that Congress and the executive branch agencies 
had dedicated to the implementation of the Results Act and the 
lessons we were learning from the experience.
    Others scheduled to testify included Franklin Raines, 
Director, Office of Management and Budget, James Hinchman, 
Acting Comptroller General, General Accounting Office, and the 
Honorable Maurice McTigue, distinguished visiting scholar, 
Center for Market Processes at George Mason University. 
Unfortunately, the schedule of end-of-session votes made it 
impossible to conclude this hearing. It is likely that it will 
be re-scheduled for early in the second session.
    b. The Campaign Fundraising Investigation.--On January 20, 
1997, Chairman Dan Burton issued the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight's first request for documents to the White 
House, regarding its investigation into potentially illegal 
campaign fundraising practices, including illegal foreign 
fundraising, during the 1996 campaign and prior campaign 
cycles. Chairman Burton was compelled by substantial 
allegations in the media, an accumulating body of evidence, and 
the ensuing public outcry to undertake a thorough investigation 
of potential campaign fundraising illegalities, including the 
following areas:
         whether United States' domestic and foreign 
        policy was affected by illegal, foreign donations, 
        foreign interests, and foreign governments;
         possible breaches of national security 
        resulting from possible improper access given to 
        political donors;
         possible misuse of classified information;
         the activities of John Huang, including his 
        business and political activities in Arkansas, his 
        relationship with the Lippo Group, his contacts with 
        foreign officials and the White House and his 
        fundraising activities on behalf of the Democratic 
        National Committee;
         the activities of Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie 
        including his business and political activities in 
        Arkansas, Washington, DC, China, Macau, Hong Kong, and 
        Taiwan; his contacts with foreign governments; his 
        relationship with Ng Lap Seng, Antonio Pan, and Keshi 
        Zahn, his fundraising activities for the DNC and the 
        President's Legal Expense Trust; his appointment by 
        President Clinton to the Commission on United States 
        Pacific Trade and Investment Policy, and all activities 
        since he left the United States;
         the activities of the Riady family and the 
        Lippo Group and its related companies in Arkansas, 
        California, Indonesia, Hong Kong and China and the 
        Riady family's contacts with President Clinton, Mrs. 
        Clinton and other current and former administration 
        officials;
         the activities of other major donors with 
        foreign ties, including Pauline Kanchanalak, Johnny 
        Chung, Ted Sioeng, and others;
         matters pertaining to Webster Hubbell, 
        including his activities in Arkansas and Washington, 
        DC; his employment by the Rose Law Firm and his 
        employment after resigning from the Department of 
        Justice, including a $100,000 contract with the Lippo 
        Group;
         matters pertaining to fundraising abuses by 
        any political party or campaign from 1992 to the 
        present, including the funneling of foreign money into 
        campaigns and political organizations, misuse of 
        Government resources for political purposes, and the 
        development and use of the White House database, and,
         the activities of Secretary of the Interior 
        Bruce Babbitt and other Government officials regarding 
        the possible trading of political contributions in 
        return for specific Government action in the matter of 
        the proposed Indian casino in Hudson, WI.
    Chairman Burton was concerned about serious questions of 
national policy and national security involving the Clinton 
administration, especially as daily revelations disclosed more 
troubling facts about the unusual access that questionable 
individuals had with high-ranking White House and 
administration officials in private meetings, fundraising 
``coffees'' and other political events, and official functions. 
According to one published report, ``[t]he FBI has obtained 
substantial evidence that top Chinese officials approved plans 
in 1995 to buy influence with American politicians, and that 
the scheme continued through the 1996 elections and is ongoing 
. . .'' \13\ Testifying before a Senate subcommittee in March 
1997, FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that the FBI Task Force 
investigating the fundraising matter would scrutinize as one of 
its top priorities whether there was a direct threat to our 
national security by a deliberate plan by a foreign government 
to influence our political process. Freeh told the 
subcommittee, ``One of the subjects that the . . . task force 
is going to be investigating are allegations with respect to 
not just illegal political activities and contributions, but 
also the national security aspects of that . . . [and] whether 
the funding or attempted funding or planning was originated not 
by individuals per se, but by a foreign government or state 
sponsor or ministry.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Washington Post, April 25, 1997.
    \14\ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The investigation also followed the flow of money once it 
entered the United States and scrutinized whether and to what 
extent illegal actions or money influenced Government officials 
and official Government policies or actions. In doing so, the 
committee was determining whether there was a definable pattern 
of illegal activity and whether there was a commonality of 
purpose involved.
    The activities of former Commerce Department official and 
DNC fundraiser John Huang, who raised at least $3 million for 
the DNC during the 1996 election cycle, raised many potential 
illegalities, including the misuse of an official Government 
position at the Department of Commerce, the illegal disclosure 
of classified information, and questions about the true source 
of the money that he raised and whether White House and DNC 
officials had any knowledge or role in the systematic transfer 
of funds from foreign sources to the Democratic party.
    John Huang had strong ties to the Indonesia-based Lippo 
Group and worked for banks affiliated with Lippo since the 
early 1980's. The Lippo Group is controlled by the Riady family 
and has large investments in Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, and 
Vietnam. Riady companies and the Riady family, who were 
permanent residents in the United States at the time, 
contributed substantially to the DNC, affiliated State parties, 
and soft money venues during the 1992 election. The Riadys 
subsequently returned to Indonesia following the election. Upon 
leaving the Lippo Group in 1994 to work at Commerce, Huang 
received a bonus package worth hundreds of thousands of 
dollars.
    A published report implicated Huang as having deliberately 
funneled political contributions to the DNC and affiliated 
organizations using a number of sham corporations and 
ineligible individual contributors. Another report contained 
the information that Huang had an unusually high number of 
classified briefings while he was an official at the Commerce 
Department. In just 18 months, Huang attended 146 briefings at 
which he had access to classified information. At the same 
time, Huang was also making telephone calls to his old 
employer, the Lippo Group. Huang also managed to obtain his top 
secret clearance 5 months before he started his employment at 
Commerce and kept it for a year after he left the department to 
move to the DNC.\15\ Huang visited the White House at least 23 
times between February and October 1996 and regularly met with 
high level White House officials, such as Bruce Lindsey and 
Harold Ickes. On 4 days, June 21-24, 1994, Huang and James 
Riady of the Lippo Group entered the White House on five 
separate occasions. At the same time, Riady met with Webster 
Hubbell at least two times during the same 4 days. On June 27, 
1997, a Lippo Group subsidiary, Hong Kong China Ltd., paid 
Hubbell $100,000.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Washington Times, May 15, 1997.
    \16\ New York Times, March 20, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    John Huang is a central figure in this investigation, who, 
along with Webster Hubbell, Charlie Trie, the Riady family, 
Mark Middleton and Pauline Kanchanalak, had chosen not to 
cooperate with the investigation. By asserting his fifth 
amendment rights, Huang forced the committee to utilize other 
means, such as document subpoenas, depositions of witnesses and 
foreign discovery, to proceed with its investigation.
    DNC Fundraiser Charlie Trie, who first met President 
Clinton in the late 1970's or early 1980's as a Little Rock, 
AR, restaurant owner raised over $300,000 for the DNC, much of 
which the DNC has pledged to return. Trie also tried to 
contribute more than $600,000 to the President's legal defense 
fund, all of which was eventually returned, because of its 
doubtful origins. According to published reports, Trie 
``received a series of substantial wire transfers in 1995 and 
1996 from a bank operated by the Chinese government.'' \17\ 
Trie visited the White House at least 38 times and met with 
high level officials, such as Mark Middleton. In January 1996, 
President Clinton issued an Executive order to increase the 
size of the U.S. Pacific Trade and Policy Commission from 15 to 
up to 20 members. He thereafter added only Charlie Trie's 
appointment to the Commission. The White House released the 
names of the appointees, including Trie on April 17, 1996, only 
weeks after the Presidential Legal Expense Trust's Executive 
Director Michael Cardozo informed Mrs. Clinton and Harold Ickes 
of Trie's delivery of questionable funds to the fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Wall Street Journal, April 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DNC contributor Ted Sioeng and his daughter contributed 
more than $355,000 to the DNC since 1993. He and his associates 
also made substantial contributions to the National Policy 
Forum and other candidates. According to published reports, 
Sioeng is under investigation by the Department of Justice for 
``allegedly working as a [Chinese] political operative in the 
United States . . . [and seeking] to acquire influence for 
China through his family's political donations, including 
$250,000 to the Democratic National Committee during last 
year's presidential campaign.'' \18\ Sioeng is now rumored to 
be in Hong Kong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In another case, unfavorable information obtained by staff 
on the National Security Council about a potential White House 
visitor, California businessman Yogesh Gandhi, prevented him 
from meeting the President at the White House. However, 
``Democratic fundraisers arranged for the meeting to take place 
on May 13, 1996, at the Sheraton Carlton hotel, two blocks 
[from the White House] . . . [where] Gandhi met with President 
Clinton and donated $325,000 to the Democratic National 
Committee.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The committee investigated the use of official White House 
resources in the creation of a database, which included 
political contributors. Reportedly, White House officials 
merged a list of the President's social contacts with a larger 
list of political contributors, despite a warning from the 
White House Counsel's office that the database could be used 
only for official, not political, purposes.\20\ There were also 
reports published that DNC contributor lists were found in 
official Commerce Department files.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Washington Times, May 16, 1997.
    \21\ Washington Post, June 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In another case of alleged misuse of Government agencies, 
the Department of Justice announced on April 28, 1997, that its 
Inspector General was launching an investigation of allegations 
of ``mismanagement, misconduct and illegality'' \22\ at the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding the operation 
of the Citizenship USA program. ``The probe will delve into 
charges that the program . . . was misused for political 
purposes and ended up naturalizing criminals in a rush to 
create as many new citizens as possible in time for last year's 
elections . . . [and] will cover allegations that the office of 
Vice President Gore played a key role in promoting the program 
in hopes of reaping a Democratic electoral windfall.'' \23\ The 
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and 
Criminal Justice has done extensive investigative work in this 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Washington Post, April 29, 1997.
    \23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The committee amassed a large body of documents that 
contain troubling information regarding the conduct of senior 
Government officials and donors with highly unusual access. Of 
great significance were the allegations that this 
administration may have solicited money from foreign and other 
sources to obstruct the workings of justice and protect various 
officials from further investigation and possible prosecution. 
Reported payments to Webster Hubbell of $100,000 by the Lippo 
Group \24\ raised serious questions about whether there was a 
coordination of payments by persons close to the President from 
entities in the United States and abroad to Hubbell in order to 
influence his cooperation with the investigation of Whitewater 
and related matters. The interrelationships of the billionaire 
Riadys, John Huang, Webster Hubbell and other senior 
administration figures is a central focus of the inquiry into 
alleged misuse of Government resources and/or obstruction of 
ongoing criminal investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ New York Times, October 12, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To demonstrate the seriousness of these charges, which 
possibly involve senior officials, and the degree to which the 
public consternation has been aroused, it is useful to note a 
few editorial quotes taken from newspapers across the political 
spectrum:

          Americans are now fully aware of the disclosures and 
        allegations that the law was broken by operatives of 
        Mr. Clinton's re-election campaign. Of particular 
        interest is the allegation that money was solicited and 
        accepted from foreign sources. Every informed account 
        of the campaign, including many from insiders, says 
        that senior officials in the White House and the 
        campaign, as well as Mr. Clinton himself, were involved 
        in the most intricate details of fund-raising.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ New York Times, May 2, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The fund-raising disclosures have blown up into the 
        biggest political scandal in the United States since 
        Watergate. It is paralyzing the President, preoccupying 
        Congress, and fueling public cynicism about our 
        political system.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ New York Times, April 16, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          We've commented before on the selective way in which 
        this White House dispenses--and--doesn't dispense--the 
        truth when it is in trouble. They put up a series of 
        false fronts; you knock one down only to be confronted 
        by another. Then they complain about the fact that they 
        are not believed. They're dead right about that.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Washington Post, May 9, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          It gets progressively easier to see why . . . [there] 
        may be the makings of an obstruction of justice case in 
        the White House treatment of Webster Hubbell. . . . 
        [T]he circumstantial case is already weighty.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ New York Times, May 6, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unavailability of Key Witnesses
    From the beginning of its investigation, Chairman Burton's 
investigation was hampered by scores of key witnesses, 
eventually totaling 70 persons, who refused to cooperate with 
the committee's investigation by either being out of the 
country, pleading the fifth amendment, or refusing to be 
interviewed. These uncooperative witnesses included former 
Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, former White House 
aide Mark Middleton, former Commerce Department and Democratic 
National Committee official John Huang, and prominent 
Democratic fundraisers Yah Lin Charlie Trie, Pauline 
Kanchanalak, Ted Sioeng, Nora and Gene Lum, Arief and Soraya 
Wiriadinata, James Riady, and John H.K. Lee.
    In response to this lack of cooperation from such an 
overwhelming number of key witnesses, the committee issued 385 
subpoenas related to the investigation in 1997.
    The following is a list of the committee witnesses who 
refused to cooperate with the investigation in 1997:

         46 House & Senate Witnesses Asserting Fifth Amendment:
John Huang                  Nora Lum               Gin F.J. Chen
Mark Middleton              Gene Lum               Hsin Chen Shih
Nolanda Hill                Seow Fong Ooi          Jou Sheng
Jane Huang                  Bin Yueh Jeng          Judy Hsu
Duangnet Kronenberg         Hsiu Chu Lin           Jane Dewi Tahir
Maria L. Hsia               Jen Chin Hsueh         Maria Mapili
Webster Hubbell             Chi Rung Wang          Jie Su Hsiao
Yogesh Ghandi               Yumei Yang             Hsiu Luan Tseng
Cheyenne Indians            Arapaho Indians        Mark Jimenez
Gilbert Colon               Larry Wong             Michael Brown
Irene Wu                    Na-chi ``Nancy'' Lee   Steven Hwang
Mike Lin                    Hueutsan Huang *       Man Ya Shih *
Zie Pan Huang *             Yue Chu *              Keshi Zhan *
Shu Jen Wu *                Man Ho *               Yi Chu *
David Wang *                Manlin Foung *         Joseph Landon *
Siuw Moi Lian *

* Granted Immunity after pleading 5th Amendment



                   12 Witnesses Have Left the Country:
Charlie Trie               John H.K. Lee         Dewi Tirto
Pauline Kanchanalak        Agus Setiawan         Subandi Tanuwidjaja
Ming Chen                  Arief Wiriadinata     Soraya Wiriadinata
Antonio Pan                Ted Sioeng            Felix Ma



  12 Foreign Witnesses Have Refused to be interviewed by Investigative
                                 Bodies:
Ng Lap Seng                 Stephen Riady          Roy Tirtadji
Ken Hsui                    John Muncy             James Lin
Eugene Wu                   Mochtar Riady          Stanley Ho
Suma Ching Hai              James Riady            Daniel Wu


    In 1997, Chairman Burton wrote letters to President Clinton 
asking for his help in locating Charlie Trie and Pauline 
Kanchanalak. After an interview with Mr. Trie in Shanghai, 
China, was broadcast on NBC's ``Nightly News,'' Chairman Burton 
wrote to President Clinton regarding Charlie Trie on June 27, 
1997:

          Mr. Trie is an American citizen and, reportedly, a 
        long-time friend of yours. He is a former member of the 
        DNC's national finance board of directors, and in April 
        1996 was appointed by you to the Commission on U.S. 
        Pacific Trade and Investment Policy. Mr. Trie is also a 
        central figure in this Committee's investigation into 
        allegations that foreign governments and persons may 
        have attempted to unlawfully influence our electoral 
        process.
          Recent media reports have asserted that Mr. Trie 
        received more than $1 million in foreign wire transfers 
        during the campaign and that some or all of that money 
        may have found its way into your legal defense fund and 
        the Democratic National Committee. In February, this 
        Committee issued a subpoena to Mr. Trie for documents 
        related to his fundraising activities. As confirmed by 
        the NBC News story, he has no intention of producing 
        the documents called for by the subpoena or of 
        otherwise cooperating with the Committee's 
        investigation.
          In view of the very serious allegations concerning 
        Mr. Trie, and his recently corroborated presence in the 
        People's Republic of China, the Committee requires your 
        assistance and that of the State Department in 
        obtaining evidence from Mr. Trie. I accordingly request 
        that you instruct the Secretary of State to contact the 
        appropriate officials of the People's Republic of China 
        and formally petition the PRC to help facilitate the 
        return of Charles ``Yah Lin'' Trie to the United States 
        for questioning or, at a minimum, make him available 
        for deposition by the Committee and its staff.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Letter to President William Clinton from Chairman Dan Burton, 
June 27, 1997.

    Chairman Burton wrote a similar letter to the President 
regarding Pauline Kanchanalak on July 11, 1997, and also sent 
letters to the Ambassadors of China and Thailand asking for 
their assistance. As of December 1997, Trie and Kanchanalak has 
still not cooperated with the investigation.
White House Non-Compliance with Committee Subpoenas
    The committee was also hampered by the White House's 
refusal to fully comply with document requests first issued by 
the chairman on January 20, 1997. After several weeks of non-
cooperation by the White House, Chairman Burton issued document 
subpoenas to the White House on March 4, 1997. On April 10, 
1997, in response to White House demands for a formal procedure 
for the handling, storage and release of documents, the 
committee adopted a document protocol. The White House 
proceeded to release some documents in a desultory manner and 
withheld other documents subject to claims of executive, 
attorney-client, and work-product privileges. Because of the 
failure of the White House to fully comply with the subpoenas 
or to formally assert a privilege over the sequestered 
documents, Chairman Burton scheduled a contempt hearing for May 
21, 1997, calling on White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff to 
explain the White House's refusal to comply with the subpoenas.
    After substantial negotiations between the White House and 
the committee, Mr. Ruff avoided the necessity of a contempt 
hearing by agreeing to release to Chairman Burton all relevant 
documents in its possession by June 13, 1997, with the 
exception of 40 documents it listed on a privilege log it 
submitted to the committee. On June 27, 1997, the White House 
formally certified that it had released all documents 
responsive to the subpoenas.
    Despite this certification, the White House continued to 
make productions to the committee over the next 6 months, 
including a substantial number of video and audio tapes 
containing the White House Communications Agency's taping of 
fundraising activities of President Clinton. Committee staff 
reviewed approximately 300 hours of videotapes and over 100 
hours of audiotapes, belatedly produced by the White House. In 
all, the White House made 26 additional productions through 
December 11, 1997, despite having certified on June 27, 1997, 
that all responsive documents had already been produced to the 
committee.
    As early as January 1997, the Washington Post wrote an 
editorial denouncing the White House's pattern of obfuscation, 
stating:

          It puts up a false front, offers a misleading version 
        of events. If and when that fails, as often occurs, it 
        puts up another, and another--as many as it takes. Then 
        Administration officials bemoan the cynicism with which 
        what they have to say is so often greeted and wonder 
        aloud, or pretend to wonder, why they are not believed 
        . . . The dispensing of truth in reluctant dribs and 
        drabs does indeed have the corrosive effect that the 
        White House itself periodically deplores . . .\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Washington Post, January 17, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Fundraising Investigation Hearings
    The committee held four hearings in 1997 related to its 
investigation of possible campaign fundraising improprieties 
and illegalities. The committee held its first 2 days of 
hearings on October 8-9, 1997, on the issue of whether illegal 
conduit payments using ``straw donors'' had been made to 
Democratic National Committee campaign coffers during the 1996 
Presidential election cycle. The witnesses at this hearing were 
Manlin Foung, sister of Democratic fundraiser Yah Lin Charlie 
Trie, and her friend, Joseph Landon. Also present as a witness 
was Los Angeles businessman David Wang. Foung and Landon 
testified that Charlie Trie reimbursed them for $35,000 in 
illegal donations they made to the Democratic National 
Committee. David Wang testified that DNC official John Huang 
had asked him to donate $10,000 to the DNC, for which Huang 
reimbursed him. This hearing demonstrated that two prominent 
Democratic fundraisers, one a DNC official, Charlie Trie and 
John Huang, had indeed violated the law prohibiting a person 
making contributions in the name of another person (2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 441f ), according to the testimony of the witnesses. 
Chairman Burton stated at this hearing that the next obvious 
step was to call Trie or Huang to testify, but unfortunately 
Huang had pled the fifth amendment and Trie had fled the 
country.
    The committee's next hearing was on November 6-7, 1997, on 
``White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas,'' especially 
concerning the belated disclosure by the White House of 
videotapes containing filmed segments of Presidential 
fundraising coffees and other fundraising events. White House 
counsels, Charles F.C. Ruff, Cheryl Mills, Lanny Breuer, and 
Dimitri Nionakis were witnesses. Despite pointed questions from 
Chairman Burton and other committee members about the 
innumerable delays of producing key information related to the 
committee's subpoenas of March 4, 1997, Mr. Ruff and his 
subordinates claimed that there were only ``innocent mistakes'' 
on the White House staff's part for the delays in producing 
documents, including the 25 additional productions after the 
Mr. Ruff had certified on June 27, 1997, that:

          . . . to the best of my knowledge, the White House 
        has produced all documents responsive to the 
        Committee's subpoenas.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Letter from White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff to Chairman 
Dan Burton, June 27, 1997.

    At this hearing, it was disclosed that the White House 
Counsel's office had withheld for over a year a document that 
was clearly to the committee's investigation of the White House 
database. The document in question was a page of handwritten 
notes indicating President Clinton's interest in integrating 
the White House database with the database at the Democratic 
National Committee. When asked about this, White House Deputy 
Counsel, Cheryl Mills, testified that ``she could not recall 
the reasoning that led her and Jack Quinn, then the White House 
Counsel, to withhold the documents. ``I cannot today re-create 
our decision-making,'' she said in a statement to 
reporters.\32\ Members of the committee were highly critical of 
the White House's conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Los Angeles Times, November 7, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The committee's third hearing was held on November 13-14, 
1997, on the activities of Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung. 
Witnesses for this hearing included Maggie Williams, former 
chief of staff to First Lady Hillary Clinton, Nancy Hernreich, 
director of White House Oval Office operations, Kelly Crawford, 
White House aide, Carol Khare, former aide to DNC Chairman 
Donald Fowler, Ceandra Scott, DNC staffer, and Brooke Darby and 
Robert Suettinger, who both worked for the National Security 
Council.
    Mr. Chung, who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars 
to the DNC and the President's legal defense fund, pled the 
fifth amendment after initially agreeing to testify. In lieu of 
public testimony before the committee, Chung met with the 
chairman and other members of the committee privately. In open 
hearing, Carol Khare testified that she had received a 
telephone call from Chung for then-DNC Chairman Fowler which 
she referred to an assistant, Ceandra Scott. Scott stated that 
she called Kelly Crawford in Mrs. Clinton's office to obtain a 
meeting for Chung and a group of Chinese businessmen with 
President Clinton, which occurred on March 11, 1995. Nancy 
Hernreich testified that President Clinton rebuked her 
immediately after the Chung Oval Office meeting, saying, ``You 
should not have done that.''
    Hernreich then stated that she contacted Melanie Darby at 
the National Security Council to determine whether photographs 
of President Clinton with Chung and his entourage ought to be 
released. Darby testified that she contacted NSC Asian affairs 
specialist Robert Suettinger, who then admitted in his 
testimony that he sent Darby and e-mail describing Johnny Chung 
as a ``hustler.''
    Maggie Williams admitted in her testimony that 2 days 
before the Oval Office meeting, she had accepted a $50,000 
check from Johnny Chung at the White House, although she 
claimed that she did not look at the amount of the check.
    The committee held its fourth hearing on December 9-10, 
1997, on the current implementation of the independent counsel 
statute, especially in light of Attorney General Janet Reno's 
decision not to seek an independent counsel to investigate 
allegations concerning President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore. Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh, 
and Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz were witnesses.
    On December 2, 1997, Attorney General Reno announced that 
she would not appoint an independent counsel to pursue an 
investigation of President Clinton, Vice President Gore or 
former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary. Chairman Burton called 
Ms. Reno before the committee the following week to explain why 
she had declined to appoint independent counsels in these 
matters. Burton also called FBI Director Freeh to explain a 
memo he had sent to Reno on November 25, 1997, urging her to 
appoint an independent counsel. Chairman Burton issued a 
subpoena for the memo on December 5, 1997, with which Attorney 
General Reno refused to comply, citing ``the need to protect 
the confidentiality and independence of an ongoing 
investigation and our prosecutorial decision making.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ New York Times, December 9, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the hearing, Freeh testified that he believed `` `very 
strongly' that an independent counsel should be appointed to 
investigate the campaign fundraising scandal.'' \34\ He stated 
that his recommendation to Reno that she should appoint an 
independent counsel was based on his reading of the independent 
counsel statute, in which there are only two grounds for the 
appointment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Washington Post, December 10, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         when there is specific information from a 
        credible source that the President, Vice President or 
        other high-ranking officials may have violated a 
        Federal criminal law and
         when the Attorney General determines that 
        having the Justice Department investigate the matter 
        might result in a personal, financial or political 
        conflict of interest.
    When Chairman Burton asked Mr. Freeh if had ever 
experienced any investigation in which over 65 people have 
invoked the fifth amendment or fled the country, Freeh 
responded that the only time that he had had this problem was 
when he was investigating ``organized crime.''
    In open hearing, Independent Counsel Smaltz testified that 
his investigation of former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy 
``had been impeded by Justice Department officials who tried 
for months to prevent him from examining Mr. Espy's former 
chief of staff, [Ronald Blackley].'' \35\ Mr. Smaltz later 
obtained a conviction of Mr. Blackley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ New York Times, December 11, 1997.
                           II. Investigations

             A. INVESTIGATIONS RESULTING IN FORMAL REPORTS

   Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

                      Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman

1. ``A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and The 
        Privacy Act of 1974 to request Government Records,'' House 
        Report No. 104-37, March 20, 1997, First Report by the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
    a. Summary.--The Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], enacted 
in 1966, presumes those records of the executive branch of the 
U.S. Government are accessible to the public. The Privacy Act 
of 1974 is a companion to FOIA and regulates Government agency 
record-keeping and disclosure practices. The Freedom of 
Information Act provides that citizens have access to Federal 
Government files with certain restrictions. The Privacy Act 
provides certain safeguards for individuals against an invasion 
of privacy by Federal agencies and permits them to see most 
records pertaining to them maintained by the Federal 
Government.
    A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act 
and Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government Records, House 
Report 105-37, dated March 20, 1997, and issued by the House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, explains how to 
use the two laws and serves as a guide to obtaining information 
from Federal agencies. The complete texts of the Freedom of 
Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), and the Privacy 
Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), are reprinted in the committee 
report.
    b. Benefits.--Federal agencies use the Citizen's Guide in 
training programs for Government employees who are responsible 
for administering the Freedom of Information Act and the 
Privacy Act of 1974. The Guide enables those who are unfamiliar 
with the laws to understand the process and to make requests. 
In addition, the complete text of each law is included in an 
appendix. The Government Printing Office and Federal agencies 
subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act 
of 1974, distribute this report widely. The availability of 
these acts to all Americans allows executive branch information 
to be widely available.
    c. Hearings.--None.

                    Subcommittee on Human Resources

                    Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman

1. ``Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DOD Continue to Resist Strong 
        Evidence Linking Toxic Causes to Chronic Health Effects. House 
        Report 105-388. November 7, 1997. Second Report by the 
        Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Together with 
        Additional Views.''
    a. Summary.--Since February 1996, the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources has been conducting an oversight investigation into 
the illnesses reported by an estimated 100,000 Gulf war 
veterans, and the response to veterans' health complaints by 
the departments of Veterans Affairs [VA] and Defense [DOD]. The 
investigation resulted in a report approved by the subcommittee 
on October 31, 1997, and the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on November 7, 1997.
    Responding to requests of veterans, the subcommittee 
initiated a far-reaching oversight investigation into the 
clusters of symptoms and debilitating maladies known 
collectively as the ``Gulf War Syndrome.'' The subcommittee 
sought to ensure sick Gulf war veterans were being properly 
diagnosed, treated, and compensated for service-connected 
disabilities, despite official denials and scientific 
uncertainty regarding the exact causes of their ailments. The 
subcommittee also sought to determine whether the Gulf war 
research agenda was properly focused on the most likely, not 
just the most convenient, hypotheses to explain Gulf war 
illnesses.
    The subcommittee investigation and hearings found that the 
VA and DOD had not listened to veterans since the Gulf war 
ended in 1991. Veterans suspected and reported exposure to 
toxic agents in the Gulf war theater--to chemical and 
biological warfare agents, environmental hazards, and 
experimental drugs and vaccines. Any one, or any combination, 
of these toxins may have produced the illnesses among some 
veterans. Yet, the VA and DOD ignored veterans' concerns, 
continued to maintain there were no toxic exposures and 
therefore no health effects, and attributed any illnesses to 
battlefield stress.
    It was the consistent pressure from this subcommittee, and 
other House and Senate panels, that forced the Pentagon to 
acknowledge a ``watershed event''--the probable exposure to 
United States troops to chemical weapons fallout at Khamisiyah, 
Iraq. With that first admission, the three pillars of 
Government denial--no credible detections, no exposures, no 
health effects--began to crumble. The number of U.S. troops 
presumed exposed grew rapidly from the 400 announced in June 
1996 to nearly 100,000 announced in July 1997.
    This revelation and other credible chemical detections, 
along with private research which probed the parallels between 
Gulf war illnesses and known effects of chemical poisoning, 
suggested a significant role for toxins in causing, triggering 
or amplifying neurological damage and producing delayed and/or 
chronic symptoms in many veterans.
    The subcommittee believes current approaches by the VA and 
DOD to research, diagnosis and treatment of Gulf veterans are 
flawed and unlikely to yield answers to veterans' ailments in 
the foreseeable, or even far distant, future.
    Six years and hundreds of millions of dollars have been 
spent by the VA and DOD in an effort to determine the causes of 
the illnesses besetting Gulf war veterans. When asked what 
progress has been made healing sick Gulf veterans, VA and DOD 
cannot respond. When asked, are sick veterans any better off 
today than when they were first examined, VA and DOD are 
silent. Millions of research dollars have been thrown at the 
problem without answers or accountability.
    Government delays and denials for 6 years are symptomatic 
of a system content to presume the Gulf war produced no delayed 
casualties, and determined to shift the burden of proof onto 
sick veterans to overcome that presumption. That task has been 
made difficult, if not impossible, because most of the medical 
records needed to prove toxic causation are missing, destroyed 
or inadequate. Nevertheless, VA and DOD insist upon reaping the 
benefit of any doubts created by the absence of those records.
    The subcommittee believes the current presumptions about 
neurotoxic causes and effects should be reversed and the 
benefit of any doubt should inure to the sick veteran.
    Finally, the subcommittee reluctantly concluded that 
responsibility for Gulf war illnesses, especially the research 
agenda, must be placed in more responsive and expert hands, 
independent of the VA and DOD.
    The committee report contained 18 major oversight findings:
Diagnosis
    1. VA and DOD did not listen to sick Gulf war veterans as 
to possible causes of their illnesses.
    2. The presence of a variety of toxic agents in the Gulf 
war theater strongly suggests exposures have a role in causing, 
triggering or amplifying subsequent service-connected 
illnesses.
    3. Gulf war troops were not trained to protect themselves 
from the effects of exposure to depleted uranium dust and 
particles.
    4. Pyridostigmine bromide [PB] can have serious side 
effects and interactions when taken in combination with other 
drugs, vaccines, chemical exposures, heat and/or exercise.
    5. VA and DOD health registry diagnostic protocols relied 
on the unfounded conclusion there were no chemical, biological 
or other toxic exposures to United States troops in the Gulf 
war theater.
    6. VA and DOD health registry diagnosis protocols continue 
to be based on the unwarranted conclusion that, unless there is 
an immediate and acute reaction, exposures to chemical weapons 
and other toxins do not cause delayed or chronic symptoms.
    7. Prematurely ruling out toxic exposures as causative, VA 
and DOD doctors relied on diagnoses of somatoform disorder and 
Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder [PTSD] to explain Gulf war 
veterans' illnesses.
    8. There is no credible evidence that stress or PTSD causes 
the illnesses reported by many Gulf war veterans.
    9. Accurate diagnosis of veterans' illnesses remains 
difficult due to inadequate or missing personal medical 
records, missing toxic detection logs, and unreleased 
classified documents.
    10. Accurate diagnosis of veterans' illnesses was also 
hampered by the VA's lack of medical expertise in toxicology 
and environmental medicine.
    11. Exposures to low levels of chemical warfare agents and 
other toxins can cause delayed, chronic health effects.
Treatment
    12. Neither the VA nor the DOD has systematically attempted 
to determine whether sick Gulf war veterans are any better or 
worse today than when they first reported symptoms.
    13. Treatment of sick Gulf war veterans by VA and DOD to 
date has largely focused on stress and PTSD.
Compensation
    14. Compensation ratings for sick veterans are minimized 
due to inadequate personal medical records, missing toxic 
detection logs, and unreleased classified documents which could 
help veterans establish service-connection of post-war 
disabilities.
    15. Compensation ratings are also minimized by over-
reliance on somatoform disorder and PTSD as the basis of 
disability claims.
Research
    16. Federal research strategy has been blind to promising 
hypotheses due to reliance on unfounded DOD conclusions 
regarding chemical exposures.
    17. Institutional and methodological constraints make it 
unlikely the current research structure will find the causes 
and effective treatments for Gulf war veterans' illnesses in 
the short term.
    18. The FDA was passive in granting and failing to enforce 
the conditions of waiver to permit use of PB by DOD.
    Based upon the subcommittee investigation and findings, the 
report made the following detailed recommendations:
Diagnosis
    1. Congress should enact a Gulf war toxic exposure act 
establishing the presumption, as a matter of law, that veterans 
were exposed to hazardous materials known to have been present 
in the Gulf war theater.
    2. The VA should contract with an independent scientific 
body composed of non-government scientific experts 
representing, at a minimum, the disciplines of toxicology, 
immunology, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, 
biochemistry, chemistry, epidemiology, medicine and public 
health for the purpose of identifying those diseases and 
illnesses associated in peer-reviewed literature with singular, 
sustained, or combined exposures to the hazardous materials to 
which Gulf war veterans are presumed to have been exposed.
    3. The VA Gulf War Registry and the DOD Comprehensive 
Clinical Evaluation Program should be re-evaluated by an 
independent scientific body which shall make specific 
recommendations to change both programs from crude research 
tools into effective clinical diagnosis and outcomes monitoring 
efforts.
    4. The VA should refer all Phase II Registry examinations 
to Gulf war referral centers.
    5. The VA should add toxicological and environmental 
medicine expertise to the staff resources dedicated to Gulf war 
illnesses.
    6. DOD and VA should make every effort to find, and where 
necessary re-create through veterans' testimony, individual 
Gulf war medical records to reflect vaccines administered, PB 
use, and exposure to DU, pesticides and other hazardous 
materials.
    7. The President should order an intensified effort to 
declassify Gulf war documents in any way related to Gulf war 
veterans' illnesses and should personally certify to the 
appropriate committees of Congress when he deems 
declassification of such documents to be against the national 
interest.
    8. DOD failure to adhere to recordkeeping requirements or 
clinical protocols under an informed consent waiver should 
result in the presumption of service-connection for any 
subsequent illness(es) suffered by service personnel to whom 
the drug or protocol was administered.
Treatment
    9. VA and DOD should systematically and effectively monitor 
the clinical progress of Gulf war veterans to determine the 
most effective treatments.
    10. VA and DOD clinicians should be encouraged to pursue, 
and be trained in, new treatment approaches to suspected 
neurotoxic exposure effects.
    11. The diagnoses for somatoform disorders and Post-
Traumatic-Stress-Disorder [PTSD] should be refined to insure 
that physiological causes are not overlooked.
Compensation
    12. Denials of Gulf war veterans' compensation claims 
attributable in any way to missing medical records should be 
reviewed and veterans given the benefit of any doubt regarding 
the presumptive role of toxic exposure in causing post-war 
illnesses and disability.
    13. For purposes of compensation determinations, 
disabilities associated with presumed exposures should be 
deemed service-connected without any limitation as to time.
Research
    14. Congress should create or designate an agency 
independent from the departments of Defense and Veterans 
Affairs as the lead Federal agency responsible for coordination 
of all research into Gulf war veterans' illnesses and 
allocation of all research funds.
    15. The lead Federal agency on Gulf war veterans' illnesses 
should focus research on the evaluation and treatment of the 
common spectrum of neuroimmunological disorders known as Gulf 
War Syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue 
syndrome and fibromyalgia.
    16. DOD and VA medical systems should augment research and 
clinical capabilities with regard to women's health issues and 
the health effects of combat service on women's health.
    17. VA, in collaboration with NIH, CDC, FDA and other 
public health agencies should establish an interdisciplinary 
research and clinical program on the identification, prevention 
and treatment of environmentally induced neuropathies.
    18. FDA should grant a waiver of informed consent 
requirements for the use of experimental or investigational 
drugs by DOD only upon receipt of a Presidential finding of 
efficacy and need.
    b. Benefits.--Recommendations based on the subcommittee's 
investigation into Gulf war veterans' illnesses, if 
implemented, should help veterans receive the answers they 
deserve as to why they are sick and what can be done to make 
them healthy again. Such a successful effort could return 
veterans to full and productive lives, enabling them to better 
support themselves and their families. These veterans, a 
product of the all-volunteer U.S. military, put their lives on 
the line while serving their country in time of war. Failure to 
care for these veterans could have serious implications for 
military recruitment programs in the future. Recommendations, 
if implemented, would also provide: greater focus and better 
coordination of research into Gulf war illnesses; faster and 
more meaningful research results with available dollars; a 
stronger sense of urgency and responsibility by the Federal 
Government to meet the medical and compensation needs of Gulf 
war veterans.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee convened the following 
oversight hearings on Gulf war veterans' illnesses in 1997: 
``Gulf War Syndrome: To Examine New Studies Suggesting Links 
Between Gulf Service and Higher Rates of Illnesses,'' January 
21, 1997; ``Status of the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
Identify Gulf War Syndrome,'' April 24, 1997; ``Oversight of 
NIH and FDA: Bioethics and the Adequacy of Informed Consent,'' 
May 8, 1997; ``Status of Efforts to Identify Persian Gulf War 
Syndrome: Recent GAO Findings,'' June 24, 1997; and ``Gulf War 
Syndrome: Multiple Toxic Exposures,'' June 26, 1997. (In the 
104th Congress, the subcommittee convened the following 
hearings: ``The Status of Efforts of Identify Persian Gulf War 
Syndrome,'' March 11 and 28, June 25, and September 19, 1996; 
and ``Persian Gulf Veterans' Illnesses,'' December 10 and 11, 
1996.)
    Witnesses at these hearings included: Gulf war veterans; 
representatives from veterans service organization; officials 
from the VA, DOD, CIA, FDA, NIH, EPA and Presidential Advisory 
Committee on GW Veterans' Illnesses; GAO investigators; 
physicians; private researchers from neurology, pharmacology, 
toxicology, psychiatry, microbiology, molecular biology, 
environmental medicine, biochemistry, physics, nuclear 
medicine, immunology, epidemiology, and bioethics; and chemical 
and biological weapons experts.

                        B. OTHER INVESTIGATIONS

               Government Reform and Oversight Committee

1. Review of the Federal Government's Acquisition Strategy Regarding 
        the Federal Telecommunications System 2001 Program.
    The Federal Telecommunications System 2000 [FTS2000] is the 
Government's current long distance telecommunications service. 
The multi billion dollar program provides telecommunications 
services to approximately 1.7 million users across the Federal 
Government. The FTS program was largely successful leveraging 
the emerging competition in the long distance markets to save 
billions of dollars over the General Services Administration's 
[GSA] prior Federal Telecommunications Service network. The 
current FTS2000 contracts were awarded in 1988, will expire in 
December 1998, with the awarding of the FTS2001 contracts 
anticipated in the summer of 1998.
    The telecommunications industry has changed dramatically 
since the initial contracts were awarded: the array of 
available commercial services is broader; the number of service 
providers has increased; and the availability and nature of the 
underlying technologies themselves continue to change. The 
Government's needs for communications services has changed as 
well, for more advanced data and video services outdistancing 
growth in basic voice communications services. It is imperative 
that the FTS2001 program embrace an acquisition strategy that 
is based on commercial practices which maximizes the use of 
commercially available services to meet agency needs while 
following an appropriate strategy for managing complex 
Government operations.
    The committee's monitoring the development of the FTS2001 
procurement will ensure that the Federal Government receives 
the most technically-effective and cost efficient 
telecommunications services. The Government and more 
importantly the taxpayer will be able to take maximum advantage 
of the economies associated with increasing competition in the 
new telecommunications environment. Through a combination of 
the best prices and excellent service quality the executive 
agencies will be able to do their jobs of serving the citizens 
more efficiently and effectively.
    The General Services Administration worked closely with the 
interagency group and a broad cross section of industry 
preparing an acquisition strategy. Initial proposals failed to 
take full advantage of telecommunications reform along with 
today's rapidly changing landscape of advancing technologies, 
new services, and emerging service providers. Working closely 
with this committee, GSA ultimately developed a proposal that 
addressed many of the issues raised by the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and others which will enable 
the Government to take full advantage of rapid changes in the 
telecommunications service environment. This procurement will 
make maximum use of commercial services and practices in 
designing solutions to the Government's requirements. It will 
also enable the Government to leverage its position as the 
country's largest user of telecommunications services to obtain 
the best possible prices for the taxpayers. GSA is proceeding 
with this FTS2001 acquisition strategy.
    The committee held two hearings to receive testimony from 
Robert J. Woods, Commissioner of the Federal Telecommunications 
Service; Frank E. Lalley, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Telecommunications, Department of Veteran's Affairs and 
chair, Interagency Management Council for Telecommunications; 
other witnesses included representatives of the long distance 
carriers, systems integrators, and the Regional Bell Operating 
Co.'s.
2. Elimination of Section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
        Act of 1994 [FASA] (Public Law 103-355).
    a. Summary.--The committee strongly supported the complete 
repeal of Section 1555 of FASA. This measure was repealed, as 
part of the House and Senate Treasury Postal Appropriations 
Conference Report, which was signed into law on October 19, 
1997.
    The cooperative purchasing program would have allowed State 
and local governments to buy a wide array of goods and services 
off the Federal supply schedule administered by the General 
Services Administration. The committee believes that this is a 
serious threat to the Nation's small business community.
    The committee did seek to craft new legislation, submitting 
legislative language that would have only allowed information 
technology products [IT] to be sold to State and local entities 
off the Federal supply schedule.
    This new legislative language was opposed by many who felt 
that this would somehow set a precedent and allow other goods 
and services to be purchased off the Federal supply schedule as 
a result. However, the narrowly crafted IT language was 
specific to one industry and would not have set a precedent.

                   Subcommittee on the Civil Service

1. Impact of the President's FY-1998 Budget on Federal Employees.
    a. Summary.--President Clinton's proposed Federal budget 
for fiscal year 1998 recommended reductions in spending of 
$6.252 billion from accounts used to pay Federal employees and 
retirees. The President's recommendations would have required 
Federal agencies to pay an additional 1.5 percent of employees' 
salaries to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund 
[CSRDF], a change that would have provided $621 million in 
savings the first year and almost $3 billion over the 5-year 
budget cycle. The President also recommended that Federal 
employees in both the Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS] 
and the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS] pay an 
additional one half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) toward their 
retirements. This increased payroll deduction was recommended 
to be deferred and phased in, so that employees would face an 
increase of 0.25 percent beginning January 1999, 0.15 percent 
beginning January 2000, and 0.10 percent, beginning in January 
2001. In addition to these increases affecting current 
employees, the President proposed to delay the cost of living 
adjustment paid to Federal civilian annuitants each year from 
January to April. This reduction in payments to Federal 
retirees would have saved $278 million in fiscal year 1998, and 
was projected to achieve $1.5 billion in reduced benefits 
during the period ending in fiscal year 2002.
    b. Benefits.--This investigation provided an opportunity to 
review the President's budget proposals affecting Federal 
employees and retirees in light of the savings targeted to be 
achieved through changes in pay and benefits. These 
deliberations provided a basis for Congress to reject the 
administration's proposed delay in Federal retirees' cost of 
living adjustments when it enacted the Balanced Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1997. They also opened the door to exploring 
options to ensure more equitable treatment of Postal Service 
employees and FERS employees, whose retirement programs are 
currently funded on a ``full normal cost'' basis. The 
investigation underscored the need to modify the formula used 
to calculate the Government's share of the FEHB premiums. The 
formula was subsequently changed in the Balanced Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1997.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``The President's 1998 
Budget: Civil Service Impacts'' was held on February 13, 1997. 
The hearing provided an opportunity to review consequences of 
current strategies for funding Federal pensions, to assess the 
different effects of the changes on different Federal 
retirement systems, and to identify the consequences on 
different employees and agencies as they are affected by the 
changes.
    Mr. Mica noted that the administration had submitted 
similar proposals for each of the 2 previous fiscal years, and 
that none of these proposals had been enacted during that 
period. He observed that Federal agencies would have to reduce 
their current spending by $3 billion to comply with these 
increased payments into retirement systems, and that Federal 
jobs might have to be eliminated to pay for these expenditures. 
Mr. Mica also noted that the administration's proposal would 
have allowed the current formula for calculating Federal 
employees' health insurance premiums to shift from a 
calculation based on the former ``Big Six'' plans to an average 
based on the five largest plans remaining in the program. This 
shift would have led to higher insurance premiums for Federal 
employees, and Mr. Mica proposed to address this issue in a 
subsequent hearing. Mr. Mica stressed the importance of 
achieving the overall savings, noting that the Budget Committee 
has acted to realize savings from these programs when the 
subcommittee could not enact its own solutions in previous 
years.
    Mrs. Morella noted that she had introduced H. Con. Res. 13, 
expressing the sense of the Congress that annuitants' cost of 
living adjustments should be paid in January, consistent with 
the payment of COLAs to Social Security beneficiaries and 
military retired pay.
    Mr. Robert Tobias, national president of the National 
Treasury Employees Union, recommended that the subcommittee 
write to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to request 
that the subcommittee be assigned a savings target of zero for 
this budget resolution. He asked that the increased retirement 
fund contributions from both employees and agencies be denied 
by the subcommittee.
    Mr. Michael Styles, national president of the Federal 
Managers Association, asserted that the Congress and the 
administration have failed to provide pay and benefits 
consistent with the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. He 
observed that he had completed an assignment with a Navy 
contractor, and that private firms' employees were paid 
substantially more than public employees performing the same 
work. He claimed that the Federal workforce has continued to 
perform at solid levels, even in the face of continued 
pressures to reduce the workforce and to convert work to 
commercial firms through contracts. He concluded that these 
approaches have demoralizing effects on the Federal workforce, 
and should be resisted.
    Mr. Charles Jackson, president of the National Association 
of Retired Federal Employees, expressed disappointment with the 
President's proposal to delay annual cost of living adjustments 
to Federal annuitants. He claimed that the Civil Service 
Retirement and Disability Fund is able to pay current 
obligations, and reported that most large and medium employers 
in the private sector pay full retirement costs of their 
employees, where Federal employees pay 25 percent of their 
retirement costs. He contrasted the President's proposal to 
delay the COLA to Federal civilian annuitants, but not the 
COLAs associated with Social Security beneficiaries and 
military retired pay. He also noted that the President's 
proposal to allow the statutory modification of the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Premium increase to take effect would 
result in a substantial price increase for Federal annuitants, 
an increase that would be difficult to absorb in light of the 
COLA delay.
    Mr. James Cunningham, national president of the National 
Federation of Federal Employees, expressed severe 
disappointment with the President's budget. He claimed that 
Federal employees should receive a 6.6 percent increase instead 
of the 2.8 percent that the President proposed. He observed 
that the increased pay to employees will increase the 
compensation costs of Federal agencies, and generate pressure 
for other spending cuts that might impede agencies' operations. 
He questioned the propriety of the administration's championing 
of its workforce reductions, and emphasized that his 
organization was interested in the National Partnership 
Council's work only to the extent that it contributed to more 
effective agency performance.
    Mr. Mica stressed that the subcommittee would be required 
to achieve savings in the entitlement programs under the budget 
resolution, and noted the political difficulties of achieving 
fair distribution of the responsibilities for reaching the 
budget targets. Both Mr. Styles and Mr. Jackson recommended 
that the tax cuts proposed for working Americans be used as a 
source of savings, rather than reducing the burdens that the 
retirement system places on tax revenues. Mr. Jackson indicated 
an interest in reviewing savings achieved through a Medical 
Savings Account pilot program authorized under the Kennedy-
Kassebaum Act of 1996. He recognized the desire to curb 
increases in medical costs, but preferred to see results of the 
pilot before endorsing any particular proposal to limit the 
growth of benefits.
    Mr. Styles and Mr. Tobias recommended achieving savings by 
reducing the contractor workforce. Mr. Styles claimed that 
there are no accurate reports of the number of employees 
working for agencies through contracts, and that Federal 
contracting costs, at $108 billion, now exceed the $103 billion 
Federal payroll. As a result, he argued, the Federal Government 
has not truly shrunk, but we have shifted to paying for these 
functions through contracts rather than through direct 
employment costs.
    Mr. Mica provided a copy of a letter from Office of 
Personnel Management Director James B. King acknowledging that, 
if his proposal to cap the Federal payment for health insurance 
premiums at a fixed dollar amount had been adopted, Federal 
employees would have saved $820 million in health insurance 
premiums during the past 2 years. This would have averaged $200 
per enrollee in the FEHBP. He also demonstrated that the amount 
of money needed to pay Federal annuities is growing annually. 
Whereas Civil Service retirement outlays from the Treasury 
exceeded receipts by $24 billion in 1992, this year the 
retirement accounts will require $30 billion in support from 
the taxpayers. This shortfall is projected to increase to $107 
billion per year within 20 years, and continue to grow for the 
foreseeable future. Mr. Mica commented that he considered 
singling out Federal civilian retirees for the delayed COLA was 
blatantly unfair, and sought the panel's suggestions for 
options to address the Budget Committee's targets.
    Mr. Hugh Bates, president of the National Association of 
Postmasters of the United States, observed that the Postal 
Service had achieved an operating surplus of $1.8 billion 
during the previous year, and endorsed efforts to balance the 
Federal budget. He opposed the COLA delay that would affect 
only Federal civilian annuitants.
    Mr. William Brennan, president of the National League of 
Postmasters, testified that the League also opposes requiring 
Federal employees and annuitants to assist efforts to balance 
the budget. He noted that the Postal Service already pays a per 
capita share of Federal retirement programs that is larger than 
other Federal agencies, because the Postal Service is required 
by law to make payments that are not required of other 
agencies. Mr. Mica observed that, where the Postal Service 
currently provides 54 percent of the cash in the Federal 
retirement funds, by 2015 the Postal Service will provide 81 
percent of this funding. He noted that, since Postal employees 
must already pay the full normal costs of their retirement, as 
calculated by the Office of Personnel Management, postal 
employees already pay a fair share toward retirement benefits, 
and that the President's proposal could be considered unfair to 
them.
2. Federal Hiring From the Welfare Rolls.
    a. Summary.--Although the Federal Workforce Restructuring 
Act of 1994 directed the reduction of 272,900 Federal employees 
by 2000, President Clinton announced a program to hire 10,000 
people off the welfare rolls into the Federal workforce. The 
President announced this effort as part of a program to ease 
the impact of welfare reform laws enacted in 1996. A hearing 
was called to develop an understanding of the administration's 
strategy for accomplishing this hiring initiative in a manner 
consistent with the workforce reduction targets, the variety of 
protections and reinstatement eligibility provided to Federal 
employees facing reductions-in-force, veterans' preference, and 
merit system principles. The hearing provided an opportunity 
for the subcommittee to review the administration's approach to 
hiring people currently benefiting from welfare into Federal 
employment. The administration articulated its reasons for 
believing that this could be accomplished consistent with merit 
system principles and veterans preference by relying upon 
normal turnover, targeting opportunities in entry level and 
temporary positions, and by using several excepted service 
hiring authorities that are available (albeit rarely used) to 
facilitate hiring in positions intended as training 
assignments. Employee organizations provided insight about the 
adverse effects on Federal employees who consider this 
initiative particularly ill-timed in light of their agencies' 
workforce reduction efforts. Private scholars and analysts were 
afforded an ability to demonstrate that different approaches 
are working more effectively in several States than the targets 
indicated by the administration.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee gained clear understanding 
of the effects on the working poor of providing a preference 
for welfare recipients, as proposed in legislation introduced 
by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (H.R. 1066, the Federal 
Jobs Opportunity Act).
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Federal Hiring from the 
Welfare Rolls'' was held on April 24, 1997. Mr. Mica noted that 
Federal agencies have vast experience in welfare-to-work 
programs, but much of that experience has resulted in little 
success. Instead, State programs (such as Wisconsin's and 
Oregon's) have reduced welfare case loads substantially in ways 
that could make the Federal endeavor irrelevant to former 
welfare dependents' needs. He also noted that thousands of 
Federal employees have been separated involuntarily as part of 
downsizing and the administration's efforts to reinvent 
government. Those former employees have retention rights that 
would provide eligibility to return to agencies that have 
positions available. He noted that the Department of Defense 
had borne the lion's share of these reductions, and that it 
faced additional reductions in the President's budget proposal.
    Mr. Koskinen, Deputy Director for Management, Office of 
Management and Budget, reported that more than 2.8 million 
people were removed from welfare rolls, a 20 percent reduction 
from the numbers on welfare rolls in 1993. He estimated that 
current economic growth creates about 200,000 jobs each month. 
The President had asked corporate America to include welfare 
recipients among the workers who join the workforce during this 
expansion. In response to a request from the President, 
agencies had, during a 30-day period, assembled plans and 
identified appropriate positions that would be included in the 
President's initiative. The target of 10,000 positions reflects 
a proportionate share based on the Federal portion of the 
national workforce. Even during a general workforce reduction, 
Federal agencies hired 58,000 permanent and 140,000 temporary 
employees in 1996, so Mr. Koskinen viewed this target as within 
reason for a 3-year period. He believed that the targets could 
be realized without preferences or any set-asides for welfare 
applicants. Agencies would not create special jobs for these 
applicants, and they would have to pass any tests or meet 
appropriate qualifications, just as any other Federal employee.
    Mr. King, Director, Office of Personnel Management, 
described the interagency efforts used to develop and implement 
the administration's initiative. The Office of Personnel 
Management has provided written guidelines to agencies that 
describe optional hiring procedures available under current 
law. Most of the effort will involve providing additional 
information about opportunities in the Federal sector in new 
formats and in a more timely manner. OPM has established a 
target of 25 positions. The Bureau of the Census, which will 
soon begin hiring in preparation for the 2000 Census, has 
committed to hire nearly 4,000 welfare recipients, or 40 
percent of the governmentwide target. Most of the positions 
would be temporary, and provide introductory work experience 
during planning stages of the operation. Mr. King stressed that 
this initiative is not directed at career positions, but at 
providing entry-level opportunities. He reaffirmed his belief 
that the objectives could be accomplished consistent with merit 
system principles and veterans preference. In response to 
questions, Mr. King confirmed that employees hired as a result 
of this initiative would not get benefits other than those 
available to similarly-situated Federal employees.
    Ms. Disney, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Civilian 
Personnel), Department of Defense, reported that the Department 
of Defense continues to hire about 20,000 civilians each year 
for permanent positions, and another 23,000 temporary 
positions, even while planning to eliminate an additional 
90,000 positions during the next 3 years. Defense expects to be 
able to fill about 2,900 of these positions with current 
welfare recipients during the 3-year period. It will use a 
variety of wage-grade, temporary, and nonappropriated fund 
opportunities to accomplish this hiring goal.
    Mr. Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, described the Department of 
Veterans Affairs' efforts to hire 800 applicants from the 
welfare rolls during the next 2 years. He noted that most of 
the opportunities would be in GS-1 and GS-2 positions that are 
temporary, but could provide important initial experience. He 
noted that in these positions, annual turnover rates average 
almost 20 percent. He stressed that the Department's targeted 
recruitment efforts would pay particular attention to veterans, 
and mentioned programs that are already in place to assist 
veterans in conversion to civilian employment. He affirmed that 
this target could be achieved without compromising veterans 
preference and while adhering to re-employment opportunities 
for former Federal employees.
    Mr. Hantzis, national executive director, National 
Federation of Federal Employees, reported that Federal 
employees are concerned about the manner in which the 
President's plan is being implemented. He noted that OPM 
figures indicated that Federal agencies currently employ 677 
persons in GS-1 and GS-2 positions, and, because OPM does not 
maintain a governmentwide re-employment priority list, it is 
difficult to know how many people remain on re-employment 
lists. The Department of Defense's ``stopper'' list includes 
21,000 RIF'd DOD employees. He expressed concern that 
advantages given to temporary hires under this initiative might 
place current temporary employees at an additional 
disadvantage. He noted that many National Federation of Federal 
Employees had described this initiative as ``outrageous.''
    Mr. Rector, senior policy analyst, welfare and family 
issues, the Heritage Foundation, described the policy as, at 
best irrelevant, and at worst a very foolish policy that has 
nothing to do with reducing welfare dependence. He noted that 
the administration had failed to consult with States that had 
implemented successful programs when it developed its 
initiative. He described this effort as ``more a press release 
than an actual mechanism for helping the poor.'' He noted that 
Wisconsin's welfare case load had dropped by 55 percent in the 
previous 4 years. By instituting effective work requirements, 
and counseling applicants about the dangers of welfare 
dependence, initial applications drop. Both Wisconsin and 
Oregon use ``pay for performance'' programs through which 
welfare recipients must work to earn their benefits. When such 
requirements are enforced, welfare recipients often find 
better-paying jobs. Rather than radical increases in poverty, 
States administering work-based programs have experienced 
substantial economic growth and increased self-sufficiency 
among former welfare dependents. These programs have 
contributed most to the 20 percent drop in welfare caseloads 
during the past 2 years, the biggest drop since the Korean war. 
He noted that child care has not proven to be a substantial 
obstacle, and that the funds freed from the reduced caseload 
provide ample resources for supporting child care initiatives, 
if necessary. Although funding for day care has gone up in 
Wisconsin, for example, it still amounts to less than 5 percent 
of the savings from the initiative. He emphasized that the most 
important step in the program is the follow-up; making certain 
that, once involved in work, the recipient remains in a 
position to earn any benefits that are acquired. Most 
employment will inevitably come from the private sector.
    Mr. Riccio, Manpower Development Research Corp., described 
welfare recipients as a diverse group, but generally a group 
that is lacking in traditional employment skills. Nonetheless, 
most welfare recipients have some work history, and nearly all 
are capable of securing and maintaining employment. However, 
not even the most successful welfare-to-work programs have 
developed effective strategies to counter the high turnover 
rates in positions occupied by welfare recipients in their 
first employment. Of California welfare recipients who left 
jobs, 41 percent reported quitting to seek better employment 
opportunities than the low-paid entry positions.
    Mr. Tetro, president, Training and Development Corp., 
stressed the importance of providing initial opportunities in 
our society. He noted the importance of the Wisconsin example 
cited in Mr. Rector's testimony, in major part because it is a 
common sense approach. He concluded that the most important 
strategy in combating welfare dependence is guiding people into 
work, then providing effective support when they are there. Mr. 
Tetro explained that he agreed with the Heritage Foundation 
testimony about the importance of monitoring the effectiveness 
of training programs. Most have not worked well, and most are 
pre-occupied with preserving bureaucratic procedures rather 
than with finding solutions to peoples' problems. He indicated 
that he had successfully restructured job training programs in 
Richmond, and agreed with Mr. Rector that they had not been as 
successful in Maine, a difference that he attributed to Maine 
being ``one of those States that has left the responsibility 
for welfare reform in the hands of the welfare bureaucracy.''
    Mrs. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas testified that she had 
introduced legislation that would provide a 3 percent addition 
to the test scores of applicants for Federal employment who 
were seeking jobs while on welfare rolls. She believes that 
this advantage would provide additional incentives to employing 
agencies to take the chance on reaching beyond the normal 
applicant pool. She added that initial employment efforts had 
failed before because of the difficulties of getting to work in 
low-wage positions. She noted that her bill was structured to 
avoid giving advantages over people who faced RIF situations. 
In response to Mr. Cummings question, however, she conceded 
that, as written, her bill would provide an advantage to 
welfare recipients over those whom he termed the ``working 
poor.'' She emphasized the importance of the first experience, 
of getting one's foot in the door.
3. Assisting the District of Columbia with It's Pension Liabilities.
    a. Summary.--As part of its proposal to rescue the District 
of Columbia government from a looming financial crisis, the 
administration proposed to have the Federal Government assume 
the liabilities of the District's defined benefit pension 
programs covering police, fire fighters, and teachers. Although 
these retirement programs are partially funded through accounts 
managed by the District of Columbia Retirement Board, the 
President proposed to have the Federal treasury seize most of 
the assets managed by the Retirement Board, in return for 
basing future pension payments on the ``full faith and credit'' 
of the U.S. Government. The seized assets would be depleted to 
pay benefits to annuitants during the transition. A hearing was 
called to examine the funding assumptions that supported this 
proposal and to compare them to the operation of Federal 
retirement programs.
    Defined benefit pension programs often promise generous 
benefits, but when governments rely upon the ``full faith and 
credit'' of future taxpayers to fund the pension obligations, 
they depend upon the willingness of future legislators to fund 
those obligations. In a March 27, 1997 memorandum, the 
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] described this as comparable 
to saving for college by placing IOUs in a cookie jar. Relying 
on nonmarketable securities to ``fund'' Federal pensions 
promotes a false sense of security since, as CBO testified, 
``Those Federal securities are merely the promise of the 
Federal Government to itself. The left pocket owes the right 
pocket, but the combined trouser assets are exactly zero.'' By 
contrast with the mostly unfunded Federal Civil Service 
Retirement System, the DC Retirement Board oversees investments 
in tangible assets currently valued at nearly 50 percent of 
actuarial liabilities. The unfunded half of the District's 
retirement liabilities can be traced back to the unfunded 
liabilities transferred to the District when Congress enacted 
home rule. The District government has had to rely on annual 
tax revenues to meet its growing pension obligations, currently 
amounting to $307 million per year. As a local jurisdiction, 
the District has great difficulty raising tax revenues to meet 
those obligations.
    b. Benefits.--This investigation provided an opportunity 
for the subcommittee to examine the President's proposal to 
deal with the District of Columbia's pension obligations as 
part of his program for the District's economic relief. The 
President proposed to assume the District's current pension 
liabilities and to use DC Retirement Fund cash assets to pay 
pension obligations until the assets are depleted. The 
Congressional Budget Office provided valuable testimony 
demonstrating the future liabilities incurred as a result of 
different approaches to financing pension benefits, and 
concluded that the ``pay-as-you-go'' approach used for the 
District's retirement systems and the Federal employees' 
retirement programs is unsustainable in the long run. This 
hearing supported subcommittee efforts to propose different 
funding mechanisms to address pension obligations facing the 
District government in light of the $35 billion long-term costs 
that will result from the President's proposal to assume the 
District's current pension liabilities.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``D.C. Retirement System: 
Coping with Unfunded Liabilities'' was held on April 29, 1997. 
At the hearing Subcommittee Chairman Mica recognized that the 
District needs relief from its mounting pension obligations, 
but he observed two fatal flaws in the President's proposal. 
First, by assuming the District's pension debts, the Federal 
Government incurs significant new long term obligations. These 
outlays are offset in the short term by enabling the U.S. 
Treasury to raid over $3.5 billion of hard assets from the 
District Retirement Board. Second, when those future 
obligations come due, the District's employees would join 
Federal employees at the mercy of the annual appropriations 
process. Where the District's unfunded accrued actuarial 
liability is $4.8 billion, the future obligations owed to 
Federal annuitants amount to more than $900 billion, of which 
only $380 billion is ``funded'' but with nonmarketable 
certificates of indebtedness. Within 20 years, the cost of 
redeeming the pension promises in the Federal cookie jar will 
surpass $100 billion annually. In 2041, those annual pension 
shortfalls are projected to exceed $220 billion. Mr. Mica 
foresees Federal pensions as becoming more vulnerable 
throughout that period in the absence of an adequate funding 
mechanism.
    Ms. Norton of the District of Columbia cited additional CBO 
memoranda demonstrating that the District's unfunded liability 
for these pensions compounds its operational difficulties, 
especially with regard to efforts to limit tax increases and to 
borrow funds when needed. She noted that, in 2004, the annual 
$52 million Federal payment to these systems will be completed, 
and that the District's obligations to address future funding 
would intensify. She acknowledged the challenges of the funding 
mechanism, but contended that these problems could imperil the 
overall proposal for the District's recovery.
    Mr. G. Edward DeSeve, Comptroller, Office of Management and 
Budget commented that the proposal to address the District's 
pension funding needed to be assessed in light of other efforts 
to reduce spending in the District government's budget. He 
traced these unfunded liabilities to the transition to home 
rule, and emphasized the congressional responsibility for the 
obligations accumulated before 1980. He noted that the 
President's plan would result in no net increase in Federal 
spending until the Retirement Board's assets were expended, 
sometime early in the next century.
    Mr. Anthony Williams, Chief Financial Officer, District of 
Columbia government, stressed the importance of resolving 
questions related to pension funding because of their effects 
in restricting the District's operating options. He noted that 
the President's recovery plan integrates efforts at economic 
development and improved cost controls with the funding changes 
proposed here. He conceded imperfections in the plan, but noted 
that these difficulties are very similar to the challenges 
faced in funding Federal employees' pensions.
    Mr. James Blum, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget 
Office, observed that the President's proposal takes advantage 
of the cash-based Federal accounting system to delay 
recognition of the assumption of the District's unfunded 
liabilities. He noted that the assumption would subject 
District pensioners to the same political risks now faced by 
Federal annuitants. He agreed that the unfunded liability could 
be resolved by extending the annual payment more than 30 years 
until the current obligations were redeemed, but noted that the 
pressures associated with other--equally unfunded--systems 
(Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) would increase the 
difficulties of pursuing such a course. He also noted that 
switching the pension systems to defined contribution systems 
could reduce anticipated political risks of the current system. 
In responding to questions, Mr. Blum estimated that the annual 
increase in Federal spending attributable to the unfunded 
liability inherited as a result of this proposal would be about 
$700 million. Although such obligations pose no insurmountable 
difficulty in the short run, Mr. Blum observed that they are 
unsustainable in the long run.
    In response to questions, Mr. DeSeve conceded that there 
were alternative approaches to funding future liabilities for 
pension benefits, but claimed that the principal should be that 
the District provide for its employees' benefits. This proposal 
would freeze the current liabilities, and new proposals to 
address future coverage would be formulated consistent with the 
District's ability to pay. That ability would be enhanced by 
having the Federal treasury assume the current actuarial 
obligations. He also noted that the legislation created a new 
trustee for the retirement funds to enable the Secretary of the 
Treasury to manage the assets assumed under the bill.
    Under questioning from Ms. Norton, Mr. Blum acknowledged 
that these obligations would eventually face taxpayers, the 
questions center on the timing and the amount. He indicated 
that the least costly solution would be payment of the 
obligations when they are incurred, and that deferring them 
would inevitably increase the costs. He emphasized that the 
result of this proposal would be annual payments of $700 
million to $800 million annually, merely to meet current 
pension payments.
    Ms. Betty Ann Kane, chairman, Legislative Committee and 
Trustee, District of Columbia Retirement Board, reported that 
the accounting firm, Bear Stearns, had commended the Retirement 
Board's administration of the funds entrusted to it. In 1996, 
the Board realized a 14.1 percent rate of return on its 
investments, exceeding both the actuarially-assumed rates and 
its own targets. She noted that the Congress had acknowledged 
the actuarial shortcomings of the funds transferred to the 
District in 1980. She also noted that, for District employees 
hired after October 1996, a defined contribution program has 
been instituted to limit future obligations. She noted that the 
President's plan would have the system revert to the 
financially unsound basis that the Congress had rejected in 
1979. The Board's accountants, Milliman and Robertson, estimate 
that the $700 million annual costs would continue for 20 years 
after liquidation of the Board's assets, for a net long-term 
cost of at least $14 billion. She observed that the preferred 
solution would be for increased funding in the short term, but 
that Congress had previously rejected increasing the annual 
payment from $52 million to $104 million. She questioned 
whether the Congress would be willing to meet the projected 
$700 million annual costs in 10 years.
    Mr. Ron Robertson, chairman, Metropolitan Police Labor 
Committee, Fraternal Order of Police, testified that the 
Fraternal Order of Police favors retention of all current 
benefits without reduction, but expressed reservations about 
the funding mechanism in the President's plan. He recommended a 
funding strategy that would amortize payments proportionally 
over a 30 year period.
    Mr. Tippett, chairman, pension committee, Fire Fighters 
Association of the District of Columbia, contended that the 
President's plan was a bad deal for the fire fighters, and 
recommended that Congress consider the background that led to 
the current difficulties. He counseled against another deferral 
of these obligations. He reported that the method that the 
administration had chosen to implement the plan had created 
uncertainty and confusion in the affected workforce.
    Mr. James Baxter, treasurer, Washington Teachers Union, 
testified that the Washington Teachers Union supported the 
President's plan.
4. Review of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance [FEGLI] Program.
    a. Summary.--Chapter 87 of title 5 establishes a group life 
insurance program for Federal employees. The subcommittee 
recognized that life insurance is an important component in 
employees' financial planning. Accordingly, it conducted the 
most extensive review of the benefits available under the 
program in over 40 years and compared those benefits to options 
offered by private sector employers.
    The FEGLI program began in 1954 as a one-size-fits all 
approach. But it has evolved to permit enrollees to now choose: 
basic life insurance, six levels of additional life insurance, 
family insurance, and three options with respect to post-
retirement basic insurance, plus accelerated payment options 
for the terminally ill. The basic insurance and all of the 
options, however, are built on term insurance. Close to 90 
percent of the eligible Federal workforce has consistently 
participated in the FEGLI program, attesting to its popularity. 
OPM has held only six open enrollment periods in the history of 
FEGLI, two of which have been held since 1993. These open 
seasons were offered in response to significant program 
developments. MetLife has been the primary insurance carrier 
for the FEGLI program since its inception in 1954.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's examination of FEGLI 
revealed a consensus that employees should have more choice in 
the selection of life insurance options and produced a number 
of recommendations for improvements that were incorporated in 
H.R. 2675, the Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement 
Act. These recommendations included offering employees group 
universal or group variable universal life insurance options, 
additional voluntary accidental death and dismemberment 
insurance, more coverage for spouses and family members, and 
increased coverage during retirement. H.R. 2675 is described 
more fully in Section III. A. 4. (Subcommittee on the Civil 
Service).
    c. Hearings.--``Federal Employees Group Life Insurance: 
Could We Do Better?'' was held on April 30, 1997. The hearing 
was called to review operations of the Federal Employees Group 
Life Insurance [FEGLI] program and to ensure that Federal 
employees are receiving adequate coverage at a reasonable cost. 
FEGLI provides basic life insurance for 2.5 million Federal 
employees and 1.5 million retirees, with employees paying two-
thirds of costs and agencies paying one-third. Optional 
insurance is available above the basic coverage, with employees 
bearing full responsibility for the costs of additional 
coverage. The Office of Personnel Management [OPM] conducts the 
program for Federal agencies, with Metropolitan Life Insurance 
Co. (MetLife) processing claims. It is reimbursed for all 
claims by the Federal Government.
    Mr. William E. Flynn, Associate Director for Retirement and 
Insurance, Office of Personnel Management, testified that the 
FEGLI program was instituted in 1954, and has been a ``one size 
fits all'' program. It has developed to include optional 
benefits, including coverage for spouses and dependents, 
incremental coverage in six levels, and coverage during 
retirement as well as accelerated coverage for the terminally 
ill. OPM has conducted six open seasons to enable enrollment 
after initial hiring, two of those open seasons have occurred 
since 1993. That open season resulted in coverage expanding 
from 88.4 to 89.9 percent of the Federal workforce. A 1995 open 
season was conducted following passage of the Living Benefits 
Act, and 1301 applications for benefits have been approved 
under that program. He reported that the Civil Service 
Commission had initiated the contract with MetLife, and that 
contract had been sustained since the program began. MetLife 
incurred some risk at the outset of the program because the 
fund had no reserves. Today, the fund has accumulated a balance 
that would probably cover all claims. OPM saw no need for a 
basic restructuring of the program.
    Mr. Flynn acknowledged that the MetLife contract is renewed 
annually through negotiations with OPM. Mr. Mica observed that 
between 1994 and 1995, the administrative expenses charged to 
the program jumped from $6.6 million to $9.2 million. Mr. Flynn 
responded that the OPM Inspector General was nearing completion 
of an audit of those expenditures, and he attributed some of 
these costs to the open season conducted that year. These 
administrative expenses, including OPM and MetLife costs, 
amount to six-tenths of 1 percent of the total program costs. 
The planning necessary to address concerns about how they would 
be used. Mr. Flynn conceded that there is no record of MetLife 
having experienced a loss in this program, even though it 
nominally bears risk associated with the payment of benefits. 
He noted that the ``risk'' charge (about $850,000 annually) was 
waived after the reserve fund had reached adequate levels. He 
also acknowledged that all except about $50 million of the 
$17.4 billion reserve fund balance is invested in nonmarketable 
U.S. Treasury securities. This allocation of reserve funds is 
consistent with the original statute.
    Under questioning, Mr. Flynn acknowledged that there had 
been no recompetition of the contract in 43 years, but claimed 
that, in this case, ``doing better'' ``can only mean we can 
operate more efficiently administratively.'' He observed that 
MetLife currently receives good reviews from program users. He 
reported that OPM has an initiative under way to review the 
benefit design of this program, perhaps to include universal 
life insurance or variable universal life insurance, which 
would add a cash value component to the current term insurance 
benefits.
    Ms. Margery Brittain, vice president, Group National 
Accounts, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., reported that 
MetLife had been selected at the start of the FEGLI program 
because it was the largest group life insurance carrier at the 
time. It currently maintains that status, with more than $1 
trillion in group life insurance coverage in force. She noted 
that the company pays 85,000 FEGLI claims annually, and that 
these claims total approximately $1.6 billion. Administrative 
expenses amounted to 0.6 percent of claims in fiscal year 1996. 
She testified that the design of the FEGLI program is generally 
consistent with life insurance benefits provided by other large 
employers, with the exception that most employers pay the full 
cost of basic life insurance for their employees. Many private 
sector firms provide group universal life insurance as optional 
coverage. Open enrollment periods are rare in private sector 
programs. Most private employers also select only one carrier 
to administer their life insurance coverage.
    Mr. Barnett I. Chepenik, president, Lincoln Financial 
Group, Inc., Chepenik and Associates, compared the FEGLI 
benefit with private sector programs and noted that the 
tendency of private employers to design flexible benefit 
packages for employees limited the base of employers that could 
be used for analysis. He noted that Federal employees under age 
45 receive a basic benefit that is greater than a year's 
salary, a benefit that is rare in the private sector. He noted 
that private employers negotiate more frequently to provide 
open seasons that would enable employees to elect optional 
coverage. He found the dependent benefit comparable to private 
sector options, but asserted that the opportunity for a 
competitive offering of additional benefits was feasible. In 
terms of post-retirement benefits, FEGLI is competitive with 
private sector benefits. He reported that private employers 
offer both group universal and variable life insurance 
products, and that these tend to be fully-funded by employees. 
He noted that group conversion is a significant expense to 
employees, but indicated that this cost is exacerbated because 
this course of action is highly influenced by adverse selection 
factors.
5. Erroneous enrollments in the Federal retirement system.
    a. Summary.--Although the Civil Service Retirement System 
[CSRS] was closed to new enrollment effective December 31, 
1983, agencies subsequently enrolled additional employees in 
CSRS mistakenly. Under current law, when the Office of 
Personnel Management [OPM] learns about such mistakes in 
retirement coverage, employees are converted to the proper 
retirement coverage enrollment. The law provides no option to 
employees in defining proper retirement coverage, and the 
correction of these errors has consequences for the employees' 
Federal, State, and (in some cases) local tax payments, for 
eligibility for benefits under the Social Security System, and 
with regard to retirement benefits.
    b. Benefits.--This investigation provided the subcommittee 
with extensive information about difficulties that affect 
several thousand Federal employees, former employees, 
annuitants, and survivors as a result of mistakes made by 
agencies during the transition to a new retirement system. The 
subcommittee demonstrated that the Congress and the Office of 
Personnel Management had been aware of the problem for more 
than 7 years, but that no effective remedy had been enacted to 
ease the costs borne by people who were the innocent victims of 
their agencies' errors. The investigation provided a record to 
support legislation that the chairman and ranking member have 
described as an immediate priority for the next session.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Agency Mistakes in 
Federal Retirement--Who Pays The Price?'' was held on July 31, 
1997. Witness included Mr. Alan White, Office of the Inspector 
General, Department of Defense; Mr. David Mangam, Army War 
College; Mr. John Gabrielli, Internal Revenue Service; Mr. E. 
Barry Schrum, Department of Energy; Mr. William E. Flynn, 
Associate Director, Retirement and Insurance Service, Office of 
Personnel Management; Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram, Associate Chief 
Counsel, Employee Benefits/Exempt Organizations, Internal 
Revenue Service; Ms. Diane Disney, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
(Civilian Personnel), Department of Defense; and, Ms. Linda 
Oakey-Hemphill, Agency Retirement Counselor, Department of the 
Treasury.
    At the hearing Subcommittee Chairman Mica reported that the 
problems associated with retirement system enrollment mistakes 
had been brought to Congress' attention in 1989 by the Federal 
Retirement Thrift Investment Board, but that the congressional 
response in 1990 indicated that employees who believed that 
they were harmed by these errors should sue for relief under 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. In notifying Federal employees of 
these errors, OPM had provided little or no assistance. 
Witnesses testified that they had received no accounting of the 
funds transferred out of their Civil Service Retirement and 
Disability Fund [CSRDF] accounts. OPM's indifference to the 
plight of Federal employees was highlighted through samples of 
letters that had been mailed to affected employees.
    Mr. Cummings observed that life does not have dress 
rehearsals, and that when people are deprived through no fault 
of their own of things that they deserved, Government has a 
responsibility to remedy the problem if the Government made the 
mistake.
    Mr. Pappas expressed his concern that the testimony 
presented at the hearing indicated a lack of accountability 
within the system established to manage the Federal retirement 
program.
    Mrs. Morella observed that these involuntary corrections 
are especially troubling for employees who rejected the 
opportunity to transfer into FERS when that system was 
established in 1987.
    Mr. Alan White reported that he was hired by the Department 
of the Air Force as a criminal investigator in August 1984, and 
had remained in CSRS through his transfer to the Inspector 
General's office in the Department of Defense. The mistake in 
his retirement enrollment was detected when he requested an 
estimate of the cost of buying CSRS credit for his military 
service (an option that is not available under FERS). His 
personnel office changed his retirement enrollment to FERS on 
February 28, 1996, retroactive to his entry on duty in 1984. He 
learned about the change by mail on a Saturday, when his leave 
and earnings statement reported a drop in his CSRS account from 
$51,000 to $103. His personnel office did not notify him of the 
change until April, and both his agency and OPM proved 
unresponsive in providing guidance.
    Mr. White read a statement from Mrs. Deborah Monroe, a GS-7 
program assistant in the Chicago office of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development who had been in the CSRS since 
August 1983 and was involuntarily converted to FERS in 1995. 
She reported that both her agency and OPM told her that nothing 
could be done to correct her situation.
    Mr. David Mangam of the Army War College had completed a 
military career when he accepted an overseas limited 
appointment from the Department of Defense in 1983. In 1984, he 
gained a career-conditional appointment at the Army War 
College, and was enrolled in CSRS when hired. He indicated that 
he would not have accepted the position unless he was able to 
benefit from the coverage of the CSRS, because he was 
interested in converting his military service under that 
system. The agency changed his enrollment in November 1996 and 
OPM's review fully supported the agency's action. He reported 
that the complete transition between the systems would require 
257 pay periods--or nearly 10 years. He estimated that the 
mistake would cost him $30,000 per year, assuming retirement 
after 35 years of service. He also reported suffering 
aggravation of a diabetic condition that his doctors associated 
with the stress of the transition.
    Mr. John Gabrielli of the Internal Revenue Service's 
Buffalo, NY, office reported that he began service as a 
temporary appointee and was converted to career-conditional 
status in September 1984, at which time he was enrolled in 
CSRS. He was provided an opportunity to enroll in FERS during 
1987, but rejected it. He and four other employees were 
notified of the enrollment error on April 13, 1993, and were 
adjusted to FERS coverage, effective in May 1991. He reported 
that he still had not received notice of what credit he would 
receive for funds transferred from his CSRS account to his 
Social Security account, and whether he would receive a refund 
of any differences. He noted that the National Treasury 
Employees Union had assisted efforts to get appropriations 
language requiring OPM to address the issue, but that OPM had 
not provided a solution to date.
    Mr. E. Barry Schrum is a criminal investigator with the 
Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General. He was 
hired in December 1984 and enrolled in the CSRS under law 
enforcement retirement provisions. He, too, had been provided 
opportunity to elect FERS coverage in 1987, but chose to remain 
in CSRS. The Department's OIG personnel office informed him of 
the mistaken enrollment in April 1996 and notified that he 
would be retroactively changed to FERS enrollment. That change 
was made effective in a June 25, 1996, memorandum. He testified 
that he was informed at that time that he would be able to make 
retroactive contributions to the TSP, and that he would have to 
remain continuously employed in the Federal service for 8 years 
to make up the back contributions to the TSP. He recommended 
legislation that would require the agencies that made the 
mistakes to make employees whole, and submitted a letter from 
the Department of Energy attorney which claimed that the 
Department lacks the authority to compensate employees for 
these errors under current law.
    Under questioning, all of the employee witnesses asserted 
that they had little support from their agencies and virtually 
none from OPM. Two of the witnesses are parties to class action 
litigation, filed July 28, 1997, after completing 
administrative review through their agencies and having an 
initial claim from Mr. White denied by the Merit Systems 
Protection Board. They reported extensive legal fees associated 
with the litigation and the administrative reviews. Mr. 
Gabrielli reported that he lacked the means to pursue 
resolution of his case through an attorney, and that he was 
assisted by his union.
    Mr. William E. Flynn of the Office of Personnel Management 
noted that the resolution of this problem would require actions 
of OPM, the Thrift Investment Board, the Internal Revenue 
Service, the Social Security Administration, and the Treasury 
Department. He reported that these agencies are conducting 
discussions, but that they had not agreed on a solution to the 
problems associated with enrollment errors. He added that a 
comprehensive solution is desirable to address concerns of 
employees, former employees, annuitants, and survivors who have 
been affected by these concerns. Under questioning from 
Representatives Mica and Cummings, Mr. Flynn agreed to submit a 
proposal to resolve these problems to the subcommittee no later 
than September 10, 1997. Mr. Flynn admitted that OPM has no 
idea of the number of individuals affected by these enrollment 
errors, and that he could not estimate the cost of correcting 
the errors throughout the Federal service.
    Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram of the Internal Revenue Service 
admitted that the range of legal and tax policy questions 
associated with correcting these errors in retirement coverage 
were complicated and unclear. The IRS administers and collects 
the FICA taxes paid to the Social Security system, and private 
employers are normally required to deposit these in a timely 
manner. Federal employers are subject to nearly identical 
requirements for payment of these taxes. Few of these 
procedures, however, are intended for situations where mistakes 
in calculating the tax obligation require correction years 
after the tax should have been paid. She also noted that the 
Internal Revenue Code restricts the amount that an employee can 
contribute to a tax-deferred retirement account, and that such 
limits might have to be amended as part of any resolution of 
these issues.
    Ms. Diane Disney reported that the Department of Defense 
had found as many as 3,100 employees of the approximately 
170,000 hired between 1984 and 1986 who might have been placed 
into wrong retirement systems. In reviewing those records, many 
of the CSRS classifications were correct because of previous 
Federal service, but she conceded that the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service is in the process of correcting 500 
employees' records. She noted the difficulties of correcting 
mistakes that are now more than 10 years old, and that some of 
the options essential to make employees whole are not 
authorized by current law.
    Ms. Linda Oakey-Hemphill of the Department of the Treasury 
described extensive interagency negotiations to attempt 
resolution of the issues, and reported that such concerns had 
been raised as early as 1987. She noted that the automated 
information available in personnel systems is not adequate to 
identify the enrollment errors, and does not provide adequate 
guidance for resolution of the cases. She reported that the 
Department of the Treasury had corrected as many as 600 cases 
since 1992, but could not estimate the number of additional 
errors that could remain in the system.
6. Employment discrimination in the Federal workplace.
    a. Summary.--Employment discrimination in the Federal 
workforce is a serious and continuing concern of the Congress. 
The subcommittee has received numerous reports of 
discriminatory practices by Federal agencies, as well as 
extensive information that demonstrates that the appeals 
procedures intended to resolve allegations of employment 
discrimination are not working. Data compiled by the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission and provided to the 
subcommittee indicate that, among non-Postal Federal agencies, 
complaints about employment discrimination have been filed at 
increasing rates since 1993. EEOC data indicated that white 
employees are filing more cases alleging race discrimination, 
and that age discrimination and religious discrimination cases 
are being filed more frequently. Filings of new cases increased 
even though the portion of complaints that are sustained after 
investigation has declined. The subcommittee received testimony 
in 1995 that reported that Federal employees file grievances at 
a rate five times higher than comparable private sector 
employees. Other testimony claimed that many Federal employees 
file grievances as a method of deterring Federal managers from 
acting to address performance problems among employees.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation provided an opportunity to 
document deficiencies in appeals processes from the perspective 
of Federal employees with Federal discrimination complaints. 
The subcommittee received impassioned testimony alleging 
mistreatment from Federal managers, describing apparent 
conflicts of interests as agencies investigate charges leveled 
against senior managers by employees, and reinforced 
information about delays averaging more than 2 years facing 
employees who work through the EEOC procedures. Representative 
Martinez was provided an opportunity to explain his bill, the 
Federal Employees' Fairness Act (H.R. 2441), that would address 
some deficiencies in these procedures.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Employment 
Discrimination in the Federal Workplace, Part I'' was held on 
September 10, 1997. The hearing provided an opportunity to 
receive statements from three panels of witnesses to describe 
difficulties that they have encountered in working with the 
dispute resolution procedures available to Federal employees. 
Witnesses on the first panel included the Hon. Albert Wynn of 
Maryland, the Hon. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and the Hon. 
Matthew Martinez of California. The second panel consisted of 
Mr. Oscar Eason, president, Blacks in Government; Mr. A. 
Baltazar Baca, president, National IMAGE, Inc.; Mr. Thomas 
Tsai, chairman, Federal Asian-Pacific-American Council; and Ms. 
Dorothy Nelms, president, Federally Employed Women. The third 
panel included Mr. Howard L. Wallace, author, Federal 
Plantation: Affirmative Inaction Within Our Federal Government; 
Mr. Lawrence Lucas, Coalition of Federal Employees at the 
Department of Agriculture; Ms. Romella Arnold, National 
Association for the Advancement of Black Federal Employees; Ms. 
LaVerne Cox, Library of Congress Class Action Plaintiffs; and 
Mr. Sam Wright, Federal Aviation Administration employee.
    In his opening statement Subcommittee Chairman Mica 
emphasized that there is no place for discrimination in the 
Federal workplace, and affirmed his commitment to improving the 
appeals procedures available to Federal employees. He noted 
that his efforts to reform the procedures were defeated in the 
previous Congress, but observed that the testimony heard in 
this session demonstrated beyond a doubt that those procedures 
desperately need reform.
    Mr. Cummings reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission is aware of difficulties in its Federal case 
processing procedures, and that the agency is developing 
recommendations to revise those procedures within the limits of 
its administrative discretion. He added that he was also 
concerned about reports from the Merit Systems Protection Board 
that indicated that minorities remain concentrated in lower 
grades of the Federal workforce, and that Federal agencies do 
not adequately understand that employment discrimination 
affects every aspect of the employee's life.
    Ms. Norton claimed that the EEOC's jurisdiction has been 
expanded by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Americans With 
Disabilities Act, and questioned whether the Commission has 
resources adequate to perform the associated responsibilities. 
She indicated dissatisfaction with the budget levels proposed 
by the President. She interpreted statistics available to her 
as showing relative stability, and noted that the statistics 
weren't where she had wanted them in the first place. She 
hypothesized that the combination of buyouts, early 
retirements, and optional retirements used to achieve 
downsizing should have resulted in more opportunities for 
minorities to advance within the Federal workforce. She 
believes that the current system of addressing employee 
disputes, which includes investigations by agencies of charges 
filed against them, involves an inherent conflict of interest.
    Mr. Barrett described employment discrimination charges 
filed against senior officials of the Internal Revenue 
Service's [IRS] Milwaukee District Office. Even after the 
charges were confirmed by an EEOC administrative judge, the 
District Director announced that the discriminating supervisors 
would be allowed to retire ``with dignity'' rather than be 
disciplined. The victim of the illegal activities, however, 
continues to work, and has claimed retaliation in regard to the 
agency's response to her successful claims.
    Mr. Wynn described the problem of employment discrimination 
in the Federal workplace as a ``long-festering sore.'' He has 
concluded, after receiving complaints from numerous agencies, 
that the problem is systemic rather than a series of isolated 
incidents. He argued that the Federal service lacks diversity 
at the GS-13 to GS-15 senior management level. He considers the 
Federal experience to include ``a chronic pattern of abuse, 
misuse, and manipulation of personnel laws.'' In particular, he 
claimed that minority employees frequently receive arbitrary 
personnel evaluations, and that complaints often result in 
retaliation. He also claimed that the EEO process is under 
funded and ineffective.
    Mr. Hoyer asserted that Congress has a moral and legal 
responsibility to ensure that Federal workplaces recognize 
discrimination as both immoral and contrary to principles of 
sound management. He conceded that there are invalid charges in 
the system, but claimed that the vast majority of these claims 
merit redress.
    Mr. Martinez reported that he had previously served as 
chair of a subcommittee overseeing the EEOC. In hearings across 
the country, he reported numerous accounts of charges that had 
been rejected when agencies reviewed their own operations, only 
to have courts overturn the nondiscrimination findings when 
cases were taken to judicial channels. He contended that few 
employees have the resources to take agencies to court. He 
believes that the Federal Employee Fairness Act, which he had 
reintroduced, provided a suitable vehicle for streamlining the 
appeals process. He argued that administrative remedies are 
inadequate to address the problems that he has seen in the 
dispute resolution process. He noted that the Office of 
Management and Budget projected that his bill would save $25 
million. He noted that his bill would remove EEO jurisdiction 
that currently rests within agencies.
    Mr. Eason claimed that African Americans are being 
discriminated against in Federal employment, and that this 
discrimination has resulted in a decline in the percentage of 
African American men in Federal employment. (EEOC data indicate 
that the percentage of black men in the Federal workforce has 
declined from 8.41 percent in 1987 to 8.04 percent in 1996. 
Black men constitute 4.9 percent of the Civilian Labor Force.) 
He alleged that the process for addressing discrimination 
complaints has not been effective, but claimed that this 
process was the primary method of securing senior executive 
service promotions for minority employees.
    Mr. Baca testified that Hispanic Americans are the fastest 
growing minority in the United States, but the only minority 
group that is under represented in the Federal workforce. He 
asserted that downsizing should not be used as a pretext for 
discrimination. He noted that Hispanic employees have 
successfully sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that 
similar suits are pending against other agencies, including the 
Postal Service. He noted that the Bureau of Land Management has 
been successful in its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees. 
He agreed that many of the problems could be addressed by 
improving the appeals procedures available to employees. He 
argued that effective enforcement of current laws is necessary 
to progress.
    Mr. Tsai alleged that discrimination has impaired the 
morale of Asian-Pacific-Americans, and contended that the two 
types of discrimination that are most commonly encountered by 
Asian Americans are nonselection and ``work environment 
harassment.'' He recommended revising the ``EEO program plan of 
each agency with specific goals to meet the needs and have the 
management involved in development of the program plan.'' He 
further asserted that managers should be held accountable for 
new efforts to achieve a diverse workforce.
    Ms. Nelms asserted that the Federal Government, as the 
largest employer in the country, ``has failed to establish a 
model workplace, and has allowed discrimination to continue 
rampant.'' She reported that 72 percent of federally-employed 
women are in jobs rated between GS-1 and GS-8.5. Women comprise 
42 percent of the GS-9 to 12 Federal workforce, 25 percent of 
its GS-13 to 15 workforce, and 19 percent of the Senior 
Executive Service. She claimed that federally employed women 
are subjected to both sexual harassment and sex discrimination. 
She praised cultural diversity efforts at different agencies, 
but asserted that the time needed to process complaints is too 
long, and that employees need additional training in the rights 
and obligations of Federal employees and agencies under the 
law.
    Mr. Wallace claimed that systemic discrimination is rampant 
throughout the Federal sector. He asserted that, at every 
agency that he examined, minorities are the last hired and 
first fired, disciplined more often and more severely, and 
given much smaller awards. He agreed that the EEO process is 
broken, in part because ``there is no incentive for managers to 
negotiate in good faith.'' He added, ``Most EEO officers, 
counselors, and other EEO personnel are part of the problem. 
They are rewarded for discouraging employees from filing and 
making the process so difficult to understand that many 
complainants withdraw . . . out of frustration. Findings of 
discrimination are virtually nonexistent, yet billions are 
being wasted on processing paper work that amounts to . . . an 
exercise in futility.'' He recommended immediate dismissal for 
the most egregious managers, and a ``three-strikes-and-you're 
out'' law for repeat discriminators. He agreed that EEO 
processing should be removed from agencies and placed within 
the jurisdiction of the EEOC.
    Mr. Lucas contended that the President's initiative on race 
cannot proceed until he has confronted discrimination in the 
Federal agencies. He asserted that the Department's proposal 
would ``grandfather'' county employees who have a history of 
discrimination and sexism into the Department. He noted that 
Secretary Glickman's Civil Rights Action Team [CRAT] had 
submitted 92 recommendations to address the problems at the 
Department of Agriculture, but Mr. Lucas described the 
Secretary's ``zero tolerance of discrimination'' initiative as 
a ``paper tiger.'' He commented, ``You all have created this 
dinosaur at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and you are 
responsible for . . . the racism and sexism that exists in 
these Federal bureaucracies.''
    Ms. Arnold opened by announcing that her organization's 
first choice as a witness, a senior employee with the 
Department of the Interior, had been informed that ``her career 
would be over'' if she testified. Ms. Arnold appeared even 
though she feared reprisals as a result of testimony that she 
would provide. She commented that the Department has been the 
subject of numerous hearings and reports over the years, all 
indicating that the Department's employment practices 
systematically excluded African Americans as a class, and that 
the Department is ill-prepared to enter a more diverse century. 
She noted that blacks are 6.1 percent of the Department's 
employees, but 10.4 percent of the Civilian Labor Force. 
Interior has only four black males among its 365 attorneys. She 
recounted a history of incidents of inequitable treatment, 
including more than 700 discrimination complaints filed in 
1996. She noted that the Department averages 565 days to 
process such cases, more than three times the 180 day statutory 
limit.
    Ms. Cox reported that the Library of Congress had been in 
the process of resolving the Cook class action lawsuit since 
1975. Although the EEOC had found no discrimination in 1981, 
the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and 
awarded $8.5 million in damages. She claimed that the Library 
continues to resist implementation of the Cook settlement, but 
information provided from the Library indicated that the 
Library was in compliance with the terms of the settlement. The 
class action plaintiffs had withdrawn four of five outstanding 
complaints in court action the previous week.
    Mr. Wright reported that he has been employed by the 
Federal Aviation Administration since 1976, and involved in the 
EEO process since 1977. He contended that executive branch 
agencies fail to obey the law with regard to discrimination 
complaints, and that they are unwilling to investigate 
seriously claims of wrong-doing. When appellate agencies rule 
against Federal agencies, the agencies fail to take appropriate 
corrective actions. Federal officials, he alleged, incur no 
sanctions when found responsible for discrimination. He 
asserted that the Department of Justice and their agencies work 
to defend managers who are accused of discrimination. He 
described the nondisclosure clauses frequently included in 
settlement of discrimination complaints as ``depriving 
employees of their first amendment rights.'' He recommended 
that the EEOC be granted the same adjudicatory powers over 
agencies as the Merit Systems Protection Board. He concluded 
that additional laws defining discrimination are unnecessary; 
the challenge is to get the agencies to comply with laws 
already on the books.
7. Employment discrimination in the pursuit of diversity.
    a. Summary.--Federal agencies have devoted more than 30 
years to efforts to eliminate illegal discrimination from 
Federal workplaces. Although agencies devote millions of 
dollars annually to training in the requirements of fair 
employment laws and other civil rights and diversity 
initiatives, the subcommittee has learned that complaints of 
employment discrimination based on race, gender, age, 
ethnicity, and related causes have increased in the past 5 
years. The subcommittee has learned that at least one agency 
advertises positions for ``unqualified applicants . . . .'' The 
rise in the number of complaints filed, however, is not 
consistent with the decline in the number of cases where 
discrimination is found. Statistics provided by the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission indicated that the portion of 
cases where discrimination is found has declined, whether this 
is reflected in settlements with corrective actions and/or 
agency and appeals decisions. This investigation brought to 
light cases where agencies are responsible for unlawful 
discrimination.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation augmented the 
subcommittee's record on employment discrimination in the 
Federal workforce by demonstrating the adverse consequences of 
diversity programs at several agencies. A hearing provided 
evidence that the Forest Service's hiring practices included 
advertising developmental assignments that sought ``unqualified 
applicants'' for firefighter positions. It also provided an 
alternative perspective from scholars who conclude that the 
implementation of proportional goals inevitably conflicts with 
both merit principles and the free choices of individual 
applicants and employees. The subcommittee had the opportunity 
to review the intentions and effects of Representative Canady's 
bill (H.R. 1909) that would eliminate race and gender 
preferences in Federal employment and set asides in Federal 
procurement.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Employment 
Discrimination in the Federal Workplace, Part II'' was held on 
September 25, 1997. In efforts to implement diversity programs, 
agencies have been faced with claims of discrimination from 
employees who believe that merit staffing procedures have been 
violated. Witnesses testified that they continued to encounter 
agency resistance and bureaucratic delays after successfully 
prosecuting discrimination claims in Federal courts. Three 
panels of witnesses included the Hon. Charles Canady of 
Florida, the Hon. Wally Herger of California, Ms. Lynn Cole, 
attorney, Mr. Angelo Troncoso, Internal Revenue Service, Mr. 
Edward Drury, Federal Aviation Administration, Mr. Ronald 
Stewart, Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation, U.S. Forest 
Service, Mr. G. Jerry Shaw, general counsel, Senior Executives 
Association, and Mr. John Fonte, adjunct scholar, American 
Enterprise Institute.
    Subcommittee Chairman Mica noted that abuses of equal 
employment opportunity requirements can often be traced to 
excessive efforts to implement ``diversity'' programs, often 
through numerical goals or quotas. He emphasized that the 
Federal affirmative employment program was intended to work in 
the context of a merit system, not in conflict with it. He 
asserted, ``Affirmative action in the Federal Government should 
never have been about anything other than hiring the most 
qualified employees.'' He indicated that he and Mr. Cummings 
would be working with agency heads to address some of the more 
egregious complaints raised during the subcommittee's hearings 
on this topic. He also reported his intention to develop 
appropriate legislative measures for passage by the 
subcommittee in 1998.
    Mr. Herger reported that his office had encountered 
numerous incidents of discrimination practiced by the U.S. 
Forest Service in his district. He submitted documents 
advertising positions open only to applicants who do not meet 
minimum qualifications as well as a memorandum indicating that 
the Forest Service failed to fill firefighting positions when 
it could not get a sufficiently ``diverse'' pool of applicants, 
thus increasing risks of forest fires in communities adjacent 
to the forests where more than 800,000 acres burned last 
summer. Additional documentation showed that the Forest Service 
had received legal advice that these practices were in 
violation of the law, but continued them anyway.
    Mrs. Morella agreed that she found the Forest Service's 
actions in these instances to be simply outrageous.
    Mr. Canady reported that the Judiciary Committee's 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, which he chairs, has held 
nine hearings on Federal affirmative employment programs, and 
concluded that ``it has become increasingly clear that it is 
exceptionally difficult to defend, as a matter of legal or 
moral principle, the government practice of granting 
preferences on the basis of race or sex.'' He recognized that 
the United States has a history of unequal practices, but noted 
that the Nation has made great strides toward overcoming 
racism, and contended that ``the answer . . . is not to be 
found in Federal policies that classify, sort, and divide the 
American people on the basis of their race and gender.'' He 
contended that, rather than end affirmative action, his 
proposed legislation would reaffirm the original purpose of 
affirmative action as an initiative based on outreach and 
recruitment, coupled with nondiscrimination in selection and 
contract awards.
    Ms. Norton argued that the Supreme Court has already 
addressed Mr. Canady's concerns, that the President's ``mend 
it, don't end it'' approach has weakened affirmative action, 
and that many of the problems being addressed in this hearing 
are actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Mr. 
Canady reported that, in spite of these remedies, Federal 
agencies continue to hire and promote, and award contracts 
based on quotas, and that we should establish solid 
nondiscriminatory policies as the legal standard, rather than 
rely on the courts to act for the Congress.
    Ms. Cole reported that her clients have increasingly 
concluded that personnel decisions within their agencies are 
being made on bases other than merit, and that the remedies 
available through EEOC procedures are inadequate to resolve 
their growing dis-satisfactions within the system. In response 
to questions, she indicated that when agencies face 
discrimination complaints, they act both as adjudicators and 
those accused, inevitably resulting in conflicts of interests. 
She advocated a stronger role for mediation within the EEO 
process. Mr. Troncoso, one of Ms. Cole's clients, is a Cuban-
born immigrant who was denied promotions by the Internal 
Revenue Service [IRS] on three occasions, even though he was 
rated well-qualified every time and was the highest-rated 
applicant on two occasions. His efforts to seek redress through 
the agency's personnel procedures were rebuffed within 
personnel offices, which he characterized as defensive of 
management. He expressed concern that, even though he intended 
to make the IRS a career, he would experience retaliation as a 
result of this testimony. Mr. Drury is an air traffic control 
manager with the Federal Aviation Administration. After 26 
years of service, he was removed from his position as an 
airport tower manager as a result of pressures generated by the 
National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees. He 
subsequently filed complaints through the Department of 
Transportation, but that case was not considered on its merits. 
He reported that it required 2 additional years to get his case 
to trial, where the Government's litigation strategy appeared 
to be to defeat him on legal technicalities rather than address 
the merits of the case. When the jury heard the evidence, it 
awarded $500,000 in punitive damages, an amount subsequently 
reduced by the judge to the $300,000 statutory ceiling. He 
noted that a subsequent complaint that addressed retaliation 
concerns was pending within the EEOC, and had been there for 
725 days.
    Mr. Stewart claimed that his experience as a regional 
forester in California had provided first-hand perspective 
about the ways in which discrimination undermines agency 
morale, and asserted that the Chief (Michael Dombek) had taken 
significant initiatives to eliminate discrimination in the 
Forest Service. He also noted the importance that Secretary of 
Agriculture Dan Glickman attaches to implementing his Civil 
Rights Action Team's recommendations. He noted a 37 percent 
reduction in open EEO cases as an indicator of the success of 
these efforts.
    Mr. Shaw predicted that promotions within the Federal 
service are likely to become increasingly contentious as 
downsizing continues. He reported substantial increases in the 
numbers of minorities and women holding positions in the Senior 
Executive Service, even in the face of the administration's 
efforts to reduce both SES and GS-13 to GS-15 positions. He 
reported that a 1992 survey of Senior Executive Association 
members found that 92 percent believed that employees abuse the 
complaints procedures to intimidate managers and agencies from 
taking actions against poor performers. Further, 56 percent of 
his members believe that non-legitimate complaints are filed in 
ways that deter the filing of well-founded grievances. He 
concluded that managers have little grounds for confidence in 
the current EEO system. Even when agencies settle cases, they 
do not reflect intentional discriminatory actions. He 
recommended that employees should be required to make stronger 
cases before having them processed, and that once complaints 
are recognized as meritorious, they should be heard by a single 
outside agency.
    Mr. Fonte argued that two visions of civil rights are in 
conflict. The traditional equal opportunity principles 
enshrined in civil rights laws and merit system principles have 
a different philosophical and legal foundation than the 
diversity principles being promoted recently. The diversity 
agenda, he demonstrated, rests on a theory of proportional 
representation that was rejected at the founding of the 
republic and has proved disastrous in any country that has 
attempted to implement it. He cited studies of people 
distributed in different occupations with different racial, 
ethnic, and gender compositions. Distributions reflected chosen 
avenues of opportunity rather than the result of discriminatory 
actions. He forecast that increased efforts to promote 
proportionalism would only increase dissatisfaction, because 
such a result can be realized only through heavy regulation in 
a command economy. He asserted, ``We will never arrive at a 
right percentage for all groups in all positions and at the 
same time remain a free society.'' In response to questions, he 
cited reports that, rather than an effort to redress historical 
discrimination, 75 percent of recent immigrants are eligible 
for preference programs. The difficulty with diversity programs 
is that, once numbers are defined, they trump all other 
factors, especially merit.
8. Oversight of contracting out practices.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted this investigation 
to provide additional information and to address changes since 
two previous hearings on contracting out that were conducted in 
1995. In 1996, the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] 
published a revision of OMB Circular A-76, the policy document 
that establishes standards for conducting cost comparisons in 
Federal agencies. Although the subcommittee has heard charges 
that agencies have reduced budgets and converted numerous 
functions to contract in order to redesign processes and save 
money, OMB reported that the Government's expenditures on 
contracting decreased to $111.7 billion in 1996, or $2.4 
billion below 1995 levels. A hearing provided an opportunity 
for employee organizations to voice concerns about contracting 
practices.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation provided an opportunity for 
the Office of Management and Budget and Defense agencies, which 
have the greatest experience managing competition for 
government services, to introduce recent data that documents 
the reduction in service contracting since GAO's last report in 
1997. They entered into the record data demonstrating that 30 
percent aggregate savings have been realized over a 10-year 
period from contracting for services. The long-term data 
provide a useful contrast to the anecdotal evidence that 
frequently shapes the discussion.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Contracting Out--
Successes and Failures'' was held October 1, 1997. This hearing 
fulfilled the chairman's commitment to employee organizations 
that they would have an opportunity to describe some of the 
difficulties that they have encountered in dealing with 
contractors who perform services for Federal agencies. 
Witnesses included Mr. Christopher Donellan, legislative 
director, National Association of Government Employees, Mr. 
James Cunningham, national president, National Federation of 
Federal Employees, Ms. Patricia Armstrong, chapter president, 
Federal Managers Association, Cherry Point, NC, Mr. G. Edward 
DeSeve, Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of 
Management and Budget, Mr. John Goodman, Deputy Undersecretary, 
Department of Defense, and Mr. Samuel Kleinman, Center for 
Naval Analyses.
    Ms. Norton alleged that service contracting is driven by 
cost concerns alone, without adequate attention to the quality 
of work being performed. She has introduced legislation that 
would require cost comparisons, claiming that a 1994 General 
Accounting Office report concluded that agencies do not 
consistently save when they convert to contract. She has also 
sponsored legislation that would require OMB to develop an 
inventory of the number of people employed by service 
contractors, so that we could know whether, in converting 
employees, the number of people required to perform the work 
actually increased. She further proposed legislation that would 
reduce by $5.7 billion the amount of service contracting done 
by Federal agencies annually. The revenues would be directed to 
pay increases for civil servants.
    Mr. Donellan claimed that contracting out of services 
inevitably reduces support, and accused contractors of poor 
performance and dishonest practices. He cited the example of a 
laundry services contractor at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, who 
allegedly abandoned the installation owing employees $23,000 in 
back pay and with utility bills unpaid. The company also failed 
to pay employees taxes before declaring bankruptcy. Although 
the Department of Labor will intervene, employees are slated to 
receive only 22 cents on the dollar owed to them.
    Mr. Cunningham asserted that any contracting out should be 
done only if all Circular A-76 procedures are followed, only if 
it can be demonstrated that there will be no decline in work 
quality, that a significant cost savings will be realized 
through the life of the contract, and that the contractor will 
be monitored extensively to prevent abuses. He reported that 
members' requests for assistance in addressing issues related 
to contracting have increased tenfold in the past year, notably 
within the Department of Defense. He cited an example of a 
service contract for maintenance of Navy airplanes that 
purportedly places limits on the amount of rust required to be 
removed from bolts on airplanes, resulting in contractors' work 
failing to pass quality inspections. Federal employees wind up 
having to complete the work.
    Ms. Armstrong reported that Congress wants to contract out 
$1 billion of the Navy work currently performed at the Cherry 
Point, NC, depot. She averred that under the revised Circular 
A-76, Federal managers have lost discretion to supplement their 
efforts with Federal employees; complete functions must be 
contracted. She noted that the Department of the Navy has 
40,000 positions currently under review, and plans to review 
80,000 positions over the next 5 years. Savings of $1.4 billion 
that will result from these cost comparisons have already been 
projected into future agency budgets. She also claimed that the 
Department of Defense is not able to monitor contracts 
adequately, resulting in overpayments and duplicate payments 
that are costly to taxpayers. She also observed that contract 
employees are allowed to strike, an option that is not 
available to Government employees. She cited a recent strike 
against the McDonnell-Douglas aircraft manufacturing division 
as one where contractor strikes allegedly affected Federal 
operations. She contended that competition, rather than 
contracting, is the key to savings, and that Federal employees 
have competed successfully for major contract awards.
    Mr. DeSeve testified that the administration is 
incorporating competition into budget as part of its efforts to 
improve service delivery. Contracting is merely one element of 
the endeavor to improve the business practices of Government 
agencies to achieve effective operations in the context of a 
balanced budget. He stated that the goal is not simply to 
contract for more services, but to optimize the use of both 
private and public resources by selecting the most cost-
effective providers. He declared, ``We have no evidence that 
suggests that contractors are reducing their costs or otherwise 
developing an unfair competitive advantage by reducing pay and 
benefits to their employees.'' He cited the Clinger-Cohen Act 
as one of the legislative improvements that enable agencies to 
make more effective and efficient use of the marketplace. He 
noted that the administration opposed the Freedom from 
Government Competition Act (H.R. 716), which it views as 
unnecessarily restricting Federal employees from competing when 
contracts are under consideration. He also opposed H.R. 885, 
which would prohibit agencies from contracting when Federal 
employees can provide services at a lower cost, describing the 
bill as ``unnecessary and administratively burdensome.'' He 
opposed legislation that would reduce contracting funds to pay 
for a Federal employee pay increase, commenting, ``Reducing 
contract dollars without regard to the disruption of service 
requirements or the competitive costs of services could lead to 
significant inefficiencies and limit an agency's ability to 
respond to changing conditions, emergencies, and other 
requirements.''
    Mr. Goodman affirmed that the Department of Defense must 
improve the performance and reduce the costs of support 
provided to the Nation's fighting forces. The Quadrennial 
Defense Review forecast that the Nation is likely to require 
more agile fighting forces in the future, and that maintaining 
those forces will require increased capital expenditures on 
weapons systems. In the absence of funding increases, 
productivity efficiencies are essential. Contracting is merely 
one element of a broad array of efforts to achieve that 
objective. He noted improvements in the Defense Logistics 
Agency's efforts to provide more direct shipments of goods 
acquired from private manufacturers, resulting in substantial 
improvements in force readiness. He described the Department's 
approach as ``a clear and measured approach of introducing 
competition into our support activities,'' rather than 
wholesale outsourcing. The Department saves more than $1.5 
billion annually as a result of 2,000 competitions conducted 
between 1978 and 1994, and claimed that competitions reduce 
costs by an average of 30 percent, regardless of whether 
private contractors or public employees win. Half of the 
competitions did not result in outsourcing. He noted that the 
General Accounting Office had confirmed these findings in a 
March 1997 report. He noted several recent competitions that 
did bring functions in-house after contractors lost to teams of 
Federal employees. He emphasized the continuing partnership 
with the Department's workforce, and described placement 
efforts associated with workforce reductions.
    Mr. Kleinman noted that the Defense Department's review of 
competitions showed that savings averaged 20 percent when 
functions are retained in-house, and 40 percent when they are 
converted to private contractors. These figures include the 3 
to 10 percent of costs required to monitor contractors' 
performance. He attributed these savings to the efficiencies 
resulting from competition. Although Federal employees have 
right of first refusal to positions with contractors, most 
prefer to remain with the Government, and only 3 percent accept 
contractors' offers of employment. He refuted assertions that 
costs increase after contracts are awarded, noting that the 
functions are subject to recompetition, and that there are 
always additional bidders eager for the business if costs rise. 
He acknowledged a couple of defaults, but reported that in most 
cases costs were contained and quality maintained.
    In response to questions, Mr. DeSeve emphasized that the 
important information needed to assess performance is data 
about the costs of production and the level of services 
provided. He asserted that he does not need to know the number 
of employees working on any particular contract, and that he 
would not have any use for the information if it were 
collected. He pointed out that, in many cases, the important 
factor is the method of providing services, a concern that 
frequently requires differing technologies rather than 
additional people. He noted that, when OPM eliminated its 
training workforce, it resulted in no significant change in 
training for Federal employees. He also observed that the 
change to contract investigations has resulted in sustained 
quality and the creation of a successful new business.
9. Review of Premiums Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
        Program [FEHBP].
    a. Summary.--Approximately 9 million Federal employees and 
retirees and their dependents obtain health insurance through 
the FEHBP. Following 5 years of relative stability in FEHBP 
premiums, including 2 years in which average premiums declined, 
OPM announced that 1998 premiums would increase by an average 
of 8.5 percent. The subcommittee conducted an investigation to 
examine the factors contributing to these increases.
    The subcommittee's examination revealed that the 8.5 
percent average premium increase masked wide variations in 
individual plan experiences. The employees' share of the 
premium increased, on average, by 15.4 percent. While premiums 
for a number of plans remained unchanged or actually decreased, 
the total premium for two employee-organization plans rose over 
20 percent, causing the employees' share to soar as much as 75 
percent.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee determined that the 
increases generally reflected rising health care costs and 
decreased plan reserves. Although the most recent Government 
mandates did not appear to add appreciably to the 1998 
increases, the subcommittee was warned that government-imposed 
mandates drive up costs and can contribute to significant 
increases in future premiums. For example, Blue Cross-Blue 
Shield testified that the cumulative effect of the 27 mandates 
imposed by OPM since 1990 was to increase its 1998 premiums by 
about $100 million. Likewise, the subcommittee learned that 
Maryland-based HMOs have been placed at a competitive 
disadvantage in the National Capital Area because State-
mandated benefits have driven up their premiums. The increased 
costs caused by mandates are, of course, borne by the employees 
and retirees who participate in the FEHBP and by the taxpayers. 
The subcommittee was also cautioned against overregulation of 
FEHBP premiums.
    The subcommittee's investigation also demonstrated that 
employees would have paid less for health insurance if either 
the ``Fair Share Formula,'' enacted in the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997, or the ``Fixed Dollar Formula'' proposed by 
Subcommittee Chairman Mica in 1995 had been in effect. Under 
the ``Fair Share Formula,'' the average employees' share would 
have risen by 10 percent rather than 15.4 percent; the increase 
under the ``Fixed Dollar Formula'' would have been only 11.6 
percent.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``FEHB Rate Hikes--What's 
Behind Them'' was held October 8, 1997.
10. Suspension of affirmative action at the IRS.
    a. Summary.--In a May 1997, decision in Byrd v. Rubin, a 
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled 
that the Internal Revenue Service's affirmative employment 
program was unconstitutional because it could not meet the 
strict scrutiny standards that the Supreme Court determined to 
be appropriate in Adarand Construction v. Pena. Rather than 
contest the Byrd case on its merits, the Government settled the 
case with Mr. Byrd and his three fellow plaintiffs. As was 
reported in previous subcommittee hearings on employment 
discrimination, that settlement included a nondisclosure 
agreement which cloaked the terms of the settlement from 
congressional oversight. The Department of Justice secured a 
modification of the settlement agreement that permitted 
informing Congress of the terms of the settlement, but 
redacting the amount of compensation paid to the litigants. On 
August 19, 2 days before the settlement agreement was signed, 
acting IRS Commissioner Michael Dolan issued a memorandum 
suspending two elements of employees' performance appraisals 
and two elements of the agency's business plan so that those 
elements could be revised to comply with constitutional 
requirements. On September 22, IRS' National Personnel 
Director, Mr. James O'Malley (who accompanied Mr. Fowler to the 
hearing) issued a memorandum revising the standards that had 
been suspended the previous month.
    The IRS had been identified in both of the subcommittee's 
previous hearings on employment discrimination in the Federal 
workforce. Although the Office of Personnel Management has 
responsibility for governmentwide personnel policies, the IRS 
testified that it had not consulted with OPM in acting to 
address its affirmative employment program. IRS also stated 
that it had consulted with the Department of Justice, which 
issued guidance to Federal agencies on compliance with Adarand 
on February 29, 1996. Justice not only had initiated legal 
guidance in the area, but it would also have responsibility for 
defending any modified standards in subsequent litigation. IRS 
reported that its workforce is 67 percent female and 35 percent 
minority, so continued application of affirmative employment 
standards raised questions about whether the agency was 
applying ``diversity'' criteria improperly.
    b. Benefits.--This investigation continued the 
subcommittee's efforts to understand the full effects of race 
and gender preferences in Federal human resource management 
operations. The IRS faces continuing scrutiny because of abuses 
of taxpayers and employees documented in recent reports, and 
reflects several challenges facing all Federal agencies in 
their efforts to ``mend'' affirmative employment practices 
consistent with the Department of Justice's guidelines issued 
after the Adarand v. Pena decision. The hearing provided the 
foundation for additional oversight activities that will be 
continued in the next session.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``IRS' Suspension of Its 
Affirmative Action Program'' was held on October 28, 1997. The 
witness testifying at the hearing was Mr. Charles D. Fowler, 
National Director, Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity 
Program, Internal Revenue Service.
    Subcommittee Chairman Mica affirmed in his opening 
statement that the subcommittee has a responsibility to ensure 
that important issues of public policy are not being decided 
through settlement agreements that are not subject to 
congressional review. He also emphasized the importance of 
ensuring that every Federal employee is hired, evaluated, and 
terminated on an equitable basis.
    Mr. Cummings was reassured by the IRS' implementation of 
revised performance elements and its renewal of its commitment 
to affirmative action.
    Ms. Norton stressed the importance of implementing 
affirmative action programs consistent with the law, and 
observed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 favors 
settlements over litigation. She believes that consistency is 
important so that agencies are not vulnerable to litigation 
based on any perceived inconsistencies.
    Mr. Charles Fowler, who was accompanied by Mr. Dennis 
Ferrara of the General Counsel's office and Mr. James O'Malley, 
the IRS' National Personnel Director, had emphasized the 
principle of equitable treatment for all employees as a way of 
doing business since assuming his responsibilities (within 6 
weeks before this hearing). He claimed that the Service remains 
committed to both its diversity program and the concept of 
equitable treatment of all its employees. In response to 
questions, he expressed hope that the revised standards would 
encourage agency managers not to undertake actions that might 
be in violation of the law. The September 22, 1997, memo 
eliminated language included in previous standards that might 
have been interpreted as approving numerical targets. He added 
that the performance elements in place are temporary and 
subject to revision as the agency develops better ways to 
describe its managers' appropriate responsibilities.
    Mr. Fowler asserted that the agency has no numerical goals 
at present, and even the document on managing the workforce 
that had been a source of concern in the Byrd case, ERR-16, 
concentrated on positions of national level. Mr. Fowler 
indicated that outreach strategies would be used to address 
concerns about the diversity of upper management in the agency.
    Mr. Cummings indicated that he had encountered criticisms 
that the IRS was acting without adequate explanation of its 
decisions in selecting personnel for ``acting'' and 
``developmental'' assignments. These are opportunities that 
employees consider important in terms of career development. 
Mr. Fowler responded that review of these selections is an 
important element of his efforts in this position. He also 
added that he would make appropriate contacts with OPM and EEOC 
to endeavor to develop a consistent strategy to the concerns 
raised about these programs.
11. The merits of holding a CSRS to FERS open season.
    a. Summary.--The Treasury-Postal and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-61) included a 
provision that would have allowed civil servants enrolled in 
the Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS] to switch their 
enrollment to the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS]. 
Section 642 of the law would have authorized an open season 
between July 1 and December 31, 1998. This provision, however, 
was the subject of an item veto exercised by President Clinton 
on October 16, 1997. Mr. Mica reported that the item, with 
costs estimated at $2.1 billion over 5 years, was the single 
largest item veto exercised by the President to date. In 
vetoing this provision, the President had noted that the 
provision was introduced by the Senate during conference, and 
that the measure had not had adequate opportunity for hearings 
and public discussion.
    b. Benefits.--This investigation provided an opportunity 
for the subcommittee to review the President's use of the item 
veto on the measure having the largest cost and potential 
impact on Federal employees. It enabled a comparison of 
different bases of estimating the cost of this action, and 
dispelled impressions that an open season allowing for 
additional numbers of employees to shift from CSRS to FERS 
might provide a method of reducing the Government's long-term 
pension obligations under the older Federal retirement system.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``CSRS-FERS Open Season--
What are the Merits?'' was held on November 5, 1997. Witnesses 
included William E. Flynn, Associate Director, Retirement and 
Insurance Services, Office of Personnel Management, Michael 
Brostek, Associate Director, Federal Workforce and Management 
Issues, General Accounting Office, and Paul Van de Water, 
Assistant Director, Budget Analysis Division, Congressional 
Budget Office.
    As chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, Mr. Mica 
called the hearing to examine the merits of the issue and 
consider the appropriateness of enacting separate authorizing 
legislation. Federal employees had an opportunity to switch 
their enrollment into the newer retirement system when FERS was 
established in 1987. At the time, only 4 percent of the 
eligible employees took advantage of the open season to switch 
enrollment, although the Congressional Budget Office had 
estimated that approximately 10 percent of CSRS employees would 
do so. With 10 years' experience in the Thrift Savings Plan, 
supporters of the open season believe that a different dynamic 
might affect employees' decisions about retirement enrollment. 
Mr. Mica noted that the unfunded liability of the Civil Service 
Retirement and Disability Fund had increased during the 
previous 2 years, and that those obligations now constitute the 
fourth largest government debt being transferred to future 
generations. He also noted that, in light of the difficulties 
that the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] encountered 
managing the previous transition, and the importance of 
correcting enrollment mistakes already in the system, that the 
agency might have difficulty administering another open season.
    Mr. William E. Flynn of OPM testified that the 
administration had estimated that approximately 5 percent of 
the eligible employees, or about 60,000 individuals, would 
switch if an open season were held during 1998. He indicated 
that employees interested in switching might delay normal 
retirements to gain exemption from Government pension offset 
and windfall elimination provisions of Social Security law, and 
that agencies with unique demographic mixes might experience 
some human resource management challenges as a consequence of 
the new incentives that would be provided to employees. He 
estimated that the transfers would reduce the CSRDF's net 
actuarial unfunded liability by less than $2 billion, but when 
added costs for FERS funding and Thrift Savings Plan [TSP] 
contributions are included, the result would probably increase 
the long term costs to the Government. He stressed that many 
factors could affect individual decisions about retirement 
system enrollment, so that there are no sure methods of 
projecting the level of interest in such an open season.
    Mr. Michael Brostek of the General Accounting Office noted 
that participation in the TSP has risen substantially since its 
inception, and that more than half of lower-graded employees 
and nearly all higher-grade employees now participate. By 
transferring from CSRS to FERS, employees would become eligible 
for matching funds for current contributions, a factor that 
could increase incentives to enter the newer system at 
considerable cost to the Government. Agencies' retirement costs 
would increase for each employee who transferred to FERS. GAO 
provided estimates that the additional costs of such transfers 
could be projected at a rate of $32 million per year for each 1 
percent of the Federal workforce that switched to the newer 
system.
    Mr. Paul Van de Water of the Congressional Budget Office 
[CBO] reported that his agency had estimated that only 1 
percent of the CSRS employees would switch to the new system if 
provided another open season. This projection was based upon 
previous experience, adjusted for the reduced portion of the 
Federal workforce that remains in CSRS. CBO projected that 
these switches would raise net Federal costs by $250 million 
over the next 10 years, with most of the additional expense 
attributable to increased agency payments to the TSP accounts 
of employees. He indicated that employees who had already 
reached the maximum CSRS benefit would benefit from such a 
switch, as would employees with minimal CSRS coverage who would 
desire to avoid public pension offset provisions of the Social 
Security law. Both groups would impose additional costs on the 
Government.
    Mr. Brostek indicated that differences between the cost of 
living adjustment provisions in CSRS and FERS contribute to the 
continuing escalation of CSRS projected costs. Mr. Van de Water 
emphasized that, despite differences in details, all three 
projections indicated that the open season would cost 
Government in the aggregate. He added, that when each of the 
estimating models use comparable assumptions to project future 
costs, they reach similar conclusions. Given the difficulties 
of projecting switch rates, these variations are inevitable.

                Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

1. Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this subcommittee investigation 
is to review the significance of the Wastewater Treatment 
facility in the city of Washington, DC, and the immediate 
region. Most all Federal facilities, in all 3 branches of 
government, plus approximately 2 million residential users in 
Virginia, Maryland, and the District, depend upon Blue Plains. 
It treats an average 325 million gallons a day on 154 acres in 
Southwest Washington. A collapse of Blue Plains, which seemed 
possible last year, would be an ecological catastrophe.
    As recently as September 1995, the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA] warned of a very real possibility that raw sewage 
would flow into the Potomac because of serious shortcomings at 
Blue Plains. But since the new Water and Sewer Authority came 
into existence, on October 1, 1996, there have been no EPA 
violations. And there have been no more ``boil water alerts.''
    Subcommittee Chairman Davis convened a hearing to enunciate 
the improvements as a result of the new Water and Sewer 
Authority on November 12, 1997.
    b. Benefits.--In review of the current situation at Blue 
Plains under the new Water and Sewer Authority, existing 
concerns and practical solutions were explored. The new law, in 
place for 13 months at the time of the hearing, established an 
11 member Authority, with 5 suburban representatives and a 
super-majority required for significant actions. Blue Plains 
was transferred to the Authority from the Public Works 
Department of the District of Columbia government. There is an 
orderly payback of $83 million dollars planned for the 
Authority from the District of Columbia government. 
Subcommittee Chairman Davis praised the role of the local, 
State, and Federal officials who worked together to make it 
possible for the Water and Sewer Authority to work very well. 
Additionally, Subcommittee Chairman Davis praised the role of 
the subcommittee and its bi-partisan fashion in which it 
conducted itself for helping to reverse many dangerous trends 
at Blue Plains.
    c. Hearings.--On November 12, 1997, the subcommittee held 
an informational hearing on the ``District of Columbia Water 
and Sewer Authority.'' The hearing followed just over the 1 
year anniversary of the Water and Sewer Authority. Those 
testifying were, Michael McCabe, Region 3 Administrator, 
Environmental Protection Agency; Michael Rogers, chairman, 
Washington District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority; 
Jerry N. Johnson, general manager, Washington District of 
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority; Honorable Douglas Duncan, 
county executive, Montgomery County, MD; Michael Errico, deputy 
chief administrative officer, Prince Georges County, MD; 
Anthony H. Griffin, alternate member, Washington District of 
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Fairfax County, VA.
2. Public Law 104-8, District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
        Management Assistance Authority (D.C. Control Board).
    a. Summary.--An oversight hearing was conducted to review 
the implementation of the management reforms required by the 
national Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement 
Act of 1997 (Public law 105-33) by the D.C. Control Board. 
Legislation originating in this subcommittee and signed by the 
President on April 17, 1995 (Public Law 104-8) created the D.C. 
Control Board and conferred upon it responsibilities and 
authority. Since that time the underlying statute has been 
occasionally refined and the Control Board has participated in 
a significant number of hearings held by this subcommittee 
dealing with various significant issues affecting the District 
of Columbia.
    The management reforms enacted as part of Subtitle B of 
Title XI of the Revitalization Act (Public Law 105-33) went 
into effect following the President's signature on August 5, 
1997.
    b. Benefits.--The management reforms were enacted in 
response to the exceptionally poor management practices which 
Congress noted in the District government. Almost without 
exception, the District lacked sound management and direction. 
It was manifestly clear to Congress that changes had to be made 
rapidly in order to avoid a complete breakdown of municipal 
services. These reforms were not motivated by desire to confer 
or remove specific power from existing government entities. 
Rather, the reforms were enacted by a strong belief that 
management issues are the long term keys to the best possible 
government and prosperity for the District. The management 
reforms directed the Control Board and the city to develop and 
implement management reform plans for 9 specified departments 
of the District government. All entities of the District 
government were directed to develop and implement management 
reform plans in the areas of asset management, information 
resources management, personnel, and procurement. The Control 
Board was required to enter into contracts with consultants to 
develop the management reform plans.
    Management reform teams were established for each 
management reform plan. Department heads were directed to take 
any and all steps within their authority to implement the terms 
of the plan. In the case of a management reform plan covering 
the entire District government each member of the management 
reform team was instructed to take any and all steps within the 
member's authority to implement the terms of the plan, under 
the direction and subject to the instructions of the chairman 
of the control board. In carrying out any of the management 
reform plans the member of the management reform team was 
required to report to the Control Board. Such reports were 
required to be made solely to the Control Board.
    During the control year, as defined by Public Law 104-8, 
the Mayor may appoint the head of each department following 
recommendations from and consultation with the Control Board 
and notification to the city council. Each nomination of a 
department head is subject to approval by the control board. 
Appointments may be made directly by the control board if the 
Mayor does not make a nomination within 30 days from the date 
any vacancy begins, or for a longer period as established by 
the Control Board upon notification to Congress.
    A vacancy was deemed to exist in the head of each of the 9 
departments mentioned upon enactment of Public Law 105-33. The 
Control Board was also given the power to remove any department 
head. Removal by the Mayor was made subject to approval by the 
Control Board.
    Executive summaries of the initial consultant's reports 
were made available on October 16, 1997. These reports 
confirmed deep problems throughout city government. On December 
5, 1997, the Control Board announced plans to implement a 
number of recommendations for improving city services. A 
reported 170 projects were listed for priority consideration. 
The Control Board also indicated an intention to submit a 
report to Congress in January 1998, regarding final decisions 
about management improvements. A new chief management officer, 
as required by the Revitalization Act, is expected to be 
appointed shortly. The recently enacted Budget for fiscal year 
1998 (Public Law 105-100) signed by the President on November 
19, 1997, provides the Control Board with great flexibility in 
these areas.
    c. Hearings.--Subcommittee Chairman Davis convened a 
hearing on December 19, 1997, ``Oversight Hearing on D.C. 
Control Board, Implementation of Public Law 105-33 and Police 
Matters.''
    Witnesses who gave testimony to answer concerns of the 
subcommittee were Dr. Andrew Brimmer, chairman of the District 
of Columbia Financial Responsibility Management Assistance 
Authority (D.C. Control Board); Mr. Stephen Harlan, vice 
chairman, D.C. Control Board; and Ms. Sonya T. Proctor, acting 
chief of police, Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police 
Department.

   Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

1. GAO High-Risk Series.
    a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office [GAO] High-Risk 
Series highlights programs, activities, or agencies 
particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. GAO 
compiled the first high-risk list in a letter dated January 23, 
1990. The letter responded to a request from the chairmen of 
the House Government Operations Committee and the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee based on congressional concern 
that waste, fraud, and abuse were endemic throughout the 
Federal Government. GAO found that the Government was plagued 
by serious breakdowns in its internal control and financial 
management systems. If uncorrected, these breakdowns create an 
environment ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse. The January 23rd 
letter also found that these serious breakdowns in systems 
controls had been known, in several instances for many years, 
but had not been corrected by the agencies. The high-risk 
series was an attempt to ensure that areas likely to result in 
material losses are identified, and that appropriate corrective 
actions are undertaken to stem or minimize the losses. GAO 
decided to continue monitoring agencies progress in correcting 
the problems and, in 1993, changed the format from a letter to 
a series of reports, 17 in all. In 1995, GAO identified 20 
high-risk problems. Now, with the issuance of the 1997 series, 
the number of areas considered particularly vulnerable to 
waste, fraud, and abuse has risen to 25, including 10 that were 
on the original list.
    Subcommittee Chairman Horn convened a hearing to examine 
the substantive problems behind the programs on the high-risk 
series. The subcommittee heard testimony from Gene L. Dodaro, 
Assistant Comptroller General, Accounting and Information 
Management Division, accompanied by Keith O. Fultz, Assistant 
Comptroller General, Resources, Community and Economic 
Development Division, and Henry L. Hinton, Jr., Assistant 
Comptroller General, National Security and International 
Affairs Division, all from the U.S. General Accounting Office.
    Mr. Horn opened the hearing by noting the challenges 
presented by both the areas that have been on the high-risk 
series since 1990 and the new areas that were added in 1997. He 
asked for analysis from GAO on the problems that land agencies 
on the high-risk series and the types of solutions that enable 
them to improve.
    Gene L. Dodaro opened his testimony by focusing on the 
problems at the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue 
Service. He noted that as of 1995, about half of the $70 
billion in defense inventory, or $35 billion, was not needed. 
He further noted that no major component of the Department of 
Defense had received a positive audit opinion. In terms of the 
IRS, he noted that for the past 4 years, GAO has been unable to 
render an audit opinion at the IRS. The reason is that the IRS 
has been unable to substantiate the balances of $1.4 trillion 
in revenues collected with the account balances of individual 
taxpayers.
    Mr. Dodaro also addressed the major information technology 
projects on the high-risk series, including the tax system 
modernization at the IRS and the air traffic control 
modernization effort. He noted the importance of the Clinger-
Cohen Act for improving the record on these projects, as well 
as for addressing one of the major new additions to the high-
risk series, the year 2000 problem. He stressed the importance 
of reform legislation in general, noting the importance of 
``fully and effectively implementing the legislative foundation 
established for broader management reforms.'' Mr. Dodaro 
emphasized the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
    b. Benefits.--Publicity is one of the best cures for waste, 
fraud, and abuse in Government. The high-risk series brings 
much-needed congressional attention to areas where management 
is inadequate. Focus on the series and the issues outlined in 
it provide useful direction for implementation of important 
reform legislation. According to the General Accounting Office, 
areas of waste that can be substantially reduced include:
          $6-$20 billion in fraudulent and abusive Medicare 
        claims (1996),
          $1 billion in SSI overpayments (annually),
          $132 million in tax filing fraud (1995).
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Oversight of the General Accounting Office's High-Risk 
Series,'' on February 13, 1997.
2. Year 2000 Computer Date Problem.
    a. Summary.--Many computers that use two digit date fields 
will fail to recognize the century date change on January 1, 
2000. After midnight on the last day of ``99,'' computers 
around the world will automatically flash to ``00''--and many 
will interpret these digits as the year 1900 instead of the 
year 2000. If left unchanged, affected computer systems will be 
unable to function or send correct and accurate information to 
multiple systems. This issue must be addressed promptly by 
industry and government.
    The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology held its initial hearing on the year 2000 problem on 
April 16, 1996. The specific focus was on what Federal agencies 
were doing to prevent a possible computer disaster on January 
1, 2000. Kevin Schick of the Gartner Group, expressed concern 
that ``there is no sense of urgency . . . [I]f [Federal 
agencies] are not already well into this project by October of 
1997, [the Government] will be doing a disservice to the very 
constituents that depend on [it] to prevent something like this 
from happening to them . . .''.
    Alarmed by what the subcommittee learned at that hearing, 
Subcommittee Chairman Stephen Horn and Ranking Member Carolyn 
Maloney sent a joint congressional oversight letter on behalf 
of the subcommittee. The letter was addressed to each Cabinet 
department and 10 additional agencies. The April 29, 1996, 
letter asked 13 detailed questions intended to learn the status 
of each agency's preparation for the year 2000.
    The overall response the subcommittee received was 
discouraging. Only 9 of the 24 agencies responded that they had 
a plan for addressing the problem. Five of the agencies had not 
even designated a specific official within the agency to be 
responsible for the problem. No agencies had complete cost 
estimates for fixing the problem. Only seven agencies even had 
partial estimates. Efforts at the Departments of Energy and 
Transportation were so primitive that neither could answer any 
of the 13 questions posed by the April 29th letter. Many 
agencies with direct responsibilities for furnishing services 
to the public, such as the Departments of Labor and Veterans 
Affairs and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had only 
the most limited year 2000 initiatives underway.
    Appearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government on March 11, 
1997, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
committed to furnishing Congress with a quarterly report on 
Federal progress toward correcting the year 2000 computer 
problem. The first quarterly report was transmitted to Congress 
on June 23, 1997. It was based on data provided to OMB by all 
major departments and agencies on May 15, 1997.
    The subcommittee convened three hearings on this issue. The 
first hearing drew, in part, on agency responses to a January 
14, 1997 oversight letter to each of the statutory department 
and agency Chief Information Officers. Witnesses included the 
following agency Chief Information Officers: Ms. Liza 
McClenaghan, Department of State; Assistant Secretary Emmett 
Paige, Department of Defense; Ms. Patricia Lattimore, 
Department of Labor; Mr. John J. Callahan, Department of Health 
and Human Services; Associate Deputy Secretary Michael Huerta, 
Department of Transportation; and Mr. Mark D. Catlett, 
Department of Veterans Affairs. In addition, Joel C. 
Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information Management 
Division, General Accounting Office, testified about GAO's work 
on the topic.
    Mr. Horn opened the hearing with reference to the January 
14 letter that requested information from each agency on its 
year 2000 plans, noting that ``the quality of the response 
varies widely.'' Mr. Horn outlined three questions every agency 
must answer:
          1. Have you defined the size and scope of the 
        problem?
          2. Do you know how and when the fixes will be made?
          3. Have you identified mission critical systems and 
        set clear priorities for action?
Mr. Horn expressed grave concern that 12 of the 14 Federal 
Departments plan to implement their solutions in the final 3 
months of 1999.
    Joel C. Willemssen's testimony focused on GAO's newly-
released report: ``Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment 
Guide.'' The purpose of the report was to provide a useful 
framework for agency managers to use in planning and 
implementing their year 2000 programs. Ms. Liza McClenaghan, 
Chief Information Officer for the Department of State, 
testified that the Department of State had accurately defined 
the year 2000 problems if faced. She reported that 57 of the 85 
mission-critical systems were not year 2000 compliant. She 
estimated the total cost of the year 2000 problem for the State 
Department at $135.2 million. She stated that the strategy 
included integrating year 2000 fixes into a larger plan for 
modernization of information technology infrastructure.
    Assistant Secretary Emmett Paige, Department of Defense, 
testified that the DOD was ``far down the road to completing'' 
the assessment phase. He pointed to the Defense Integration 
Support Tools, or DIST, as a management tool to track essential 
information regarding DOD systems. He also noted that the DOD 
was reprogramming resources from all areas for use in solving 
the year 2000 problem and asked that Congress reduce the drain 
on resources by lowering the number of special reporting 
requirements.
    The subcommittee's second hearing on the year 2000 problem 
in 1997 extended the focus beyond standard computer systems to 
survey other affected technologies, including a variety of 
consumer products. Witnesses testified on the year 2000 risks 
associated with embedded microprocessors. Many critical 
technology systems depend on automated devices that control 
their operations. These can include security systems for badge 
readers, surveillance and home security systems, medical 
devices, factory machinery, and telephone systems. Problems 
associated with date calculations in these devices can result 
in various malfunctions or shutdown.
    At the hearing, Bruce Hall, research director for the 
Gartner Group, explained the ``time horizon to failure'' issue. 
Ann Coffou, managing director, Giga Group, testified on the 
problems with embedded microchips. Vito Peraino, an attorney 
with Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, covered the potential for 
year 2000 liability claims. Harris Miller, president, 
Information Technology Association of America, testifying about 
his organization's certification program for the year 2000 
software conversion process. Following the hearing, the 
chairmen and ranking members of the two subcommittees sent an 
oversight letter to department and agency heads to determine 
whether the agencies were assessing their vulnerability to the 
embedded chip problem.
    The subcommittee's third hearing on the year 2000 problem 
in 1997, once again held jointly with the Technology 
Subcommittee, evaluated Federal department and agency progress 
on the basis of the quarterly progress report provided to 
Congress by the Office of Management and Budget. At this 
hearing, committee members called upon the executive branch to 
attach far greater priority to the year 2000 effort.
    Subcommittee Chairman Horn opened the hearing by stressing 
the importance of high-level attention for progress on this 
problem. With the Office of Management and Budget as lead 
witness, he asked: ``Has the President of the United States 
made this an issue? He is one of the great communicators of 
this century. We need him to awaken the Nation to this very 
serious situation.'' He also asked whether agency timetables 
were realistic and adequate to solve the problem before the 
unmovable deadline of midnight, December 31, 1999, and whether 
agencies have sufficient management processes in place to 
monitor their year 2000 efforts. He asked these questions in 
the context of the disappointing news reflected in OMB's 
quarterly report, which showed that some agencies with critical 
responsibilities for providing public services were stuck at 
the starting gate. As of May 15, noted Mr. Horn, fully 18 out 
of 24 agencies had yet to finish assessing the vulnerability of 
their computer systems to the year 2000 problem; 10 out of 24 
agencies had yet to complete any testing of software changes. 
Mr. Horn stated that these were discouraging and worrisome 
statistics.
    Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and 
Regulatory affairs, Office of Management and Budget, testified 
that the administration's estimate for governmentwide cost of 
preparing its computers for the date change had risen to $2.8 
billion, from $2.3 billion in February. Despite this, she 
insisted that the Government was on track to complete all 
necessary fixes before January 1, 2000. Her prepared testimony 
concluded that ``the year 2000 computer problem will be a non-
event.'' She testified that ``we will all breathe a very happy 
sigh of relief on December 31st, 1999.''
    Joel Willemssen, Director of Accounting and Information 
Management Division, General Accounting Office, was much less 
optimistic. He testified that based on the latest information, 
Federal agencies simply did not have enough time to complete 
all necessary fixes. He strongly urged agencies to prioritize 
so that critical systems are fixed in time.
    Joe Thompson, Chief Information Officer, General Services 
Administration, testified that the General Services 
Administration is working to raise awareness of the year 2000 
problem throughout the government. He reported that GSA's 
Federal Supply Service has notified manufacturers and service 
and equipment providers that all products sold to the 
Government must be year 2000 compliant.
    Kathleen Adams, chair of the Interagency Year 2000 
Subcommittee of the Chief Information Officers Council and 
Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Systems, Social Security 
Administration, testified on the role of the Interagency Year 
2000 Subcommittee. She reported that the year 2000 subcommittee 
is developing a database that will contain information 
regarding whether commercial-off-the-shelf software presently 
in use in Federal agencies will function properly after the 
date change. She stressed that although the efforts like this 
database can help, the responsibility for success or failure 
ultimately lies with the Chief Information Officer of each 
agency and with OMB.
    b. Benefits.--The year 2000 problem is going to be 
expensive to the taxpayers, but how expensive depends on how 
quickly officials step up to the problem. Administration cost 
estimates are already nearing $4 billion, and figures in this 
range have been deemed dramatically low by a variety of 
experts. The ultimate cost depends to a great extent on how 
early and how efficiently the Government can address the 
problem. The costs associated with fixing this labor-intensive 
problem will rise significantly as the date change nears. 
Furthermore, failure to repair computers before the date change 
will bring a variety of costs of untold proportions. It is 
therefore critical that the fixes are made and made early. 
Effective efforts to expedite this process will save the 
taxpayers considerable amounts of money.
    Potentially even more significant that the financial toll 
of a delayed response to the year 2000 problem is the danger of 
failure. It is very difficult to determine the exact 
consequences of inaccurate date computations in most computer 
programs. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, preparations 
for the date change are crucial. Failure to make the necessary 
fixes puts citizens at risk of everything from late social 
security checks to unsafe travel conditions.
    c. Hearings.--The Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology held three hearings on this issue 
in the first session of the 105th Congress: (1) ``Will Federal 
Government Computers Be Ready for the Year 2000?'' February 24, 
1997; (2) ``Year 2000 Risks: What Are the Consequences of 
Information Technology Failure?'' March 20, 1997, held jointly 
with the Subcommittee on Technology of the Science Committee; 
and (3) ``Will Federal Government Computers be Ready for the 
Year 2000?'' July 10, 1997, held jointly with the Subcommittee 
on Technology of the Science Committee.
3. Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act.
    a. Summary.--The American voters have made it clear that 
they think the Federal Government is too often ineffective, 
inefficient, and overly expensive. Real reform must involve 
fundamental changes in how the Government operates, beginning 
with the adoption of effective management techniques from the 
private sector. Outcome-oriented or results-driven performance 
management strategies adopted from the private sector are the 
driving force of the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993.
    The Government Performance and Results Act is the 
centerpiece of Federal management reform in recent years. In 
essence, the act requires Federal agencies to ask and to 
repeatedly answer some very basic questions: What is the 
agency's mission? What are its goals and how will the agency 
achieve them? How can the agency's performance be measured? How 
should that information be used to make improvements? These 
questions are answered in Strategic Plans, required by the 
Results Act to be completed for the first time by September 30, 
1997. The plans provide the framework for agency's management 
to examine activities throughout the organization, ensuring 
that all activities relate to the agency's basic mission. To 
Congress, this is an opportunity for a broad discussion about 
an agency's future direction and program priorities.
    In preparation for this historic submission of the first 
Strategic Plans, the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology consulted with the Office of 
Management and Budget [OMB], House Majority Leader Dick Armey, 
and a wide range of Federal agencies. The General Services 
Administration [GSA] was a particular focus of subcommittee 
efforts.
    In August agencies submitted draft Strategic Plans. The 
plans were reviewed by Congress for legal compliance and 
quality. The subcommittee was the primary evaluator for GSA and 
participated with Mr. Armey's staff in the evaluation of all 
Federal agencies. A large number of agency Strategic Plans were 
not legally compliant. The quality of these plans ranged from a 
low of 11 to a high of 62 on a 105 point scale. The GSA 
Strategic Plan rated an unacceptable 35.
    The final Strategic Plan submissions in September were 
reviewed and evaluated by the same process using the same 
criteria. Because of the congressional oversight the average 
score increased by 56 percent from 29.9 to 46.6, with a low of 
28 and a high of 75 on a 100 point scale. GSA increased to 40.5 
points.
    In addition to GSA, the subcommittee paid particular 
attention to the Strategic Plan of OMB because of OMB's role in 
guiding the Results Act compliance of all other agencies. OMB's 
final plan was much improved in packaging and clarity but not 
in substance. OMB's Strategic Plan does not show the strategy 
and resources required for high quality Results Act Strategic 
Plans throughout the Federal Government.
    The subcommittee held a series of four hearings on the 
Results Act in the first session of the 105th Congress. This 
series of hearings will continue in the second session. The 
Results Act provides a unique opportunity to view the Federal 
Government on a comprehensive basis. In this context, the 
executive branch should seek to identify and set the priorities 
for the services that must be provided, the activities that 
must be carried out, and the measurement of the results that 
are achieved.
    The first subcommittee Results Act hearing of the session 
was held in two parts. In the first part, the subcommittee 
examined the status of the consultation process required by the 
Results Act. It anticipated the consultations between executive 
branch agencies and Congress that would take place during much 
of 1997 on the content of agency strategic plans. The objective 
was to take a closer look at what the consultation process 
would actually involve.
    L. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal Management and Workforce 
Issues, General Government Division, testified for the General 
Accounting Office. Mr. Stevens stressed the importance of the 
consultation process. He pointed to the string of failed 
efforts to link results with resources in the Federal 
Government, including PPBS (the Planning Programming Budgeting 
System) and zero-based budgeting. The reason they failed, 
argued Mr. Stevens, was that they each ignored the need for 
constructive, candid communication and shared goals between 
branches of the Government. He advised the members of the 
subcommittee to pay particular attention to engaging the right 
people in the consultation discussions. Those with authority 
over operations need to be involved in the process, as do 
Members of Congress. He also suggested that strategic plans 
should be considered dynamic, subject to change and open to 
criticism by all participants.
    The subcommittee also heard testimony from three agencies: 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Social 
Security Administration, and the Forest Service. All three were 
early GPRA pilots. Representatives from these agencies 
discussed how they were preparing for full GPRA implementation. 
Dwight Robinson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, testified that HUD has used performance 
reporting to monitor performance of programs since fiscal year 
1994. He emphasized the role of technology by highlighting 
HUD's use of an application of Lotus Notes software to 
coordinate program and departmental efforts. He said the 
application facilitates communication among management levels. 
He also said it ``allows for a system based on resource levels 
that may be utilized by program areas down to the process 
level.''
    The second part of the hearing took place on March 13, 
1997. The subcommittee listened to a local government success 
story with an eye toward the Federal reform effort. The 
featured program was the substantial reinvention process 
undertaken by the city of New York under the leadership of 
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The reinvention has involved re-
engineering and could extend to privatization of certain 
government activities. The subcommittee heard about how New 
York City dramatically improved its management practices and 
gained nationwide acclaim for its considerable crime-fighting 
accomplishments.
    Mr. Horn opened this part of the hearing by observing that 
New York's achievement is part of a pattern of change from 
which the Federal Government should learn. In New Zealand, the 
Federal Government and local governments include performance 
measures in their annual financial reports, and in Great 
Britain the Audit Commission compiles and reports on a series 
of performance measures for local governments. They have 
improved the performance of their departments and lowered the 
cost of doing business. The approach is basic: carefully 
evaluate each activity, decide whether it furthers the agency's 
mission, drop it if it does not, and then decide how to perform 
the essential tasks more efficiently and at a lower cost.
    State and local governments in the United States are using 
performance measures to improve the quality of their services. 
Several States and local governments in the United States also 
provide examples of the effective use of performance 
measurement for management of programs, including Oregon, 
Minnesota, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. Prince William 
County in Virginia has a performance management system for all 
major areas of service delivery. The Board of Prince William 
County in Virginia uses performance data to annually update its 
current 5-year strategic plan and to formulate a new plan that 
will be more realistic. Portland, OR has a performance 
reporting system for the city's six largest programs: police, 
fire, parks, water, sewer, and streets.
    Mayor Giuliani testified on the management reforms behind 
New York City's reduction in crime over recent years. He 
pointed to reorganization. Three separate police departments 
were merged into one, enabling the pooling of resources and 
efficiency of organization where jurisdictional disputes 
traditionally hindered action. Mr. Giuliani also pointed to the 
innovative use of technology in the form of the Compstat 
program. This program provides the police department with up-
to-the-minute statistics on crimes in each of the city's 
precincts, allowing both immediate response to trends in crime 
as well as coordinated planning on overall patterns of crime.
    The subcommittee's second hearing on the Results Act in 
1997 focused on pilot projects required by the law in the early 
stages of implementation. The Results Act specifies that the 
Office of Management and Budget shall report on the benefits, 
costs, and usefulness of the plans and reports prepared by 
pilot agencies. These pilots are essential to effective 
implementation of the act. From them the Government will 
experiment with and learn about three aspects of Federal 
management reform: performance goals, managerial accountability 
and flexibility, and performance budgeting.
    The law called for a minimum of 10 performance measurement 
pilot agencies. But instead of 10 or another relatively small, 
manageable number, OMB created 72. This is troublesome to the 
subcommittee. At the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Horn 
expressed concern that it looks very much as though executive 
branch attention to this law is being spread too thin. The 
pilots were meant to provide concrete experiences with success 
and failure in the implementation of this act. Quantity appears 
to have become the enemy of quality.
    John Koskinen, Deputy Director for Management at the Office 
of Management and Budget, testified on his Office's reviews of 
pilot agency efforts to implement the principles of the Results 
Act. He stated that no element of performance-based management 
is more important than the strategic plan. They are the 
foundation and framework for implementing all other parts of 
the Results Act. According to Mr. Koskinen, OMB issued strong 
guidance to Federal agencies supporting congressional 
consultation. Looking ahead, he further reported that OMB has 
prepared guidance on the preparation and submission of annual 
performance reports in fiscal year 1999.
    L. Nye Stevens, Director of Federal Management and 
Workforce Issues at the General Accounting Office, testified 
that implementation of the Results Act had so far achieved 
mixed results. Mr. Stevens predicted highly uneven 
governmentwide implementation in the fall of 1997, noting that 
many agencies did not appear well positioned to provide in 1997 
an answer to the fundamental Results Act question of whether 
programs have produced real results.
    GAO found that agencies are confronting five key challenges 
that were limiting effective implementation of the Results Act: 
(1) establishing clear agency missions and strategic goals when 
program efforts are overlapping or fragmented; (2) measuring 
performance, particularly when the Federal contribution to a 
result is difficult to determine; (3) generating the results-
oriented performance information needed to set goals and assess 
progress; (4) instilling a results-oriented organizational 
culture within agencies; and (5) linking performance plans to 
the budget process.
    At the third Results Act hearing, the subcommittee heard 
testimony from the Office of Management and Budget and the 
General Accounting Office regarding the content of OMB's 
Strategic Plan. Gene Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General, 
Accounting and Information Division, General Accounting Office, 
testified on the deficiencies in OMB's August draft Strategic 
Plan. He also testified on the improvement in OMB's final 
September Strategic Plan and the remaining deficiencies. Mr. 
Dodaro cited evidence within OMB's plan to make the distinction 
between relative strengths in budgeting and serious weaknesses 
in management. GAO continued to testify concerning the serious 
weaknesses in the strategy and resources for management tasks. 
GAO emphasized the lack of assurance that the planned method of 
coordinating agency efforts via councils would accomplish 
anything.
    Mr. G. Edward DeSeve, Acting Deputy Director of Management 
at OMB, testified on the compliance and completeness of OMB's 
final Strategic Plan. He testified that a number of meaningful 
tasks were accomplished using the method of coordinating 
councils. He testified that the strategy and resources 
currently available to OMB were sufficient to accomplish all of 
OMB's responsibilities.
    Subcommittee Chairman Horn questioned Mr. DeSeve concerning 
``management'' as versus ``budget'' activities at OMB. In 
particular, he enumerated some of OMB's responsibilities and 
questioned OMB's capacity to handle all the work. Mr. DeSeve 
insisted that OMB's strategy of coordinating councils was not 
due to insufficient resources but a purposeful choice of the 
best way to achieve management improvement throughout the 
Federal agencies.
    At the fourth and final subcommitee hearing on the Results 
Act in 1997, testimony was heard from the General Services 
Administration [GSA] regarding the content of GSA's Strategic 
Plan. Mr. Dennis J. Fisher, Chief Financial Officer at GSA, 
testified as to the completeness and quality of the GSA 
Strategic Plan. Mr. Fisher was personally in charge of the 
plan's development and attested to its alignment with GSA 
divisional plans and budgets. Mr. Horn questioned GSA building 
rental rates, overhead costs, and flexibility.
    b. Benefits.--The quality of agency Strategic Plans and 
their derivative Performance Plans and Performance Reports 
affects the effectiveness and efficiency of the entire Federal 
Government. Without strategic plans and actual performance 
measures against those plans, it is impossible for any large 
organization to access its success. This is particularly true 
to Federal Departments and agencies because of the diverse 
nature of the programs they administer. For a large number of 
Federal programs it is very difficult to assess their success. 
It is especially difficult to compare the relative success of 
duplicate or overlapping programs. Consequently, it is 
difficult for Congress to determine which programs are worth 
the American taxpayer's investment; which programs should be 
expanded because they work well and which programs should be 
canceled because they do not deliver their intended result.
    The subcommittee has conducted hearings to oversee the 
Government's implementation of GPRA. The subcommittee has made 
recommendations on how strategic plans should be developed. The 
subcommittee has made explicit the intentions and expectations 
of Congress for the content and quality of GPRA strategic 
plans. The subcommittee has worked with specific agencies such 
as GSA and OMB to review their draft strategic plans. Further, 
because of the special function of OMB in guiding other Federal 
agencies, the subcommittee has insisted that OMB set serious 
standards for all Federal agencies to deliver realistic 
strategic plans and meaningful performance measures.
    The subcommittee worked closely with congressional 
leadership to evaluate the draft strategic plans submitted in 
August. The critiques provided to the largest 24 Federal 
Departments and agencies resulted in substantial quality and 
content improvements in the final strategic plans submitted for 
September fiscal year end. In fact, the average score for final 
strategic plans was almost double the score for draft plans.
    The quality of agency Strategic Plans and their derivative 
Performance Plans and Performance Reports affects the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the entire Federal Government. 
Further, the quality of Results Act plans affects the ability 
of Congress to evaluate program adherence to policy, program 
effectiveness and efficiency, and program duplication, overlap, 
and waste. Similarly, the administration and the agencies 
themselves are affected by the quality of their Results Act 
plans. A small effort by the subcommittee has tremendous 
leverage in improving Results Act plans and, thereby, 
performance throughout the Federal Government.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held four hearings on the 
Government Performance and Results Act in 1997: (1) 
``Government Performance and Results Act Implementation: How to 
Achieve Results,'' March 10 and 13, 1997; (2) ``Government 
Performance and Results Act: Status and Prospects of the 
Results Act,'' June 3, 1997; (3) ``Oversight of OMB's GPRA 
Strategic Plan,'' October 6, 1997; and, (4) ``Oversight of 
GSA's Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plan,'' 
October 8, 1997.
4. Internal Revenue Service Management.
    a. Summary.--The Internal Revenue Service has had 
difficulty adapting to the information and accountability 
demands of the late 20th century. The subcommittee held two 
hearings on financial management at the IRS in 1996. Those 
hearings focused on the IRS's revenue accounting system and the 
IRS's problems with collections, management of accounts 
receivables, filing fraud and fraudulent refunds, records 
retention, tax lien recovery, and unauthorized browsing of 
taxpayer records by IRS personnel. Despite promises for reform 
made at those hearings, a steady stream of press reports on 
feeble management, failed automation, and poor customer service 
at the IRS continued unabated into 1997.
    The list of failed projects at the IRS includes:
         The Tax Systems Modernization project, a $4 
        billion attempt to modernize the IRS's decades-old 
        computer systems;
         Cyberfile, a project that would have allowed 
        taxpayers to prepare and electronically submit their 
        tax returns from their personal computers;
         Integrated Case Processing, a program that 
        would have allowed IRS representatives to access all 
        the data needed in order to answer taxpayer questions 
        over the telephone;
         the Document Processing System, a system that 
        would have scanned paper documents and electronically 
        captured data for subsequent processing and retrieval; 
        and
         the Service Center Recognition/Image 
        Processing System, the failed document-scanning program 
        that the Document Processing System was designed to 
        replace.
    Several important questions must be answered. What does the 
IRS need to do to get its modernization project back on track? 
How is the Treasury going to ensure that the IRS embarks on a 
modernization plan that will work? What sort of milestones or 
benchmarks should a modernization plan have so that its 
progress can be monitored? How long do we have to wait to see 
results? Will the right people be held accountable? How can we 
overcome obstacles to change such as the organizational culture 
of the IRS? How do we modify it? How do we make sure that the 
IRS can manage multimillion-dollar information-technology 
development projects, even if such projects are given to 
outside contractors?
    The IRS must be accountable. Americans have a right to know 
whether the agency that collects taxes from their hard-earned 
money is capable of managing its internal operations in an 
efficient, fair, and accountable way.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from Lynda Willis, 
Director for Tax Administration and Policy of the General 
Accounting Office, who discussed the progress the IRS has made 
in acting on recommendations submitted by GAO to improve IRS 
operations. Robert Tobias of the National Treasury Employees 
Union, presented IRS employees' views on how to restore public 
and congressional confidence in the IRS. Sheldon Cohen, former 
IRS Commissioner during the Johnson administration and a 
National Academy of Public Administration fellow, also 
testified on information technology challenges at the IRS. Mr. 
Cohen was Commissioner when the IRS first started to 
computerize its operations. Deputy Commissioner Michael Dolan 
provided testimony on the IRS's approach to modernization.
    Mr. Horn noted at the hearing that the President was faced 
with the task of nominating a new IRS Commissioner. Mr. Horn 
advised the President that he should be judicious in his choice 
of the new IRS Commissioner. It should not be someone who is 
simply a CPA tax accountant, or a tax lawyer, but someone who 
has demonstrable management expertise in providing leadership 
to large, complex organizations. The President later followed 
Mr. Horn's advice by nominating Charles O. Rossotti, a 
technology executive, to the position.
    b. Benefits.--Congressional attention to the troubles at 
IRS are essential if the agency is going to reform. At the 
heart of IRS's problems is poor management, including poor 
financial management and poor information technology 
management. The year 2000 computer software conversion problem 
is an issue that illustrates the importance of improving 
management at the IRS. Without serious attention, it may become 
necessary to add the year 2000 problem to the IRS failure list. 
This would be a catastrophe not only for the IRS but for all 
the other agencies and organizations that depend on IRS 
information.
    c. Hearings.--``Internal Revenue Service Mismanagement and 
Ideas for Improvement'' was held on April 14, 1997.
5. Debt Collection.
    a. Summary.--The Debt Collection Improvement Act [DCIA] was 
signed into law on April 26, 1996, as a part of Public Law 104-
134. The DCIA established new tools to assist agencies in 
collecting debts owed to the United States. It provides 
agencies incentives to increase collections of delinquent debts 
while protecting the rights of debtors. It also allows agencies 
to rely on the expertise of private-sector debt collectors.
    The subcommittee held two hearings regarding the 
implementation of the Debt Collection. The first hearing was 
entitled ``Implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement 
Act of 1996.'' Larry Summers, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, 
described efforts to reform and modernize the Internal Revenue 
Service. Summers noted his opposition to an independent 
Internal Revenue Service and opposition to an oversight board. 
According to Mr. Summers, no other issue occupies more of his 
time than debt collection. John Koskinen, Deputy Director, 
Office of Management and Budget described the challenges, 
priorities, trends in the debt collection area, and the 
importance of interagency cooperation. Koskinen was questioned 
as to OMB's commitment to the debt collection function. 
Koskinen asserted that debt collection is a priority and that 
OMB is actively engaged, although the function occurs primarily 
at other agencies.
    Mr. Gerald Murphy, Assistant Fiscal Secretary, Department 
of the Treasury described the activities within his Department 
to organize the Treasury Offset Program to intercept payments 
to delinquent debtors, provide for cross-servicing, draft 
regulations and other activities intended to promote debt 
collection. Mr. Steven McNamara, Assistant Inspector General, 
Department of Education, noted his office's work to identify 
benefit fraud in the Pell Grant program. According to McNamara, 
a confidential survey of tax returns was conducted that 
compared them against stated income. The survey revealed that 
nearly $200 million in Pell Grants went to ineligible 
individuals who had lied on their applications.
    Mr. Mitchell Adams, commissioner, Massachusetts Department 
of Revenue, described the effort of the State of Massachusetts 
to collect delinquent debts including student loans and child 
support, through wage garnishment. Mr. Adams noted a 
technically advanced system designed to automate this process.
    The subcommittee's second hearing on debt collection was 
entitled ``Oversight of Federal Debt Collection Practices,'' 
and held on November 12, 1997. Jerry Hawke, Undersecretary, 
Department of the Treasury, and Gerald Murphy, Assistant Fiscal 
Secretary, Department of the Treasury, described the Department 
of the Treasury's efforts to implement the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act. The Department was criticized for poor 
progress and missteps. The Department was unable to produce a 
timetable for implementation.
    David Longaknecker, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 
Education, Department of Education, noted his agency's 
improvements in debt collection. The department, with years of 
experience in the area and an excellent team in place, has 
improved its recoveries of delinquent debts.
    John Gray, Deputy Administrator, Small Business 
Administration, described the SBA's program to collect 
delinquent debts. These efforts include a large loan sales 
program that has been the subject of some delays. Mr. Gray 
indicated that the SBA would begin referring delinquent 
accounts to the private collection agencies under contract with 
the Department of the Treasury by January 1998.
    b. Benefits.--The role of the Federal Government in the 
credit markets is enormous. The Federal Government dominates 
the markets for student loans and housing loans, and has a 
strong impact on other sectors as well. Effective Federal debt 
collection practices is essential to protect the interests of 
the taxpayers, and strong congressional oversight is essential 
to effective debt collection practices. At this point, the 
Government is still in the process of implementing the DCIA. 
There are a variety of steps in the process of implementation 
that warrant heightened congressional attention.
    c. Hearings.--Subcommittee Chairman Horn called two 
hearings regarding implementation of the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act, one on April 18, 1997 and the other on 
November 12, 1997.
6. Federal Measures of Race and Ethnicity.
    a. Summary.--For the past two decades, the Federal 
Government had used four racial categories to measure the 
population: black, white, American Indian or Alaskan Native, 
and Asian or Pacific Islander. Separately, individuals have 
also been classified according to Hispanic ethnicity. Since the 
1978, these categories have been set forth in the Office of 
Management and Budget's Directive No. 15--Race and Ethnic 
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. 
Race and ethnic classifications are used for implementation of 
numerous Federal laws on voting rights, lending practices, 
provision of health services, and employment practices. The 
data are also utilized by State and local governments for 
legislative redistricting and compliance with the Voting Rights 
Act.
    Directive No. 15 has restricted designation of an 
individual to one of the four racial categories. The major 
concern with this requirement is that a growing segment of the 
population can claim multiple racial heritages. It is argued 
that forcing such individuals to choose just one heritage is 
unfair to them and an unnecessary inaccuracy in the measurement 
of race. Proposed solutions included creation of a new category 
called ``multiracial,'' and, alternatively, allowing 
individuals to mark more than one of the four traditional 
categories.
    Due to increasing pressure over the measure of multiracial 
status as well as a variety of other concerns, OMB conducted a 
4-year review of Directive No. 15. The review involved four 
public hearings around the country and three sample surveys to 
measure the affect of proposed changes. The review was 
conducted by the Interagency Committee, a task force created by 
OMB with representation from 30 Federal agencies. The 
Interagency Committee completed its review of Directive No. 15 
and submitted its recommendations to OMB in July 1997. The 
recommendations were published in the July 9, 1997, Federal 
Register. The Interagency Committee rejected the proposal for 
creation of a ``multiracial'' category but recommended that 
individuals be permitted to ``select one or more'' of the 
current categories of race whenever the Federal Government 
measures race.
    The Interagency Committee argued for its ``select one or 
more'' recommendation by observing that the multiracial 
population is growing. Allowing individuals to identify with 
more than one race will help to measure the demographic changes 
more precisely. The Interagency Committee also pointed out that 
at least 0.5 percent of respondents already mark more than one 
race in spite of instructions to choose just one. Finally, 
there is a trend toward reporting more than one race at the 
State level. Currently five States allow individuals to select 
a multiracial category or to choose more than one race.
    The Interagency Committee provided several reasons for 
rejecting a multiracial category. First, it found that there is 
no general consensus on the definition of ``multiracial.'' 
Second and related, a multiracial category is more likely to be 
misunderstood by individuals responding to questions on race. 
Such misunderstanding would lead to inaccurate responses and 
therefore less reliable data on race. A third reason is that a 
multiracial category would require either more space or mode 
coding.
    OMB accepted public comments on the Interagency Committee 
recommendation for approximately 2 months, after which time it 
announced its decision to adopt the recommendation with slight 
modifications. On the multiracial issue, it adopted the 
``select one or more'' recommendation. The changes will be 
adopted by the Census Bureau during its dress rehearsal for the 
2000 census in the spring of 1998.
    The first hearing provided background on the issues 
involved in Federal measures of race and ethnicity. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from the Office of Management and 
Budget, the General Accounting Office, the Department of 
Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
    The second hearing featured advocates and opponents of a 
multiracial designation, including Susan Graham, president, 
Project RACE; Ramona Douglass, president, Association of 
MultiEthnic Americans; Karen Narasaki, executive director, 
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; Harold 
McDougall, director, Washington Bureau, National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored People; Eric Rodriguez, policy 
analyst, National Council of La Raza; and JoAnn Chase, 
executive director, National Congress of American Indians. The 
subcommittee heard arguments that the categories of Directive 
No. 15 did not accurately account for a particular group from 
U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) and Helen Hatab Samhan, 
executive vice president, Arab-American Institute. The hearing 
also featured demographic and sociological specialists: Dr. 
Mary Waters, Department of Sociology, Harvard University; Dr. 
Balint Vazsonyi, director, Center for the American Founding; 
and Dr. Harold Hodgkinson, Institute for Educational 
Leadership.
    The third hearing featured testimony on the potential 
consequences of the Interagency Committee recommendation. 
Several witnesses focused on challenges presented by the 
variety of new data created by allowing individuals to select 
more than one race. The central issue is how this data will be 
tabulated. One major concern is whether the recommendation, if 
adopted by OMB, would lead to double counting of individuals 
who identify with more than one race. This could be a problem 
particularly in the enforcement of civil rights laws. The 
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Isabelle 
Katz Pinzler, addressed this issue.
    b. Benefits.--Federal measures of race and ethnicity are 
important to many people for a variety of reasons. The data 
gathered by the Census Bureau and other Federal agencies as 
well as by school districts and hospitals throughout the 
country provide essential information to governments, 
businesses, and a variety of other organizations. Professionals 
from statisticians to law enforcement officials rely on this 
data. Furthermore, all individuals have a first-hand experience 
with this data: they are the ones who provide it. The way the 
Federal Government decides to measure race and ethnicity 
therefore affects many people at many levels. The decision of 
whether to make changes to the current standards was a very 
important one. It was a decision that needed to be considered 
cautiously and openly. Although ultimately the decision was in 
the hands of OMB, it first needed the attention of Congress and 
the American people. The subcommittee's hearings on the issue 
both broadened and deepened deliberations on the issues 
involved in the decision.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a series of three 
hearings on this issue. The series was entitled, ``Federal 
Measures of Race and Ethnicity and the Implications for the 
2000 Census.'' These hearings were held on April 23, May 22, 
and July 25, 1997.
7. The Post FTS-2000 Telecommunications Contract.
    a. Summary.--The FTS2000 contract was first issued in 1988 
by the General Services Administration. The contract governs 
Federal purchases of long-distance telephone services and other 
ancillary services. By most estimates, it has been successful 
in reducing Federal telecommunications costs. Prior to the 
FTS2000 contract, GSA operated a government-owned 
infrastructure that cost more than standard commercial rates 
offered by AT&T, MCI and Sprint, the three main long-distance 
firms. The FTS2000 contract reduced significantly the rate-per-
minute charge paid by Federal agencies using the contract, 
which was awarded to Sprint and MCI.
    GSA has worked with the Interagency Management Council 
[IMC], a group of agency telecommunications experts, in 
managing the FTS2000 program and planning for the follow-on 
contract. This planning process was initiated in March 1993. 
The IMC and GSA solicited input from agency users, industry, 
and academia for the follow-on contract (FTS2001).
    Enactment of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 
[TRA] affected planning for the FTS2001 contract by promising 
to bring a new era of competition to telecommunications. This 
undermined the justification for a longer-term contract, since 
a long-term contract awarded now would not allow the Federal 
Government to benefit from industry consolidation and 
competition under TRA.
    In September 1996, GSA released its then-current strategy 
for the FTS2001 contract. In response to congressional and 
industry interest, GSA released a revision of the strategy in 
February 1997 in the form of a statement of principles rather 
than a draft RFP. The revision created an opportunity for the 
eventual contractors in the FTS2001 and MAA programs to compete 
against each other. A refinement of these principles was issued 
on April 4, 1997. The refinement governs the contract duration, 
award process and means of competition, and the inclusion of 
optional services.
    b. Benefits.--The FTS-2000 contract has benefitted 
taxpayers enormously. The follow-on contract will provide a 
contracting vehicle to allow Federal agencies to obtain better 
rates for local service. Congressional participation in guiding 
this process was crucial to achieving the best possible 
telecommunications deal for the taxpayers.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on April 30, 
1997, entitled, ``Oversight of the Post-FTS2000 
Telecommunications Contract.''
8. White House Management Issues.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee addressed two concerns 
regarding management of the Executive Office of the President: 
the status of special Government employees and the lack of a 
chief financial officer in the White House. The issue of a 
chief financial officer in the White House was treated through 
legislation with H.R. 1962 (see Section III. A. Legislation, 
New Measures for more discussion.)
    The continuing spate of allegations about mismanagement at 
the White House have been frequent reminders of the need for 
serious, statutory changes in the way the White House is run. 
H.R. 1966, the ``Special Government Employee Act of 1997,'' 
updates the definition of a ``special Government employee'' to 
cover unpaid, informal advisors. Foremost is the need for 
accountability and adherence to conflict-of-interest and other 
disclosure requirements. The White House has a history of using 
informal associates and advisers who are present in the White 
House on an ongoing basis and regularly affect public policy, 
yet who are utterly unaccountable to the public. Americans have 
a right to know who is influencing policy decisions in the 
White House. Too often influential associates of the President 
wield power in the White House yet remain hidden in the shadows 
and unaccountable to the public. Hearings before the full 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the last 
Congress demonstrated that certain associates of the President 
used their access to President Clinton, the First Lady, and the 
staff of the Executive Office of the President to promote their 
own business interests, even to the extent of encouraging the 
termination of career employees of the White House.
    b. Benefits.--Redefining ``special Government employee'' 
will shine the light of publicity on back-room advisors. The 
proposed measure will expand the definition of ``special 
Government employee'' to cover unpaid, informal advisors to the 
President so that they come under the same conflict of interest 
and financial disclosure statutes as regular White House staff. 
This proposal would amend the current definition to make it 
completely clear who comes under conflict of interest and other 
disclosure requirements. This includes a functional test that 
focuses on what the advisors actually do and on whether they 
are involved in the Government's deliberative processes.
    c. Hearings.--``Oversight of the `Presidential and 
Executive Office Financial Accountability Act of 1997' and the 
`Special Government Employee Act of 1997' '' was held on May 1, 
1997.
9. Executive Branch Information Dissemination.
    a. Summary.--The Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology is a principle congressional 
guardian of access to executive branch information. The 
subcommittee's charter states that it ``will ascertain the 
trend in the availability of Government information and will 
scrutinize the information practices of executive agencies and 
officials.'' The subcommittee oversees Federal information 
dissemination. Information dissemination programs at the 
Government Printing Office include the distribution of 
publications to Federal depository libraries nationwide, 
cataloging and indexing, and distribution to recipients 
designated by law. They also include distribution to foreign 
libraries designated by the Library of Congress, in return for 
which the Library receives governmental publications from those 
countries.
    The Government Printing Office distributes about 100 
million copies of Government publications per year. 
Approximately 75 percent of all its printing needs are 
contracted out to private printers. Of the work handled in-
house, about half is for Congress. The Government Printing 
Office currently employs 3,674 employees, fewer than at any 
time in this century. There is concern that the administration 
has been reducing public access to information. Specifically, 
many executive branch agencies are not furnishing copies of the 
information they produce to the Government Printing Office for 
dissemination through the Federal depository libraries. 
Furthermore, there is concern that the administration is 
allowing many agencies to enter into restrictive distribution 
agreements that further limit the availability of agency 
information to the public.
    b. Benefits.--Access to information--especially 
governmental information--is the foundation of an educated 
citizenry and hence a free society. The Government Printing 
Office plays an essential role in making governmental 
information available to the American people. In times of rapid 
technological advance, it is important that the Government 
keeps pace with changes--both to maintain availability and to 
take advantage of time and cost saving measures. Subcommittee 
oversight in the areas of both information and technology is 
crucial to this process.
    c. Hearings.--``Oversight of the Government Printing Office 
and Executive Branch Information Dissemination'' was held on 
May 8, 1997.
10. The Medicare Transaction System.
    a. Summary.--In November 1995, the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology and the 
Subcommittee on Human Resources held a joint hearing that 
considered, among other matters, how existing information 
technology processes could be incorporated into the Medicare 
claims system to more effectively identify fraud. Based on 
several reports from the General Accounting Office, the 
subcommittees had serious concerns at that time about the 
ambitious Medicare Transaction System or MTS. Congressman Horn 
feared that the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] was 
ill-equipped to manage such a massive and complex project, and 
that the costs would outweigh the benefits.
    Unfortunately, the fears materialized. On April 4th, the 
Health Care Financing Administration announced that it was 
``exploring other options to develop MTS.'' Moreover, the 
subcommittees learned in 1997 that HCFA has a serious year 2000 
problem. The General Accounting Office wrote a report that 
includes sharp criticism of HCFA's involvement in the year 2000 
software conversion effort of its claims contractors and 
standard systems maintainers.
    b. Benefits.--If the Medicare system is unable to process 
claims accurately in the year 2000, the impact on Medicare 
beneficiaries across the country, and indeed the entire health 
care system, could be catastrophic. Congressional oversight was 
necessary to get assurances for the American people about the 
future of Medicare transaction processing as well as the HCFA's 
management of the year 2000 problem.
    c. Hearings.--``Status of the Medicare Transaction System'' 
was held jointly with the Subcommittee on Human Resources on 
May 16, 1997.
11. Total Quality Management.
    a. Summary.--Total Quality Management [TQM] is management 
philosophies that has helped many organizations become more 
efficient and effective in a very competitive environment. 
Government has many concerns other than the bottom line, but 
public and private sector services are inevitably compared in 
the consumer's mind--and in certain cases Government must 
compete directly with private companies. It is no surprise that 
in recent years voters have made abundantly clear their desire 
for a more efficient and affordable government. TQM strives to 
achieve continuous improvement of quality through organization-
wide efforts based on facts and data. Organizations use quality 
management principles to determine the expectations of all 
their customers--both external and internal--and to establish 
systems to meet those expectations. In recent years, both 
Federal and State governments have found that they could not 
attain high quality by using traditional approaches to managing 
service and product quality. The customer of the Federal 
Government is the American taxpayer. To satisfy its customer, 
the Government must design its programs, goods, and services 
for quality. Furthermore, application of quality management 
principles to the Government--an organization whose customers 
are also its owners--presents a unique set of challenges.
    The subcommittee sought ideas on how quality management 
principles might be applied to the special case of the 
Government with the overall purpose of working toward a more 
efficient and effective Federal Government. The formal 
definition of a Total Quality Management company exists in the 
criteria for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. This 
annual award, given since 1988 by the Department of Commerce, 
recognizes companies that excel in managing for and achieving 
quality.
    b. Benefits.--In our relentlessly competitive global 
economy, the only constant is rapid change. In this 
environment, organizations must adapt or perish. 
Competitiveness depends on management. The private sector has 
proven remarkably adept at organizational flexibility. The 
public sector has been distinctly less successful at changing 
with the times. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over 
management in the executive branch and is therefore responsible 
for examining management philosophies that could help to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal 
Government.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Total Quality 
Management'' was held on June 9, 1997.
12. Electronic Funds Transfer.
    a. Summary.--The Debt Collection Improvement Act [DCIA] was 
signed into law as a part of Public Law 104-134 on April 26, 
1996. The DCIA included provisions that will move Federal 
payments toward electronic funds transfer [EFT], which includes 
direct deposit, credit cards, and other forms of electronic 
payments. This will take place by 1999 unless the EFT 
requirement represents a hardship for the recipient. Prior to 
this law, Federal payees had the option of receiving EFT or a 
paper check in payment of salary, benefit, or other Federal 
payment due the individual from the Federal Government. 
Unfortunately, these checks are often forged, counterfeited, 
stolen, or fraudulent, and are sometimes delayed in the mail or 
lost.
    During the subcommittee's hearing Mark Catlett, Chief 
Financial Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, described 
the department's efforts to promote the use of electronic 
payments by the VA's vendors. Vendors have traditionally been 
reluctant to accept such electronic payments. Currently, 
governmentwide, only 16 percent of vendors are currently 
receiving electronic payments. However, the VA has aggressively 
promoted the use of such payments, and the Department has 
achieved rates approaching 80 percent. This has eliminated 10 
million paper transactions, thus reducing the burden on VA 
finance office staff.
    Marcy Creque, volunteers director, American Association of 
Retired Persons, described her organization's efforts to ensure 
that senior citizens are not hurt by the EFT mandate. She noted 
a telephone survey performed by a contractor for the Financial 
Management Service. According to this survey, 18 percent of 
Federal check recipients do not have bank accounts. By way of 
comparison, 13 percent of all U.S. households do not have 
accounts with a financial institution. The reasons vary. Many 
of those without bank accounts said that they do not have 
enough money (47 percent), they do not need an account (21 
percent), and that bank fees are too high (6 percent). This 
raises the question of whether financial institutions should 
provide accounts with no minimum balance amount, and with a 
large number of free ATM withdrawals and reasonable fees.
    b. Benefits.--The EFT requirement to receive benefits 
electronically will affect millions of Americans in a number of 
ways in the coming years. It will bring individuals heretofore 
outside the financial system into the mainstream. It will 
modernize Federal payment methods. It will give new impetus to 
electronic smart card products. Above all, EFT will solve the 
problems of lost, stolen, and fraudulent checks, reduce check-
cashing charges for Federal beneficiaries in the amount of $1.6 
billion per year, and reduce Federal expenditures by $100 
million per year, according to the Department of the Treasury. 
Congressional oversight of the implementation of EFT is 
necessary to ensure that these benefits are realized.
    c. Hearings.--``Implementation of the Electronic Funds 
Transfer Provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 
1996'' was held on June 18, 1997.
13. Inspectors General.
    a. Summary.--Inspectors General serve to protect the 
integrity of Federal programs and resources. Through their 
audits and investigations, Inspectors General seek to determine 
whether program officers, contractors, Federal workers, 
grantees, and others are conforming with regulations and laws. 
The Offices of Inspectors General were established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. To carry out their 
responsibilities, the Offices of Inspectors General have broad 
investigative authority. They have access to documents relating 
to programs and operations within their area of responsibility. 
They have the ability to administer oaths, affirmations or 
affidavits and the power of subpoena. Recently, questions have 
been raised about investigative techniques used by some 
Inspectors General. In particular, investigative practices by 
Inspectors General, especially communications with witnesses 
and witness access to counsel, have come under scrutiny lately.
    b. Benefits.--In fiscal year 1995, the most recent year for 
which information is available, Inspector General 
investigations and audits led to $1.5 billion in ``recoveries'' 
(fines and reimbursements from individuals and companies that 
defrauded the Government). In addition, IG recommendations led 
agency managers to cancel or seek reimbursements of $2.3 
billion from contractors or grantees in 1995. IG 
recommendations also inspired Federal managers to improve plans 
for spending $10.4 billion--maximizing the return on Federal 
dollars. In addition, IG accomplishments in fiscal year 1995 
include 14,122 successful prosecutions, 2,405 personnel 
actions, and 4,234 suspensions and debarments of persons or 
firms doing business with the Government. The effectiveness of 
the Inspectors General is therefore of obvious interest to 
Congress and to the taxpayers.
    c. Hearings.--``Oversight of Investigative Practices of 
Inspectors General'' was held on June 24, 1997.
14. Performance-Based Organizations.
    a. Summary.--In September 1995, Vice President Al Gore 
announced that a series of agencies would be transformed into 
performance-based, customer-oriented agencies. This 
transformation will build on existing initiatives that reorient 
Government agencies away from focusing on the resources they 
receive and toward their concrete accomplishments with those 
resources. Federal agencies need to change their incentives and 
internal cultures in order to focus on customers and achieving 
results. Agencies need to be more responsive to citizens at the 
same time that they account for program costs and safeguard 
broader public interests. According to the administration, this 
can be done by creating performance-based organizations that 
set forth clear measures of performance, hold the head of the 
organization clearly accountable for achieving results, and 
grant the head of the organization authority to deviate from 
governmentwide rules if this is necessary to achieve agreed-
upon results.
    A Performance-Based Organization is a discrete management 
unit with strong incentives to manage for results. PBOs commit 
to clear objectives, specific measurable goals, customer 
service standards, and targets for improved performance. Once 
designated, a PBO must have customized managerial flexibilities 
and a competitively hired chief executive. The chief executive 
signs an annual performance agreement with the Secretary and 
has his or her pay and tenure tied to the organization's 
performance. The British Government, on which the PBO concept 
is modeled, has found that such agencies improve performance 
while cutting administrative costs.
    The President's 1998 Budget identifies nine PBO candidates. 
These candidates are in varying stages of preparing legislation 
and sending it to their respective authorizing committees in 
Congress. The administration has several prerequisites for 
becoming a PBO candidate: a clear mission, measurable services, 
and a performance measurement system in place or in 
development; a general focus on external, not internal, 
customers; operations that can be separated from policymaking 
with a clear line of accountability to an agency head; top-
level support to transform the function into a PBO; predictable 
funding levels that correspond to their business operations. In 
a PBO, the policymaking and regulatory functions are split from 
their program operations. The PBO focuses on programmatic 
operations. However, not all Government agencies are suited to 
become PBOs. Operations that do not have clear, measurable 
results should be excluded.
    The subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Christopher 
Mihm, Acting Associate Director, U.S. General Accounting 
Office, General Government Division, Federal Management and 
Workforce Issues, who described the conclusions of GAO 
regarding the British Next Step agencies, upon which the 
concept of PBO is based. Mr. Mihm stressed that (1) a lack of 
clarity in the relationship between agencies and their parent 
departments, (2) an uncertainty concerning who is accountable 
for performance, and (3) difficulties in developing and setting 
performance goals, have confronted the British, and may pose 
similar problems for the United States PBOs.
    Mr. Edward Kazenske, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for 
Patents, Patent and Trademark Office, described the Patent and 
Trademark Office's [PTO] leadership in seeking a PBO 
designation. Mr. Kazenske outlined the recent troubled history 
of the PTO. The turnaround at PTO came in 1982, with the 
enactment of legislation to increase the agency's fees, gave 
the agency access to such fees, and paved the way for self-
sufficiency. This set up a ``compact'' with inventors to: 
reduce the time required to examine and issue a patent to 18 
months; reduce the time required to issue a trademark first 
action notice to 3 months and to register a trademark by 13 
months; to automate the operations of the PTO by the 1990's; 
and to strengthen the world-wide protection of intellectual 
property. While David Sanders, Deputy Administrator, Saint 
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC], described his 
agency's proposal to create a PBO by creating incentives to 
promote individual and agency performance. According to Mr. 
Sanders, this gives all employees a direct stake in the 
agency's future for the first time in history.
    b. Benefits.--As proposals for converting Federal agencies 
into such PBOs increase, it is extremely important to examine 
the impact that such proposals will have on the procurement and 
civil service systems, and to determine the goal of such 
changes.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Performance Based Organizations,'' on July 8, 1997.
15. Governors Island.
    a. Summary.--Located half a mile off the southern tip of 
Manhattan, Governors Island is Federal property that was 
recently declared surplus by the Federal Government. Governors 
Island consists of 204 acres, with 225 structures totaling 3 
million square feet of space ranging from residential to office 
space. A portion of the island is historic; it includes Fort 
Jay and Castle Williams, which was built to protect New York 
harbor. As part of its reorganization plan, the Coast Guard 
streamlined its base structure and in 1995, announced it would 
close Governors Island.
    As the property returns to civilian use, a number of 
disposal issues have surfaced, including how to pay for 
maintenance, and what type of access ought to be allowed. The 
1997 balanced budget agreement requires the General Services 
Administration to sell the island at fair market value. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimated that the island would 
yield $500 million if it were sold for the estimated fair 
market value.
    The subcommittee convened a hearing to examine what Federal 
actions would be necessary between now and year 2000, to ensure 
that the island does not deteriorate and possible prospects for 
future projects. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, (D-NY), expressed 
his interest in seeing increased public space such as 
hospitals, parks and other public facilities. In addition, 
Karen Alder of the General Services Adminstration outlined 
GSA's internal system of property disposal. She described the 
various possible uses of the land, and stressed that GSA would 
follow legislation enacted by Congress; however, the ultimate 
choices for reuse lay with the local authorities. An official 
from the city of New York, criticized the ``fictitious and 
unattainable $500 million'' figure estimated by the CBO.
    b. Benefits.--Governors Island is a historic landmark and 
played a key role in the defense of New York harbor in the War 
of 1812. The island played an important part in U.S. history 
and its preservation is an important responsibility of the 
Federal Government.
    c. Hearings.--On July 14, 1997, the subcommittee convened a 
hearing entitled, ``Governor's Island: Options for Reuse after 
Federal Government Departure.''
16. Government-Sponsored Enterprises.
    a. Summary.--The Federal Government established the first 
financial entity known as a Government Sponsored Enterprise in 
1916. These entities were created to direct funds to particular 
sectors of society that seemed to be inadequately served by the 
private credit markets. Private parties own most of the stock 
in GSEs, whose traditional function has been to engage in 
business operations in the private sector to increase the flow 
of credit to home buyers, farmers, students, and colleges. 
Although GSEs are authorized or established by Congress, their 
activities are not included in the Federal budget totals on the 
grounds that they are privately owned. Due to their special 
relationship with the Federal Government, however, detailed 
statements of financial operations and conditions are presented 
in the President's budget to the extent such information is 
available. These statements are not reviewed by the President; 
they are presented as submitted by the GSEs.
    There are currently 11 GSEs in operation. They were 
established by law between 1916 and 1989. Five enterprises 
operate in the housing area: the Federal Home Loan Banks; the 
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae); the Federal 
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); the Financing 
Corporation; and the Resolution Funding Corporation. Four 
enterprises operate in the agriculture area: the Federal 
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac); the Banks for 
Cooperatives; the Agricultural Credit Bank; and the Farm Credit 
Banks. Two enterprises operate in the education area: the 
Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae); and the 
College Construction Loan Insurance Association.
    While private parties own all of the stock of most GSEs and 
they are managed by private individuals, GSEs have strong ties 
to the Federal Government. The enabling legislation of each GSE 
specifies its general purpose and authorized transactions. For 
example, Fannie Mae is chartered to increase housing credit 
availability by engaging in secondary market and other 
transactions. The enabling legislation also identifies Federal 
agencies responsible for prescribing overall policy and 
regulations for the GSEs and usually provides that a minority 
of their board members be appointed by the President or another 
Federal official.
    GSEs typically receive their financing from private 
investors. They issue capital stock and short- and long-term 
debt instruments, sell asset backed securities (also known as 
mortgage-backed securities), and collect fees for guarantees 
and other services. Their principal source of financing is 
borrowing through the issuance of debt obligations or the sale 
of mortgage-backed securities. GSEs generally do not receive 
Federal appropriations.
    As a result of the benefits conferred upon GSEs and the 
similarity between their debt securities and those of the U.S. 
Treasury, most GSE debt and mortgage-backed securities are 
perceived by the credit markets to be guaranteed by the Federal 
Government. This perception allows GSEs to borrow in the credit 
markets at interest rates only slightly higher than the rates 
paid by the Treasury on its borrowings. Furthermore, this 
perception by the credit markets was enhanced by the 
Government's 1987 rescue of the Farm Credit System, which at 
that time was composed of three GSEs. This rescue could 
ultimately cost the Federal Government $5 billion.
    Subcommittee Chairman Horn convened the hearing to examine 
the evolving role of GSEs. Mr. Jim Bothwell, Chief Economist, 
U.S. General Accounting Office, described the five criteria for 
an effective regulator of GSEs: objectivity and arm's length 
status; prominence in government; consistency in regulation of 
similar markets; separation of the regulation of primary and 
secondary markets; and economy and efficiency. Mr. Bothwell 
noted past examples of regulatory failure, and noted that most 
GAO recommendations have gone unimplemented.
    Mr. Thomas Woodward, Economist, Congressional Research 
Service, noted that the creation of special benefits or 
privileges for a GSE are themselves a form of market 
distortion. While this may be justified in order to ensure that 
a public purpose is accomplished, it may be wise to 
periodically review whether the GSEs need their privileges, 
according to Mr. Woodward.
    Mr. Thomas H. Stanton, fellow, Johns Hopkins University, 
made three main point: (1) that safety and soundness rules must 
be designed before rather than after a GSE gains political 
power, since such political power could prevent later 
imposition of these sensible requirements; (2) the public 
benefits of a GSE depend upon the quality of ongoing public 
oversight, since in their markets, the GSE has an incentive to 
provide profitable services regardless of the presence of a 
public benefit; and (3) GSE legislation should contain an exit 
strategy and full disclosure of expenditure to influence the 
political process.
    b. Benefits.--Federal legislation confers a number of 
benefits on GSEs that are not provided to private companies. 
Most enterprises have a direct line of credit with the U.S. 
Treasury, their securities are exempt from Securities and 
Exchange Commission registration requirements, and their 
investors' interest income is exempt from State and local 
taxation. In addition, GSE debt obligations and securities have 
characteristics that are common to U.S. Treasury obligations. 
These advantages, combined with their strong impact on credit 
markets generally, make effective oversight essential.
    c. Hearings.--``Oversight of Government-Sponsored 
Enterprises'' was held jointly with the Subcommittee on Capital 
Banking Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored 
Enterprises of the Banking and Financial Services Committee on 
July 16, 1997.
17. Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
    a. Summary.--Metropolitan areas are geographic areas that 
have a large population center together with adjacent 
communities. The Office of Management and Budget designates and 
defines metropolitan areas following a set of official 
standards. Various categories of metropolitan areas include 
metropolitan statistical areas [MSAs], consolidated 
metropolitan statistical areas [CMSAs], and primary 
metropolitan statistical areas [PMSAs]. An MSA consists of one 
or more counties that contain a city of 50,000 or more 
inhabitants, or contain a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area 
that has a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in the 
six New England States).
    Additional outlying counties are included in the MSA if 
they have large numbers (generally 15 percent) of commuters to 
the central counties and they meet requirements for population 
density, urban population, percentage growth in population 
between the two previous decennial censuses, and the number of 
inhabitants within the urban area that qualifies the MSA.
    These designations are used as a framework for the Federal 
statistical system. They are also used for other reasons. For 
example, local community leaders use metropolitan area 
designation to promote the community as a business district. 
State governments use metropolitan areas to make communities 
eligible for programs that may be focused on urban or rural 
districts. The private sector uses metropolitan areas to 
develop sales territories and market new products. For example, 
according to USA Today, ``having MSA status designation is like 
having money in the bank because it puts them on marketers 
``A'' lists. Some restaurant chains and big retailers would not 
even consider coming to a city without MSA designation'' (USA 
Today, August 22, 1996).
    Testimony was received from Representatives Tim Holden (D-
PA), Bill Remond (R-NM), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), and Maurice 
Hinchey (D-NY), described the problems communities they 
represent face in obtaining designation as an MSA. The 
Honorable Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, noted the process by which MSAs are 
designated and the review process for proposed changes. Mr. Ed 
Spar, executive director, Council of Professional Associations 
on Federal Statistics, noted that the private sector users of 
Federal statistical data ideally want data on the lowest 
possible geographic area so that it can be aggregated according 
to the needs of the data user. Finally, Mr. Alvin Marshall, 
member of the Board of Directors, Schuylkill Economic 
Development Corp., noted that Shuylkill County was unable to 
qualify for an MSA designation since heavy strip mining left 
scarred portions of the land which were unable to support 
housing, and therefore could not meet the contiguity 
requirements for the MSA.
    b. Benefits.--Since so many private organizations and 
Government programs are based on the Federal MSA designation, 
it is important to periodically review this MSA designation 
process, especially in light of charges that some communities 
are unfairly affected by the current classifications.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Oversight of Metropolitan Statistical Areas'' on July 29, 
1997.
18. Statistical Proposals.
    a. Summary.--The economic statistics gathered and analyzed 
by the Federal Government are integral to public and private 
decisionmaking. The financial markets rise and fall, Federal 
aid is determined and distributed, and businesses make a wide 
variety of decisions all based on the data provided by the 
Government. Although sound statistics and analysis do not by 
themselves produce sound public policy, they do provide a 
necessary foundation from which to identify problems, to 
evaluate options, and to monitor results. There is widespread 
concern that Federal statistical agencies could be working more 
efficiently. The solution may be to consolidate the three main 
statistical agencies into a single entity. Introduced last 
Congress as the Statistical Consolidation Act, this measure 
would create the Federal Statistical Service as an independent 
agency. The Service would incorporate the Bureau of the Census, 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. This proposal directly addresses the need for better 
coordination and planning among economic statistical agencies. 
The goal of this and other proposals is to improve the Federal 
statistical system by reducing the organizational and legal 
barriers to greater coordination.
    b. Benefits.--Given the importance of Federal Government 
statistics, it is crucial that this data be gathered and 
processed in the most accurate and timely manner possible. 
Changes in the structure of the Federal statistical community 
are necessary if this goal is going to continue to be met in 
the near future. Substantial changes will require a broad 
consensus in Congress and throughout the Government. The 
subcommittee's efforts on this issue are meant to help forge 
this consensus in order to preserve and improve the integrity 
and Federal statistics.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Oversight of Statistical Proposals'' on July 29, 1997.
19. Defense Surplus Equipment.
    a. Summary.--Treatment of Federal surplus personal property 
is governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
Act of 1949 [FPA]. There are two categories of surplus 
property--excess and surplus. Excess property is property that 
has been declared unnecessary by the owning agency. Once 
property is declared excess, it is screened for further reuse. 
If another agency determines that it can use the property, it 
is reused. If it cannot be used or is not desired by another 
Federal agency, the property is declared surplus. Once it is 
declared surplus, the property can be donated for any number of 
public purposes, such as education or drug interdiction or to 
municipalities. The FPA authorized State Agencies for Surplus 
Property to receive equipment as an intermediary for ultimate 
use by State governments and other entities within a State. The 
State agencies are funded by charges on recipients of the 
donated property. Property not donated may be sold.
    The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service [DRMS] was 
established in 1972 and is part of the Defense Logistics 
Agency. Its purposes are: (1) to receive personal property 
(everything except real estate, from battleships to paper 
clips) from defense units that no longer need the property; (2) 
to inspect personal property to verify the condition code 
reported by the reporting agency, to determine whether it needs 
to be demilitarized (i.e., the military capacity of the item 
destroyed), and to identify any property needing special 
handling, such as hazardous waste; (3) to transfer the 
property, at no cost, to other organizations that can use it; 
and, (4) to sell the remainder of the property unless it has no 
value or is still a military item. Items with no value can be 
scrapped and military items need to be demilitarized prior to 
disposal.
    The agency received $25 billion of property last year at 
its 148 facilities, and employs about 2,500 people. 
Approximately 50 percent of the property is unusable and must 
be demilitarized. About 60 facilities handle two-thirds of the 
volume. The amount of property declared surplus has increased 
due to base closure and the post-Cold war drawdown. Property 
sold in fiscal year 1996 by DRMS yielded 1.9 percent of the 
original acquisition cost.
    The subcommittee heard from Representative Nick Smith (R-
MI), Bob Liberman, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, 
Department of Defense, and David Warren, Director, Defense 
Management Issues, General Accounting Office. Noting that the 
headquarters of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service 
is located in the district of Representative Smith, he asserted 
that the donation program is inherently unfair, since many 
States have very small military organizations within them and 
therefore do not generate substantial volumes of surplus 
property. Mr. Lieberman described the complexities of balancing 
the need for maximizing disposal sales and ensuring that 
dangerous military equipment does not get into the hands of 
purchasers. The Inspector General has assigned a high priority 
to logistics issues, and this has led to close scrutiny of the 
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, and Mr. Lieberman 
points out that many problem areas remain. GAO officials 
described the disposal process which the Defense Reutilization 
and Marketing Service follows. This process is governed by laws 
and regulations that require the Department of Defense to make 
the best property available to other DOD agencies, other 
Federal agencies, and a host of other eligible donees who 
represent State agencies, prior to the sale. This resulted in 
low market returns.
    b. Benefits.--Between $20 and $30 billion in defense 
personal property is declared surplus each year. The use of 
this property by the subsequent owner should be a concern of 
all taxpayers, since the efficiency of the Defense 
Reutilization and Marketing Service can significantly affect 
the value of the property.
    c. Hearings.--``Oversight of Defense Surplus Equipment and 
the Activities of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing 
Service'' hearing was held on September 12, 1997.
20. U.S. Customs Service.
    a. Summary.--The First Congress passed and President George 
Washington signed the Tariff Act of July 4, 1789, which 
authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. It was 
called ``the second Declaration of Independence'' by the news 
media of that era. Four weeks later, on July 31, the fifth act 
of Congress established the Customs Service and its ports of 
entry. For nearly 125 years, the Customs Service funded 
virtually the entire Government, and paid for the Nation's 
early growth and infrastructure. The territories of Louisiana 
and Oregon, Florida and Alaska were purchased with Customs 
revenue. By 1835, Customs revenues alone had reduced the 
national debt to zero. The Customs Service currently collects 
about $20 billion for the Federal Treasury with 19,000 
employees.
    The agency was restructured in 1995 as a three-tiered 
organization modelled of people, processes, and partnerships, 
with the emphasis on service delivery at ports of entry. The 
Commissioner of Customs, by authority delegated by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, establishes policy and supervises 
all activities from the Service Headquarters in Washington, DC. 
The Customs Service ensures that all imports and exports comply 
with U.S. laws and regulations. The Service collects and 
protects the revenue, guards against smuggling, and is 
responsible for the following: (1) assessing and collecting 
Customs duties, excise taxes, fees and penalties due on 
imported merchandise; (2) interdicting and seizing contraband, 
including narcotics and illegal drugs; (3) processing persons, 
baggage, cargo and mail, and administering certain navigation 
laws; (4) detecting and apprehending persons engaged in 
fraudulent practices designed to circumvent Customs and related 
laws; (5) enforcing U.S. laws intended to prevent illegal trade 
practices, including provisions related to quotas and the 
marking of imported merchandise; the Anti-Dumping Act; (6) 
enforcing import and export restrictions and prohibitions, 
including the export of critical technology used to develop 
weapons of mass destruction, and money laundering; and (7) 
collecting accurate import and export data for compilation of 
international trade statistics.
    California has traditionally received fewer resources and 
personnel than ports of entry on the East Coast for the same 
workload. The North American Free Trade Agreement will bring 
increased trade with Mexico. The growing economies of the 
Pacific Rim will bring increased trade with Asia. This makes it 
more difficult to enforce trade laws and intercept illegal 
narcotics. When he testified before the subcommittee, Bob 
Trotter, Assistant Commissioner, Field Operations, U.S. Customs 
Services, Department of the Treasury, described the agency's 
strategic plan and its performance-based management 
initiatives. Mr. Trotter denied that there was a regional 
disparity in staffing at the Customs Service. John Heinrich, 
Director, Customs Management Center, U.S. Customs Services, 
Department of the Treasury, described the challenges to the 
trade services area from the growth in volume from the Asia-
Pacific region and Latin America. Mr. Heinrich described the 
opportunities of the past few years to increase staffing at 
airports due to the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act 
fees. Ms. Judy Grimsman, president, Los Angeles Customs and 
Freight Brokers Association, described the need for additional 
resources in the southern California area and the changes 
wrought by NAFTA in terms of promoting automation in the trade 
servicing area. This automation has placed additional duties on 
importers, according to Ms. Grimsman, but the Customs Service 
has not completed the automation process. Ms. Grimsman asserted 
that the Service must complete the automated bonding and air 
manifest processes in order for such automation to be fully 
implemented.
    b. Benefits.--Given the rapid changes inherent in a 
globalizing economy and the vital role of the Customs Service, 
it is crucial that this agency is well-managed. Close 
congressional scrutiny is necessary at this point to ensure 
that the agency is prepared to adjust to important economic and 
demographic changes.
    c. Hearings.--A field hearing was held in Long Beach, CA, 
entitled, ``Oversight of the Management Practices of the U.S. 
Customs Service,'' on October 16, 1997.
21. U.S. Forest Service.
    a. Summary.--In the last Congress, a pilot program was 
authorized for the Forest Service to allow visitors to pay a 
fee to use park amenities. This pilot is similar to the 
permanent authority which the National Perk Service possesses 
to charge fees for visits to National Parks. Previously, the 
Forest Service had argued that the large number of entry points 
to National Forests, in contrast to the more controlled 
National Parks, makes a program of fee collection 
administratively infeasible.
    Representative Charlie Bass, (R-NH), testified that it is 
important to take into account the views of the local citizens, 
review services provided within the National Forests by State 
governments, and ensure that payment-in-lieu of taxes [PILT] 
are fully funded. Since PILT funds services in which there is a 
large Federal presence, including roads and fire protection, it 
is a key funding priority for States with a large Federal 
presence. However, according to Mr. Bass, PILT has not been 
fully funded.
    Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor, White Mountain National 
Forest, U.S. Forest Service, described her agency's 
implementation of the pilot fee program at the White Mountain 
National Forest, citizen comment and reactions to the fee. 
Generally, respondents to a poll support the notion of fees by 
a wide margin.
    b. Benefits.--As Federal agencies move toward more funding 
through user fees, it is important to examine public 
accessibility, the use of proceeds, and accountability to 
taxpayers.
    c. Hearings.--A field hearing was held in Conway, NH, on 
``Management Practices of the U.S. Forest Service: Review of 
the User Pilot Program'' on October 20, 1997.
22. Clinger-Cohen Act.
    a. Summary.--The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 [CCA] is now 1 
year old and the subcommittee held the first congressional 
oversight hearing on its implementation. (CCA was originally 
passed as the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 and the 
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996. These 
acts are Divisions D and E, respectively, of Public Law 104-
106.) The intention of CCA is to significantly improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of Information Technology [IT] 
throughout the Federal Government. CCA has several major 
components: (1) procurement reform for IT hardware and software 
acquisition; (2) the requirement for a set of IT plans 
including a business-driven IT strategic plans and an IT 
Architecture; and (3) the establishment of the Chief 
Information Officer [CIO] as a statutory position throughout 
the Federal Departments and agencies.
    CCA procurement reform is moving forward and has been 
reflected in the Federal Acquisition Requirements that regulate 
all Federal purchases. Business-driven IT strategic plans and 
architecture have made little if any progress. The positions of 
CIO have in general been implemented, however, the quality of 
work produced by the various offices of CIO is inconsistent. 
This concern was the subject of a subcommittee hearing.
    Further, there is a particular class of IT projects with 
tremendous potential benefit to the Federal Government that are 
not being utilized, specifically, cross-cutting IT projects. An 
example cross-cutting IT project, the International Trade Data 
System [ITDS], was examined in this hearing. The ITDS project 
has the potential to deliver a $25 billion a year tax cut to 
American business involved in international import and export. 
ITDS would also result in cost savings of hundreds of millions 
of dollars per year for the Federal Departments and agencies. 
Plus, ITDS would improve the effectiveness of Federal agency 
regulatory enforcement in areas such as illegal immigration, 
unsafe imported foods, and drug trafficking.
    The Federal Government does not have a process whereby such 
cross-cutting IT projects can be identified, evaluated, funded, 
housed, supported, coordinated, and implemented. Every aspect 
is missing. Consequently, the likelihood of such projects being 
successful or even getting started is very low. The 
subcommittee made recommendations for improving cross-cutting 
IT projects based upon the experiences of the ITDS project.
    Mr. Gene Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General, Accounting 
and Information Management Division of the General Accounting 
Office, testified about the current shortcomings in CIO 
positions and incumbents. He further testified to the 
difficulty of obtaining qualifications information about CIOs. 
This information has not been forthcoming from OMB. GAO 
recommended Congress, OMB, and the Federal agencies take action 
to rectify the situation because of the high leverage impact 
the CIOs could have upon the effectiveness and efficiency of IT 
throughout the Federal Government.
    The second panel of witnesses represented CIO success 
stories in selective Federal agencies. Mr. Alan P. Balutis, 
Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Department of Commerce, 
testified about a collection of 25 successful IT projects 
published by the CIO Council. These successful IT projects 
prove that it can be done. The next step is to understand why 
these projects were successful when so many others are not.
    Ms. Liza McClenaghan, Chief Information Officer for the 
Department of State, testified about the accomplishments of the 
CIO Council in setting training requirements and skill targets 
for IT professionals. This work has lead to improvements in 
training programs, classroom curriculum, and identification of 
automated training tools. The next step is to understand the 
component training plays in developing and retaining an IT 
workforce in face of increasing competition from the private 
sector for technically competent employees.
    Ms. Anne Reed, Chief Information Officer for the Department 
of Agriculture, testified about the IT architecture standards 
that are being established by the CIO Council. There is a long 
way to go, and nobody wants to create one governmentwide 
standard, but the start has been well made. The Clinger-Cohen 
Act requires each Federal agency to develop an IT architecture. 
The CIO Council is attempting to establish selective IT 
architecture components across multiple Federal agencies.
    The subcommittee also heard testimony on the International 
Trade Data System [ITDS], a cross-cutting IT project, that 
could save $25 billion a year of unnecessary paperwork expenses 
for American businesses. Mr. John P. Simpson, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Treasury for Regulatory, Tariff, and Trade 
Enforcement of the Department of the Treasury, testified about 
the national benefits that could accrue from this system. Mr. 
Michael D. Cronin, Assistant Commissioner of Inspection of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified about the 
increases in productivity and quality that Customs could 
achieve because of the ITDS project. Mr. Robert W. Ehinger, 
Director, ITDS Project Office of the Department of Treasury, 
testified about the difficulties of getting all relevant 
Federal agencies to participate in the ITDS project; the 
improved productivity in the 6 pilot sites already up and 
running; and planned subsequent steps.
    Subcommittee Chairman Horn summarized the lessons learned 
from the hearing and made recommendations for OMB and Federal 
agencies to improve IT effectiveness and efficiency for the 
benefit of Federal programs, their beneficiaries, and the 
American taxpayer.
    b. Benefits.--The Federal Government spends at least $26 
billion every year on information technology. This figure 
represents only the direct cost of IT. It does not count the 
millions of labor hours spent using IT systems. It does not 
consider the effects of these IT systems on Federal programs or 
the American citizens those programs serve.
    Private sector experience is that 24 percent of large IT 
projects are significantly over budget and behind schedule. 
Experience in the Federal sector is considerably worse--so bad, 
in fact, that no official figures have even been collected. 
Subcommittee Chairman Horn has repeatedly asked, ``Why do we 
cancel these projects at the $4 billion level instead of the 
$400 million or $40 million level. Why can't we cancel these 
failures at $4 million and save everybody not only billions of 
dollars but years of frustration and unfulfilled citizen 
needs?''
    The Chief Information Officers are now in place throughout 
the Federal agencies. By law they are required to report to the 
head of the agency, to be dedicated full-time to information 
technology, and to be qualified in terms of large organization 
and technical experience. Unfortunately, these requirements are 
not met by well over half of the current CIOs. The subcommittee 
is pressuring OMB and the Federal agencies to rectify this 
situation. The effectiveness of the CIOs can make a difference 
in the billions of dollars of IT expenditures, the success of 
hundreds of IT projects, and the efficiency improvements 
achieved by IT in agency programs and service delivery to the 
American taxpayers.
    The International Trade Data System [ITDS] was selected as 
an example cross-cutting IT project because it has the 
potential to save American business approximately $25 billion a 
year in unnecessary paperwork costs. This is the equivalent to 
a $25 billion a year tax cut or $125 billion over the typical 5 
year Federal budgetary planning horizon. The subcommittee made 
recommendations to Federal agencies in general and this project 
in particular. The subcommittee was at least partially 
influential in another congressional committee funding the ITDS 
project for the first time.
    c. Hearings.--``Oversight of the Implementation of the 
Clinger-Cohen Act'' was held on October 27, 1997.
23. Management Practices in State and Local Governments.
    a. Summary.--Governments of all sizes throughout the ages 
have been susceptible to waste, corruption, and inefficiency. 
The problem has seemed especially bad lately, probably more due 
to the contrast with our extraordinarily productive and 
efficient private sector than for any other reason. The 
challenge for the Subcommittee on Government Management is how 
to articulate the practices that make government work to its 
maximum potential.
    The Innovations in American Government Awards Program is 
funded by the Ford Foundation and administered by the Kennedy 
School of Government in partnership with the Council for 
Excellence in Government. It is designed to promote a national 
conversation about what works in Government. Each year the 
program receives applications from more than 1,500 Federal, 
State, and local government programs around the country. Of 
these, 25 programs are chosen as finalists and 10 of these are 
selected as winners by the National Committee on Innovations in 
American Government. The committee makes its selections on the 
basis of four criteria: (1) originality of approach; (2) 
effectiveness in addressing important public problems; (3) 
value to clients; and (4) potential replication in other 
jurisdictions. The National Committee is chaired by David 
Gergen, editor-at-large at U.S. News and World Report, and its 
members include former elected officials, private industry 
leaders, and journalists.
    Innovations awards finalists and winners each receive 
grants. The awards grant is intended to help successful 
programs disseminate information to the public as well as to 
other government agencies looking for ways to address similar 
problems or to make similar programs work better. The 1997 
Innovations winners were announced on October 8.
    b. Benefits.--The programs singled-out by the Innovations 
Program provide an excellent opportunity to consider what works 
in results-oriented management. The 105th Congress and 
especially the Government Reform and Oversight Committee have 
been working hard to oversee and encourage implementation of 
the Government Performance and Results Act. Another important 
element of government reform involves looking at successful 
programs, seeing what factors make them successful, and asking 
whether those factors can be applied elsewhere. Innovative and 
effective State and local government programs throughout the 
country can be seen as laboratories of good governance. The 
hearing will provide Congress with the occasion to learn from 
this array of experience.
    c. Hearings.--``Management Practices in State and Local 
Governments: Lessons for Federal Government'' was held on 
October 31, 1997.
24. Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    a. Summary.--When it passed FACA in 1972, Congress was 
explicit in its intention that the law not apply to the 
National Academy of Sciences [NAS] and similar organizations, 
such as the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA]. 
For the last 25 years, it has been the operating assumption of 
the Academies, Congress, and the executive branch that FACA did 
not apply to these organizations.
    In a recent court case brought by the Animal Defense League 
Fund [ADLF], FACA was interpreted as applying to NAS and by 
logical extension to NAPA and perhaps to an unknown number of 
other groups like the American Bar Association that are 
utilized by the Federal Government. The ADLF and other 
interested parties sought more public participation in NAS 
committee processes.
    Both Houses of Congress were in favor of clarifying through 
legislation that FACA does not apply to the NAS. OMB Director 
Franklin Raines also expressed support for a legislative 
remedy. The primary litigants met with the House majority and 
minority staffs to identify committee process for NAS and NAPA 
that would provide more public participation without 
inappropriate requirements for a Federal Government committee 
as per FACA. NAS and NAPA agreed to modify their committee 
processes as follows:
          1. Post to the Internet for public comment the 
        committee members names, biographies, and brief 
        conflict of interest disclosures when nominated.
          2. Invite public attendance at all data gathering 
        committee meetings by posting notice to the Internet.
          3. Make public the names and biographies of reviewers 
        of draft committee reports by posting this information 
        to the Internet.
          4. Make available summaries of formal committee 
        meetings that are not open to the public.
    NAS and NAPA already made their final reports available to 
the public via the Internet and both will continue to do so. 
They simply anticipated adding the above to their same Internet 
web databases. The only remaining issue for resolution was the 
location of the above list and its exact wording.
    A hearing was held on November 5, 1997. A bill was drafted 
in consultation with a team of majority and minority staff from 
both the House and the Senate. The bill, H.R. 2977, was 
introduced by Mr. Horn on November 9 and passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on November 10 by voice vote. The bill 
was then considered by the Senate and passed without amendment 
by unanimous consent on November 13. The bill was signed into 
law on December 17, 1997, Public Law 105-153.
    b. Benefits.--The American people benefit from the 
expertise and experience of the committees created by the 
National Academy of Sciences. When confronted by an important 
problem with key scientific aspects, the Federal Government can 
commission a study by NAS. At any given point in time 
approximately 400 such studies may be simultaneously under way. 
These studies are commissioned by Federal Departments and 
agencies, Congress, State governments, international bodies, or 
private organizations. NAS then selects a committee of the most 
qualified scientists who work for free. These scientific 
committees are independent of the various parties that may have 
a vested interest in the outcome of their study, including the 
Federal Government.
    The expertise, experience and independence of the best 
scientists for each particular problem delivers high quality, 
objective findings and recommendations. This benefits the 
Federal agency that commissioned the NAS study and the American 
people, who are assured that the scientific aspects of the 
problem are studied free of political pressures. All NAS 
studies result in a report that is readily available to the 
public--either by writing NAS or from the Academy's Internet 
web site.
    The National Academy of Public Administration operates in a 
manner similar to NAS but specializes in matters of public 
administration rather than science. Again the best expertise 
and experience is brought to bear for a commissioned study of 
an important administrative problem. The benefits of NAPA 
accrue to the Federal agency requesting the study and the 
American people. Their reports are also publicly available by 
writing NAPA or from their Internet web site.
    The benefits of this particular amendment to FACA are 
twofold. First, the Federal Government and the American people 
will continue to benefit from the independent high-quality 
studies of NAS and NAPA without undue restrictions. Second, the 
processes used by NAS and NAPA will be more open to scrutiny by 
all interested parties. The American people can be assured that 
all NAS and NAPA studies will be conducted in a balanced and 
objective manner.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on November 
5, 1997, entitled, ``Oversight of the Federal Debt Collection 
Practices.''

                    Subcommittee on Human Resources

1. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Steps Against the Health Threat 
        Posed by ``Mad Cow Disease'' and Other Transmissible Spongiform 
        Encephalopathies [TSEs].
    a. Summary.--The Human Resources Subcommittee reviewed the 
timing and effectiveness of the FDA proposal to prohibit the 
use of certain rendered animal parts in feeds for other 
ruminant animals as a means of protecting the U.S. food supply 
from TSE-infection. It also examined current blood safety and 
risk assessment standards designed to guard against the 
transmission of TSEs through blood and blood products.
    The subcommittee considered FDA, USDA, CDC, and NIH efforts 
to understand and prevent the spread of TSEs; the monitoring of 
agricultural health situations of U.S. trade partners; the lack 
of any known U.S. TSE that is transmissible to humans; and the 
differences between animal-to-animal transmission of bovine 
spongi-form encephalopathy [BSE], or ``Mad Cow Disease,'' and 
human-to-human transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease [CJD], 
a variant form of the human TSE. Members also discussed the 
risk analysis as the vehicle for establishing a rational policy 
for dealing with a little understood disease, as well as the 
methodology used by the agencies in revealing blood 
contamination.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation informed Members and the 
public about the nature and scope of the threat TSE poses to 
the Nation's food supply and blood and animal products. It also 
exposed the challenges presented by the need to develop an 
appropriate response to a public health threat where there is 
little conclusive evidence but theoretical risks of serious or 
even calamitous spread of infection.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Potential Transmission 
of Spongiform Encephalopathies to Humans: The Food and Drug 
Administration's [FDA] Ruminant to Ruminant Feed Ban and the 
Safety of Other Products'' was held on January 29, 1997. 
Testimony was received from the FDA, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's [USDA] Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 
the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the University of 
Southern Alabama School of Medicine, and the Virginia-Maryland 
College of Veterinary Medicine.
2. The Need for Better Focus in the Rural Health Clinic Program.
    a. Summary.--The Human Resources Subcommittee looked into 
the administration of, and allocation of resources in, the 
Nation's rural health clinic [RHC] program, with special 
emphasis on the General Accounting Office [GAO] report 
entitled, ``Rural Health Clinics: Rising Program Expenditures 
Not Focused on Improving Care in Isolated Areas'' and the 
Office of Inspector General [OIG] of the Department of Health 
and Human Services [HHS] report entitled, ``Rural Health 
Clinics: Growth, Access, and Payment.''
    The subcommittee focused on Medicare and Medicaid 
reimbursement policies for RHCs, administered by the HHS Health 
Care Finance Administration [HCFA], and program eligibility 
criteria. It also addressed how rural health care access can be 
measured more accurately and more often, and how to extend the 
reach of Medicare and Medicaid into isolated rural areas more 
efficiently and effectively.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee inquiry exposed the RHC 
program's lack of focus on those people who have difficulty 
obtaining primary care. It also highlighted a growing consensus 
that HCFA ought to revise its Medicare payment policy to hold 
all RHCs to payment limits, or caps, and generated a dialog 
about other tools that would help set the RHC program back on 
track.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``The Need for Better 
Focus in the Rural Health Clinic Program'' was held on February 
13, 1997. Witnesses included representatives from GAO, the IG 
for HHS, HCFA, the HHS Health Resources and Services 
Administration [HRSA], the National Association of Rural Health 
Clinics and the National Rural Health Association. A hearing 
entitled, ``The Need for Better Focus in the Rural Health 
Clinic Program--Part II'' was held on September 11, 1997. 
Testimony was received from private physicians and 
representatives from GAO and HRSA.
3. Cabinet Department and Agency Oversight.
    a. Summary.--The Human Resources Subcommittee, which has 
oversight jurisdiction over those departments and agencies of 
Government managing human service programs, conducted an 
oversight investigation examining the most pressing management 
and programmatic problems facing those departments and agencies 
in the 105th Congress. It also explored the extent to which 
they are able to comply with the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. Over the course of its 
investigation, the subcommittee reviewed budget data, Inspector 
General [IG] reports and audits, and General Accounting Office 
[GAO] studies and recommendations. The undertaking culminated 
in oversight hearings with the Secretaries of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and the Department of 
Labor, as well as representatives of the five Cabinet and 
National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] IG offices, and the GAO.
    The HUD inquiry focused on the problems and challenges that 
led the $40 billion department to be rendered a ``high-risk'' 
agency by the GAO--namely weak internal controls, inadequate 
information and financial management systems, and an 
ineffective organizational structure. In addition, the 
subcommittee addressed IG Susan Gaffney's concern that HUD has 
yet to resolve three major issues: the mismatch of HUD's 
numerous programs and diminishing staff and work capacity; the 
inability of certain offices to oversee the most efficient use 
of taxpayer funds; and the incompatibility of its ``place-
based'' program delivery goals and its program-based 
organizational structure. In response to the subcommittee's 
probe for answers, Secretary Cuomo pointed to downsizing and 
streamlining of the Department and implementation of management 
and legislative reforms as possible solutions.
    The subcommittee's investigation into the Department of 
Labor began with an examination of the Secretary's plans for 
reform of the $38 billion Department, including investment in 
learning and skill development, the movement of people from 
welfare to work, pension protection and the initiation of 
greater pension portability, improved enforcement, and an 
appreciation of family needs. The subcommittee also considered 
the GAO's suggestion that the Department improve management and 
develop new regulatory strategies that are less burdensome and 
more effective than the ones that are currently in place, as 
well as IG Charles Masten's insistence that it improve the 
effectiveness of DOL's employment and training system, 
safeguard pension assets, implement significant new statutory 
mandates, and ensure the integrity of the unemployment 
insurance [UI] system. Masten also cited opportunities for 
savings in the Department's foreign labor programs.
    The oversight inquiry into the Department of Health and 
Human Services [HHS] focused on the IG's concern about three 
program areas in Medicare found to be particularly susceptible 
to waste, fraud and abuse: home health, hospice and durable 
medical equipment. The subcommittee also considered program-
wide issues raised by the GAO such as the need to improve 
accountability, coordination and oversight, generate timely and 
reliable information, identify and correct program 
vulnerabilities, and integrate its information management needs 
as part of its overall process of developing a strategic plan 
in compliance with the GPRA.
    The inquiry into the Department of Veterans Affairs 
generated positive messages about the Department's willingness 
and ability to streamline its focus to reduce the vulnerability 
to waste, fraud and abuse, as well as its attempts to comply 
with the GPRA. However, the subcommittee did find problems in 
its outdated health care system, large backlog in claims and 
appeals, and workman's compensation program.
    In carrying out its oversight responsibility for the 
Department of Education, the subcommittee looked into how well 
the Department satisfied its mission, worked with State and 
local educators, and managed its budget. The subcommittee found 
the areas needing the greatest improvement to be student 
financial aid programs at ``high risk'' of waste, fraud, and 
abuse, persistent data system problems, an inability to curtail 
fraud in grant applications, and a failure to meet the 
performance measure criteria for the GPRA.
    The oversight investigation into the NLRB focused on recent 
efforts to improve the resolution of labor-management disputes, 
the size of the case backlog, the speed of case processing, the 
number of case settlements, and the effectiveness of compliance 
enforcement. It also looked at why the agency has difficulty 
fulfilling the requirements of the GPRA.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's review of Department and 
agency problems and weaknesses provided valuable information 
regarding where and how the Government might reign in the 
capacity for waste, fraud, and abuse. In so doing, the hearings 
gave Members a valuable overview and insight into how to best 
focus their energies as an oversight body and helped lay the 
groundwork for future reform and savings.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a series of oversight 
hearings covering each of the five Cabinet agencies under its 
jurisdiction. ``Oversight of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development [HUD]: Mission, Management, and Performance'' 
was held on February 27. ``Agency Oversight--the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Labor: 
Mission, Management, and Performance'' was held on March 6, 
1997. ``Agency Oversight--the Department of Health and Human 
Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs: Mission, 
Management, and Performance'' was held on March 18, 1997. 
``Oversight of the Department of Education: Mission, Management 
and Performance'' was held on March 20, 1997. ``Department of 
Labor: Mission, Management and Performance'' was held on June 
10, 1997. ``Oversight of the National Labor Relations Board: 
Mission, Management and Performance'' was held on July 24, 
1997.
4. Oversight of the Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy 
        Start Program.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an investigation 
into the Healthy Start Program, a 5-year demonstration 
initiative designed to fight infant mortality. The purpose was 
to explore the extent to which the initiative accomplished its 
mission, HHS's management of the program, and the lessons 
learned.
    Healthy Start began in 1991 with the goal of reducing 
infant deaths by 50 percent in selected communities with infant 
mortality rates above the national average, and emphasized 
innovative approaches to health and other support services to 
combat the problem. The inquiry was intended to draw 
conclusions about the program's strengths and weaknesses in the 
wake of the President's proposal to expand the program to 30 
more sites.
    b. Benefits.--The inquiry generated valuable information 
regarding the potential impact of Healthy Start's community-
driven strategies on the leading causes of infant mortality, 
low birth weight, birth defects, and sudden infant death 
syndrome, as well as how to measure the program's effectiveness 
given the absence of long-term data. The information will prove 
useful to lawmakers, health care professionals, and other 
interested parties as they begin to debate the wisdom of 
expanding this and other related programs.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Healthy Start: Implementation Lessons and Impact on Infant 
Mortality'' on March 13, 1997. Testimony was received from 
representatives from HHS' Health Resources and Services 
Administration [HRSA], the Agency for Health Care Policy and 
Research, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, as well as community project 
directors from the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Cleveland, 
and the Mississippi Delta.
5. Nursing Home Fraud.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed reports of waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the nursing home industry in hopes of 
determining how to improve nursing home regulation for maximum 
taxpayer benefit. During the course of its investigation, the 
subcommittee considered the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse, 
the impact on State Medicaid programs, the effectiveness of 
Medicaid Fraud Control Units [MFCUs] and private industry 
programs in detecting and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, 
the complexity of reimbursement policies, and options for 
coordinating care for beneficiaries eligible for both Medicaid 
and Medicare.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation culminated in two hearings 
which demonstrated the need for greater vigilance over nursing 
home practices and improved enforcement of waste and fraud 
control programs. The undertaking also made complex 
reimbursement and ``pay and chase'' processes, as well as other 
practices that enable over billing and improper claims to slip 
by current control measures, easier to understand and control.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``The Extent, Causes, and 
Effects of Fraud and Abuse in Nursing Homes'' was held on April 
16, 1997. Testimony was received from the Medicaid director for 
operations for the State of Connecticut, the vice president of 
the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units 
[NAMFCU] and the director of Maryland MFCU, the assistant 
attorney general and director of AHCCS Fraud Unit in Arizona 
MFCU, the HHS Deputy Inspector General for Evaluations and 
Inspection, the GAO Associate Director of Health Financing and 
Systems Issues, the executive vice president of the American 
Health Care Association, and the vice president for Public 
Policy for the American Association of Homes and Services for 
the Aging. A hearing entitled, ``Health Care Fraud in Nursing 
Homes--Part II'' was held on July 10, 1997. Testimony was 
received from the Health Care Financing Administration, the 
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, the American 
Association of Retired Persons, and the National Long Term Care 
Ombusdman.
6. Fixing the Consumer Price Index [CPI].
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined proposals by the 
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] to 
improve the accuracy and maintain the integrity of the CPI. As 
the Government and private sector's tool for measuring 
inflation, the CPI is used in the calculation of cost of living 
adjustments [COLAs] for major Federal entitlement programs and 
private pension benefits, giving it the power to wield enormous 
consequences for the economy at large. The subcommittee focused 
its investigation on conflicting views regarding the degree of 
bias in the current CPI, difficulties in quantifying the impact 
of new products and quality improvements on the economy, as 
well as the BLS' ability to create and implement an impartial, 
effective, and timely process to make the changes.
    b. Benefits.--The inquiry taught Members and other 
interested parties about the nature, extent, and source of the 
problems and challenges faced by the BLS as it begins the 
process of adjusting the CPI. The investigation and subsequent 
hearing also shed light on the degree to which the BLS is 
capable of resolving these issues, and whether any immediate 
adjustments can be made pending long-term legislative changes.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Oversight: Fixing the Consumer Price Index'' was 
held on April 30, 1997. Testimony was received from the 
Department of Labor's Commissioner of Labor Statistics and 
private economists.
7. Bio-Ethics and Informed Consent.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed the Federal 
Government's approach to biomedical ethics issues in research 
involving human subjects and the adequacy of informed consent. 
The subcommittee considered the emerging parameters of informed 
consent in view of recent scientific advances in areas such as 
cloning and gene therapies and increased research budgets, with 
particular attention to vulnerable patient populations 
including children, mentally ill and drug addicted individuals, 
as well as current procedures used to address bioethics 
questions and disputes.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation revealed deficiencies in 
the evaluations and oversight needed to maintain a rigorous 
bioethical review system, institutional barriers and logistical 
obstacles in the policing of thousands of research projects, 
and a false sense of security that difficult issues are being 
confronted. The ensuing hearing then sharpened questions 
regarding the mechanism used to address these ethical issues, 
and provided information that will prove valuable in future 
reform efforts.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the NIH 
and FDA: Bio-Ethics and the Adequacy of Informed Consent'' was 
held on May 8, 1997. Testimony was received from 
representatives of the Department of Health and Human Services, 
the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the 
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and scholars from the 
University of Pennsylvania, the University of California-San 
Francisco, and the University of Arizona.
8. Analysis of the Medicare Transaction System [MTS].
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee, working in conjunction with 
the Government Management, Information, and Technology 
Subcommittee, reviewed problems associated with the Health Care 
Financing Administration's [HCFA] multi-million dollar 
development of MTS. The investigation looked at a cost-benefit 
analysis of MTS, projected overall costs of design and 
implementation of the system, and the adequacy of HCFA's 
management and oversight of the project. Other issues addressed 
were HCFA's management of Medicare's nine claims processing 
systems that are being used while MTS is being developed, and 
the agency's preparations for ``the millennium problem'' when 
computers may not recognize dates after the year 2000.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation revealed the nature and 
extent of critical managerial and technical weaknesses that 
continue to delay and undermine the MTS effort, the process 
through which HCFA is reassessing the MTS project, and 
prospects for its completion by the year 2000. This information 
will prove useful to those engaged in efforts to contain HCFA's 
spiraling costs.
    c. Hearings.--A joint hearing with the Government 
Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee entitled, 
``Status of the Medicare Transaction System'' was held on May 
16, 1997. Testimony was received from the Director of 
Information Resources at the General Accounting Office, the 
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, the 
vice president and general manager of the Information Systems 
Division at GTE, and the vice president of Intermetrics Systems 
Services Corp.
9. Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] Enforcement of Blood Safety 
        Regulations.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined the effectiveness of 
the FDA's enforcement practices in ensuring the safety of the 
blood supply. Members considered the adequacy of the FDA's 
inspection and enforcement practices for the blood and plasma 
industries, the response to accident and error reports, the 
effectiveness of the Blood Products Advisory Committee [BPAC] 
and the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy [TSE] Advisory 
Committee, and the agency's recall and notification practices. 
The subcommittee also reviewed the current regulatory approach 
to the risks associated with pooled plasma products, with 
particular attention to the relationship between the size of 
the plasma pool and the risk of infectious disease 
transmission.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation demonstrated the need for 
continued systemic improvements in the inspection of blood 
facilities and in the methods used to notify practitioners and 
patients of potentially unsafe products. It also helped 
elucidate Members and others as to the risks associated with 
the possible transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease [CJD] 
through blood transfusion and the effectiveness of surveillance 
efforts to detect the presence of CJD in the blood supply.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``FDA Regulation of Blood 
Safety: Notification, Recall and Enforcement Practices'' was 
held on June 5, 1997. Testimony was received from 
representatives of the General Accounting Office, the Office of 
Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and the Food and Drug Administration. A hearing 
entitled, ``Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Oversight: Blood 
Safety and the Implications of Pool Sizes in the Manufacture of 
Plasma Derivatives'' was held on July 31, 1997. Testimony was 
received from representatives of the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the 
Food and Drug Administration, the National Hemophilia 
Foundation, the Immune Deficiency Foundation, the American Red 
Cross, and all the major plasma fractionators.
10. Reducing Education Mandates.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee looked at the regulatory 
burdens and mandates on schools that may detract from 
educators' mission of teaching children. The investigation 
explored how education could be deregulated to achieve maximum 
flexibility in using Federal education dollars to improve 
teaching and learning. The inquiry explored the scope and 
effects of existing Federal mandates, potentially conflicting 
Federal, State, and local government mandates, current options 
for mandate relief, and alternative models of regulatory 
flexibility.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation revealed how mandates 
affect educators and how their requirements and restrictions 
might be eased or facilitated. It also brought to light the 
need for schools and school districts to have greater access to 
technical assistance to make educators aware of existing 
flexibility provisions. Finally, it demonstrated a tendency of 
mandates to have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged 
urban districts that find it hard to raise money through 
increased property taxes, and suggested ways in which this 
inconsistency might be resolved.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Reducing Regulatory 
Mandates on Education'' was held on June 12, 1997. Testimony 
was received from Representatives Rob Portman (R-OH), Kay 
Granger (R-TX), and Gary Condit (D-CA), and representatives 
from the National School Boards Association, the American 
Association of School Administrators, the Association of School 
Business Administrators, the Texas Association of School 
Boards, and the National Education Association.
11. Restructuring the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] Medical 
        Services.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee explored the impact of VA 
health services restructuring and resource allocation on the 
quality of care at VA facilities, with particular attention to 
hospitals in Castle Point and Montrose, NY. The subcommittee 
considered how the VA measures the quality of health care 
provided to veterans, the impact of budget cuts imposed under 
the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation [VERA] system, as 
well as how the VA plans to assure the consistent quality of 
medical care in the new ``integrated'' structure.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation demonstrated the existence 
of financial incentives for Senior Executive civil servants 
awarded according to their progress in meeting VA goals, 
including the achievement of Veterans Integrated Service 
Network [VISN] savings. It also gave the subcommittee and 
general public the opportunity to review the extent to which VA 
reform measures were examined prior to their implementation, 
the degree to which they have helped or hurt veterans, and the 
way in which they are viewed by the men and women they are 
supposed to aid.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Restructuring VA 
Medical Services: Measuring and Maintaining the Quality of 
Care'' was held on August 4, 1997, at the Wallkill Community 
Center in Middletown, NY. Testimony was received from 
representatives of VISN 3, the VA Office of Performance 
Management, the New York State Division of Veterans Affairs, 
the Orange County Veterans Service Agency, the Rockland County 
Veterans Service Agency, the Sullivan County Veterans Service 
Agency, the Dutchess County Veterans Service Organization, and 
a large number of public witnesses.
12. Pfiesteria and Public Health.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed State and Federal 
public health responses to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, 
the alleged source of fish kills and human illness in Maryland, 
North Carolina and other areas, to determine Federal and State 
governments' ability to respond to new public health threats 
presented by emerging infectious agents and toxins.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation and ensuing hearings 
suggested ways to improve the sensitivity and effectiveness of 
State and national programs, policies, and practices designed 
to prevent and reduce the Pfiesteria threat. It also revealed 
unprecedented ways in which leaders in Government, science, 
medicine, agriculture might work together to design and 
implement a more unified response.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Pfiesteria and Food 
Safety: the State Response'' was held on September 25, 1997. 
Testimony was received from the Governor of Maryland and 
representatives from North Carolina State University and the 
University of Maryland School of Medicine, the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services for the State of North Carolina, the 
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources for the State of 
North Carolina, the commissioner of the Department of Health 
for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and author Rodney Barker. A 
hearing entitled, ``Pfiesteria and Food Safety: the Federal 
Response'' was also held on September 25, 1997. Testimony was 
received from representatives from the Department of Commerce, 
the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
13. Job Corps.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined Job Corps' success 
in training people for employment, including the degree to 
which the program ensures client commitment, removes barriers 
to employment, improves employability skills, and links skill 
training to the local job market. The investigation drew 
heavily from the results of a General Accounting Office [GAO] 
examination of the Department of Labor's management of Job 
Corps recruitment and placement contractors in terms of how 
they demand and measure success in client commitment and long 
term job potential.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation unearthed a need for Job 
Corps to generate more data in order to maintain a stronger 
focus on performance and accountability, with hearing witnesses 
providing suggestions as to how this might be achieved. 
According to GAO and the Department of Labor Inspector General, 
high program drop-out rates may indicate contractors need to 
revise Job Corps admissions standards, while poor job placement 
prevents the Government from determining the program's 
benefits.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Job Corps Oversight: 
Recruitment and Placement Standards'' was held on October 23, 
1997. Testimony was received from representatives from GAO, the 
Office of Inspector General for the Department of Labor, Job 
Corps, the Clearfield Job Corps Center, the Hubert H. Humphrey 
Job Corps Center, the David L. Carrasco Job Corps Center, as 
well as a Job Corps graduate.
14. Privatization of Child Support Enforcement Services.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee looked at the benefits, 
challenges, and future course of State and local efforts to 
privatize social service programs, with special emphasis on 
child support enforcement. The investigation considered 
testimony and data from various sources, including a report by 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] on the benefits, problems, 
performance, and cost effectiveness of efforts to privatize 
child support enforcement services [CSE].
    The subcommittee also reviewed H.R. 399, the ``Subsidy 
Termination for Overdue Payments [STOP] Act'' introduced by 
Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL). The legislation would 
require parents to pay child support obligations or face loss 
of Federal financial assistance, with a ``good cause'' 
exception to avoid penalizing parents in situations where they 
are unable to satisfy their child support obligation due to 
factors beyond their control.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation injected the debate over 
the CSE privatization efforts of State and local governments 
with a historical perspective, as well as an understanding of 
the key issues surrounding State and local privatized services, 
with particular attention to implications for Federal policy. 
The inquiry also yielded an appreciation of the negative 
effects that the absence of robust competition, lack of 
experience specifying contract results, or failure to monitor 
performance can have on privatization benefits and program 
quality.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Social Services 
Privatization: the Benefits and Challenges to Child Support 
Enforcement Programs'' was held on November 4, 1997. Testimony 
was received from Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) and 
representatives from the GAO, Policy Studies Inc., Lockheed 
Martin IMS, Maximus Inc., G.C. Services, the Ventura County 
District Attorney's Office, and the Association for Children 
for Enforcement of Support.

    Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and 
                           Regulatory Affairs

1. Investigation of the White House Database.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee has been investigating and 
continues to investigate the misuse of the White House Database 
[WhoDB] for unauthorized purposes. This investigation has been 
a part of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's 
investigation of campaign fundraising abuses. This 
investigation was first referred to the subcommittee by 
Chairman William F. Clinger, Jr., in the 104th Congress.
    This referral was reaffirmed at the beginning of the 105th 
Congress by Chairman Dan Burton and ratified in writing on July 
17, 1997.
    b. Benefits.--The misuse of the WhoDB implicates the Anti-
Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), which prohibits the use of 
funds authorized by Congress for unauthorized purposes and 18 
U.S.C. 641 which imposes criminal sanctions for the use of 
Government property for nongovernmental purposes.
    According to documents produced to the subcommittee by the 
White House, creation of the WhoDB involved approximately $1.7 
million of taxpayer funds. The subcommittee is investigating 
whether the White House converted this government asset to 
assist the private political purposes of the President and the 
Democratic National Committee. The subcommittee has received 
more than 35,000 pages of documents and spoken to more than 20 
witnesses. The subcommittee expects to continue its 
investigation during the second session of the 105th Congress. 
The documents produced to the subcommittee and the testimony of 
the witnesses continue to suggest that the WhoDB was misused 
for unauthorized purposes.
2. Investigation of the Misuse of Statistics by the Department of 
        Energy.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee has initiated an inquiry into 
the use of statistics by the Department of Energy to 
misrepresent its activity in making grants to disadvantaged 
business enterprises.
    b. Benefits.--Such misrepresentations undermine the 
credibility of the Department and reflect a political agenda 
that may be inconsistent with the program requirements. The 
subcommittee expects to investigate the matter further during 
the second session of the 105th Congress.
3. Investigation of OIRA'S Review of NAAQS Rules.
    a. Summary.--EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
[NAAQS] for particulate matter and ozone were considered a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 
and were reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs [OIRA] of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. 
OIRA approved the rules as complying with the requirements of 
the order. The NAAQS rulemaking was one of the most significant 
regulatory actions of this year, expected to impose costs of 
over $9 billion per year on the regulated public for partial 
attainment. Because of the major impact of these rules, the 
subcommittee has carefully investigated OIRA's involvement in 
the rulemaking to determine the extent to which OIRA performed 
its regulatory review obligations under President Clinton's 
Executive Order 12866 and ensured that the proposed rules 
complied with all applicable statutes and Executive orders.
    b. Benefits.--The investigation has thus far exposed 
serious deficiencies in OIRA's conduct of regulatory review 
pursuant to Executive orders and procedural statutes. As a 
result, the subcommittee better understands specific areas in 
which the regulatory review process needs further oversight and 
reform. OIRA has repeatedly failed to cooperate fully with 
congressional oversight efforts.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on ``EPA's 
Particulate Matter and Ozone Rulemaking: Is EPA Above the 
Law?'' on April 16 and 23, 1997.
4. Securities and Exchange Commission.
    a. Summary.--From March 1996 through April 1997, the 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, 
and Regulatory Affairs reviewed the official travel policies 
and procedures of the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]. 
Based upon its investigation, the subcommittee recommended that 
the SEC begin following the internal guidelines set out by the 
SEC Comptroller, particularly those in a July 9, 1993, memo on 
first-class travel, which states that employees should not fly 
first class even at their own expense.
    The subcommittee recommended and the SEC implemented the 
following reforms:
         Strictly construe the FTR's requirements for 
        approvals of upgrades for travel or lodging 
        accommodations, and require explicit justifications for 
        such upgrades consistent with FTR requirements.
         Do not construe the FTR to permit travel 
        upgrades to business class for the reason that official 
        business needs to be conducted in flight, even if the 
        official work is confidential in nature.
         Continue to caution SEC travelers to be 
        circumspect about doing work on confidential or 
        sensitive matters while traveling to protect against 
        inadvertent or premature disclosure of confidential or 
        sensitive information. (The subcommittee has concluded 
        that neither business- nor first-class travel 
        significantly enhances the opportunity to maintain 
        confidentiality of agency documents or records.\36\ )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ The subcommittee does not believe that the exceptional 
security circumstances cited in the FTR include maintaining 
confidentiality of agency records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Include the specific FTR justification for any 
        travel upgrade in a written approval memorandum, which 
        must be submitted to the SEC's Comptroller's Office 
        with the travel voucher before any reimbursement for 
        upgrade expenses is approved. Consistent with current 
        practice, that memorandum should be retained with the 
        agency's official records relating to the trip.
         If a traveler receives an upgrade for lodging, 
        and he or she stays at a hotel with a rate in excess of 
        the maximum approved rate for subsistence expenses 
        (currently up to 150 percent of the standard per diem 
        allowance) (the maximum per diem allowance), determine, 
        on a case-by-case basis, whether the appropriate 
        reimbursement is the standard per diem allowance or the 
        maximum per diem allowance.
    Factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, 
the following:
          1) net savings to the Government due to the proximity 
        of the chosen hotel to the location of work which would 
        lessen related transportation costs to be paid by the 
        Government;
          2) reasonable personal safety concerns, particularly 
        relative to persons traveling alone; and
          3) attendance at conferences or meetings which take 
        place at hotels with rates above the maximum per diem 
        allowance.
    Increasing the lodging allowance up to the maximum per diem 
allowance for a particular locality should be considered 
exceptional--travelers are expected to attempt to find 
reasonable accommodations within the per diem allowance set by 
GSA. The traveler bears the burden of persuasion to satisfy the 
SEC's Office of the Comptroller that the traveler should 
receive more than the standard per diem allowance. The 
subcommittee is of the view that justifying a rate above the 
standard per diem allowance on the basis of attending 
conferences or meetings at hotels with rates above the maximum 
per diem allowance is appropriate only if the traveler stays on 
site, at a less expensive hotel in close proximity to the 
conference or meeting site, or if no other hotel is reasonably 
available.
         Consult with the Inspector General to 
        implement a periodic audit by the Inspector General's 
        office of agency travel vouchers, including those in 
        which upgrades have been approved, to determine 
        compliance with the FTR and agency policies.
         Require all SEC travelers to attach used 
        airline ticket stubs, demonstrating the class of 
        accommodations used by the traveler, to their travel 
        vouchers.
         Review and approve requests for travel 
        upgrades on a uniform basis.
    b. Benefits.--The SEC has agreed to implement all of the 
subcommittee's recommended reforms. Many of these 
recommendations are not reforms; rather, they require 
enforcement of internal agency travel policies and Federal 
travel regulations already on the books. In adopting these 
recommendations, the SEC has come into compliance with the 
regulations which govern all Federal employees' travel.
    The SEC's Inspector General is making quarterly reports to 
the subcommittee on compliance with the travel reforms. Reports 
were submitted in October 1997 and January 1998, showing full 
compliance. The subcommittee hopes that the SEC will begin to 
serve as an example of an agency that fully complies with its 
internal travel policies and the Federal travel regulations, 
with the benefit being, the protection of taxpayer dollars.
    c. Hearings.--None.
5. Oversight of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Programs.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted oversight into the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's (the Corps) wetlands program. The 
subcommittee held an oversight hearing on this issue in 
Marietta, GA, on June 16, 1997. The hearing, ``Wetlands: 
Community and Individual Rights vs. Unchecked Government 
Power,'' examined particular difficulties that local citizens 
and the county government had in obtaining permits from the 
Corps to develop their property.
    First, the hearing covered the issue of the Corps' denial 
of a permit for Cobb County to build the West Cobb Loop, a 
much-needed roadway to ease traffic congestion in the area. The 
Corps denied the permit because it favored an alternate route 
which would not impact any wetlands, but would affect more than 
700 homes, 2 churches and a school in the West Sandtown 
community, and force residents in 39 homes to completely 
relocate.
    Second, the hearing examined the problems Robert Dabbs, a 
small, local developer of subdivisions, experienced in 
obtaining a permit from the Corps. The Corps put a Cease and 
Desist Order on his entire development project, although he 
only affected 0.63 of an acre of wetlands in the 111-acre 
residential development. Mr. Dabbs cooperated with the Corps' 
every request, spending thousands of dollars to comply, but the 
Corps did not have time to look at his paperwork. At the time 
of the hearing, Mr. Dabbs was on the brink of financial ruin 
due to the Corps' delay. One of his partners had already folded 
and 165 construction workers' jobs had been eliminated.
    Third, the hearing examined the situation of Grady Brown, 
an elderly cattle rancher and businessman. The Corps stopped 
him from using part of his own land because the Georgia 
Department of Transportation [DOT] inadvertently flooded it 10 
years previously, creating a wetland. The DOT recognized their 
error and drained the property, but when the Corps found out, 
they ordered the DOT to undo their work and reflood the land. 
The Corps left Mr. Brown with a lot of useless swamp land and 
no recourse but to go through a long and likely futile 
permitting process or to engage in a costly, protracted legal 
battle.
Background: Federal Wetlands Regulations
    The key program under which wetlands are regulated by the 
Federal Government is found in Section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act [CWA], which was established in 1972. Under Section 404, 
landowners and developers must get permits from the Corps 
before conducting any work which results in the disposal of 
dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States, 
including wetlands. The Section 404 program is jointly 
administered by the Corps and the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA]. Section 404 authorizes States to take over the 
administration of permits, but the process to do so is very 
complex and only two States have assumed this responsibility--
Michigan and New Jersey.
    The Corps issues general permits for activities that will 
only have a minor impact on wetlands and individual permits for 
more extensive activities. General permits, which are issued 
for 5-year periods, allow activities in their scope to go 
forward without individual review, reducing paperwork and 
delay. Over 80 percent of the approximately 50,000 activities 
permitted by the Corps each year are covered by general 
permits.
    In December 1996, the Corps reissued its 37 nationwide 
permits [NWPs], as its general permits are known, and added 2 
new ones. The Corps made a few significant revisions to the 
NWPs. Most importantly, it is phasing out the Nationwide 26 
permit which authorizes discharges into isolated waters (not 
connected or adjacent to surface waters) and headwaters 
(minimal flow waters) affecting up to 10 acres. The Corps has 
reauthorized NWP 26 for 2 years. After 2 years, NWP 26 will be 
eliminated entirely and replaced by new, activity-specific 
permits. While NWP 26 remains in existence, it has been reduced 
to cover only those activities affecting up to 3 acres. A 
preconstruction notification is now required for any activity 
affecting more than one third of an acre, reduced from 1 acre. 
Landowners and developers have voiced great concern that the 
Corps will not be able to replace NWP 26 sufficiently and that 
the increased workload of granting individual permits for all 
the activities that were formerly covered by NWP 26 will result 
in long, costly delays. Over 20,000 activities occur under NWP 
26 every year.
    The subcommittee examined a study recently released by the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI], which concluded that 
wetlands restoration has exploded in the last decade resulting 
in ``no net loss'' of wetlands. In fact, the study reported, 
there has been a net gain in wetlands. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Natural Resource and Conservation Service has 
conducted a survey of wetlands across the Nation as part of its 
most recent National Resources Inventory [NRI]. The NRI showed 
a trend of wetland losses that indicates about 141,000 acres of 
wetlands were lost in 1995. In the same year, three non-
regulatory wetland restoration programs of the USDA restored at 
least 187,000 acres of wetlands. These programs are the 
Partners For Wildlife Program, the North American Waterfowl 
Management Plan, and the Wetland Reserve Program. Wetland 
restoration is defined as ``the re-establishment of wetland 
hydrology and wetland vegetation to lands which had previously 
been drained, typically for agricultural purposes.'' 
Restoration is distinct from creation of a new wetland where 
none existed previously or enhancement of an existing wetland 
to improve its functioning.
    b. Benefits.--As a result of the subcommittee's oversight 
hearing, the Corps agreed to readdress the West Cobb Loop and 
Robert Dabbs' permit issues, as well as drainage of the wetland 
on Grady Brown's property.
    At the hearing, Cobb County Department of Transportation 
Director Jim Croy testified on behalf of Cobb County on the 
West Cobb Loop issue. The Commission's application for a permit 
to build the road was rejected by the Corps because the chosen 
route would impact 11 acres of wetlands--not the ``least 
environmentally damaging alternative.'' The Commission and 
local citizens chose the route that would impact some wetlands 
because it would have the smallest impact on the residents of 
the area. They also offered to mitigate the impact by creating 
eight times as many wetlands and building bridges where 
possible to span the wetlands, making the project more 
expensive. The route the Corps preferred would widen an 
existing road through a residential neighborhood, affecting 
700+ homes, 1 school and 2 churches, and forcing the complete 
relocation of 39 homes. This route would not touch any 
wetlands. The route the county chose would only force the 
relocation of three homes. The citizens of Cobb County feel 
strongly that there is a need for this road to ease the traffic 
on smaller roads. They are paying for the road directly from 
their own tax dollars--no Federal funds--through a 1 percent 
tax they voted to impose on themselves for road improvement 
projects.
    Two citizens testified about the impact the road would have 
on their community if the Corps' preferred route was chosen. 
Chris McLean and David Parr addressed issues of community 
safety and well-being. There is a school on the road the Corps 
wanted to widen. Children walk to school along that road every 
day. The road connects several housing subdivisions. The rate 
of accidents in this residential area would greatly increase if 
the road was widened from two to five lanes and the speed 
increased.
    Col. Grant M. Smith, District Commander of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers Savannah District, testified on behalf the 
Corps. He made the decision to reject the county's application 
for a permit to build the West Cobb Loop. At the hearing, Col. 
Smith agreed to work with the county on its re-proposal of a 
route for the West Cobb Loop. To date, Cobb County has 
submitted a new application for a permit to build on a route 
similar to the one in its first proposal. Currently, the 
application is in a joint comment period. According to Cobb 
County officials, it is likely that the application will be 
approved and a permit will be granted to begin construction in 
March or April 1998.
    In the case of a permit for Robert Dabbs' housing 
subdivision, Col. Smith testified that he was not aware of the 
costly delays caused by the Corps, and he apologized for them. 
He announced that the Corps had scheduled a meeting to inspect 
Mr. Dabbs' property again on June 18 (2 days after the 
hearing). At the inspection, the Corps agreed with the 
delineation Mr. Dabbs' engineer had determined--they settled on 
0.9 of an acre of wetlands. Mr. Dabbs applied for an after-the-
fact permit from the Corps for his development, and he will 
mitigate for the wetlands he disturbed. The Corps gave him a 
letter releasing the part of the development that isn't wetland 
for construction to continue.
    Col. Smith was not able to be as accommodating in Mr. 
Brown's case. Because the regulations do not distinguish 
between man-made and natural wetlands, both must be protected. 
But he agreed to reconsider the issue to determine if a 
mutually agreeable solution could be reached. The case has not 
yet been resolved satisfactorily.
    c. Hearings.--A field hearing was held on this matter on 
June 16, 1997, in Marietta, GA, ``Wetlands: Community and 
Individual Rights v. Unchecked Government Power.''
6. Oversight of the Security and Exchange Commission's ``Disclosure of 
        Accounting Policies for Derivative Financial Instruments and 
        Derivative Commodity Instruments'' (derivative rule).
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted a substantial 
review of the SEC's derivative rule, which was promulgated on 
February 10, 1997, to determine whether the rule was sound and 
efficient and whether the SEC had complied with the statutory 
requirements of the underlying securities law (National 
Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996) and the 
Congressional Review Act under the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (Public Law 104-121). The subcommittee 
sent the SEC oversight letters on March 17, 20, and 28, 1997, 
requesting a complete copy of the initial and final regulatory 
flexibility analysis for the rule, among other materials.
    The subcommittee reviewed all the documents submitted by 
the SEC and conducted extensive interviews of the SEC Chief 
Economist, the SEC Chief Accountant, the SEC Deputy Chief 
Accountant, and an SEC Assistant General Counsel, all of whom 
were involved in the derivative rulemaking process. The 
subcommittee also interviewed a number of outside economic 
experts, market analysts, and securities experts and met with a 
variety of interested parties in the regulated community. In 
addition, the subcommittee has carefully reviewed the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Securities in their report dated April 21, 1997 (Report of the 
Subcommittee on Securities on Proposals by the Securities and 
Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards 
Board for the Accounting Treatment of Financial Derivatives). 
Based on this substantial review of the derivative rule, we 
find additional support for and endorse the findings and 
conclusions of the Senate report.
    Most significantly, the subcommittee reviewed a memorandum 
from the SEC Office of Economic Analysis dated January 7, 1997, 
which presents a thorough and persuasive critique of the 
quantitative disclosure requirements of the derivative rule. 
The memorandum suggests that the market has already responded 
positively to the concerns that arose a few years ago in well-
publicized cases and will continue to do so without any action 
by the SEC. In contrast to the direction the market is taking, 
the SEC's Chief Economist states that the derivative rule, 
particularly its quantitative disclosure requirements, ``has 
the potential to create misleading representations of market 
risks in the registrants'' disclosures.'' In fact, the SEC's 
Chief Economist wrote that under the rule ``some risk 
disclosures will be misleading.'' (Emphasis added.) To cite but 
one example, the Chief Economist wrote that ``a registrant may 
be at considerable risk due [to its] derivatives positions and 
yet report a quantitative risk of zero under the [derivative 
rule].'' Finally, the Chief Economist wrote that the 
quantitative disclosure requirements of the derivative rule 
will likely cause market participants to shift to over-the-
counter contracts that entail even greater risk. As the 
memorandum relates, the rule ``creates incentives for financial 
engineering and a movement of trading to over-the-counter 
markets from financial exchanges.'' In short, it appears that 
the SEC's Chief Economist believed that no quantitative 
disclosure requirement was necessary and that the requirements 
in the rule the SEC has issued will be misleading and 
counterproductive.
    Apart from the persuasive criticism of the derivative rule 
in the memorandum, the subcommittee is most troubled that the 
Chief Economist's conclusions, and many other comments that the 
SEC received from the regulated community on the quantitative 
disclosure requirements, appear to have been completely ignored 
by the SEC's Office of the Chief Accountant and others at the 
SEC. Sadly, the subcommittee has concluded that the SEC 
regulated for the sake of regulating, rather than for the 
protection of investors.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee concluded, in accordance 
with the Senate Subcommittee on Securities' Report, that the 
derivative rule is problematic for the following reasons.
    1. There is no justification for requiring quantification 
of derivative risks, as the derivative rule requires, but not 
requiring quantification of the following intangible risks, 
each of which the SEC Chief Economist said usually has a larger 
impact on a public company's stock value:
         changes in company management;
         the possibility of a labor strike;
         changes in a competitor's line of products or 
        services;
         development of valuable patent rights;
         good or bad marketing decisions;
         increases or decreases in the cost of 
        manufacturing inputs; and,
         all other good or bad business decisions.
    2. Although the market developed the valuation methods that 
the SEC now requires under the derivative rule, the market 
players who developed the tools oppose mandatory disclosure. By 
mandating disclosure, the derivative rule, creates an incentive 
for the market not to develop or improve such risk management 
tools in the future, for derivatives or for any of the other 
risks listed above.
    3. The SEC Chief Economist admitted in an internal memo and 
in a subcommittee interview that none of the derivative 
debacles of the past would have been prevented by the new 
derivative rule.
    4. The SEC's initial economic analysis and cost estimate on 
the derivative rule was simply guesswork on the part of the 
Deputy Chief Accountant with no input from the SEC Office of 
Economic Analysis. The SEC's final economic analysis was based 
on anecdotal interviews by the Deputy Chief Accountant, who has 
since left, with only minimal review by the SEC Office of 
Economic Analysis. The Senate Subcommittee on Securities found 
that the SEC had violated Section 106 of the National 
Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 by not conducting a 
real cost benefit analysis. The Subcommittee on National 
Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affair 
concurs with this conclusion.
    5. The actual direct cost of compliance with the derivative 
rule will far exceed the SEC's estimates. Interviews with the 
CFOs of several major corporations convinced the subcommittee 
that the SEC's final cost estimate was based on faulty 
assumptions about the amount of time it would take to comply 
with the rule.
    6. Those companies to which the derivative rule applies are 
at serious risk of competitive harm because they are forced to 
disclose sensitive information that their foreign competitors 
and those domestic companies which are not covered by the rule 
do not have to disclose.
    7. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the analyses 
required by the derivative rule will be too complex for most 
investors to follow. Therefore, the rule will provide 
misleading information to investors.
    8. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the analyses 
required by the derivative rule will also be misleading because 
the various options the rule allows for reporting derivative 
risk are not compatible. Companies are given three options for 
quantitative reporting: tabular presentation (describing the 
fair value and contract terms), ``sensitivity analysis'' 
(describing potential earnings and losses under various market 
fluctuations), and ``value at risk'' (describing potential 
losses within a historical context). It would be difficult, if 
not impossible, for most investors to compare what one company 
puts in one format and another company puts in another format.
    9. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the derivative 
rule will create an incentive for firms to move from financial 
exchanges to over-the-counter or other non-cash settled 
commodity markets, thus increasing the risk to investors.
    10. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the derivative 
rule will create an incentive for firms to engage in less 
hedging activity, thus increasing the risk to investors. This 
is the case because derivatives are used by companies primarily 
to reduce risk. The companies that use derivatives oppose the 
rule because it requires them to disclose financial trade 
secrets. If these companies have to disclose information about 
how they use derivatives to their competitors, it is not as 
worthwhile for them to use derivatives. Thus, the rule creates 
an incentive for companies to use fewer derivatives. Using 
fewer derivatives creates more risk for the companies' 
investors.
    11. Although the ``safe-harbor'' provision of the SEC rule 
is an attempt to limit the litigation arising from the rule, 
the sbcommittee believes that substantial litigation remains 
likely to occur.
    c. Hearings.--None.
7. EPA's Particulate and Ozone Rulemaking.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted significant 
oversight of the process that the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA] followed in developing new air quality standards 
for particulate matter [PM] and ozone. This review focused on 
EPA's compliance with Federal laws and procedures intended to 
assure that regulations will not do more harm than good. In 
particular, the subcommittee examined the Agency's compliance 
with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA], Regulatory Flexibility Act 
[RFA], the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act [UMRA] and Executive 
Order 12866, and with the administrative procedures set forth 
in the Clean Air Act.
    On November 27, 1996, EPA proposed revisions to tighten 
dramatically the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] 
for particulate matter and ozone. The new NAAQS, which were 
finalized in July 1997, will regulate fine particles and impose 
a lower acceptable level of smog measured over a longer time 
period. Under the Clean Air Act, NAAQS are required to be set 
at a level that is ``requisite to protect the public health,'' 
while ``allowing an adequate margin of safety.'' Throughout the 
rulemaking proceeding, EPA Administrator Carol Browner 
persistently maintained that the Clean Air Act allows the 
Agency to consider only health factors in its decisionmaking. 
Therefore, she insisted that UMRA's regulatory requirements did 
not apply and that EPA could not consider the results of its 
regulatory impact analyses in determining whether to revise the 
current standards. She also argued that RFA and SBREFA did not 
apply, because these health-based standards do not, in 
themselves, have any direct regulatory effect. Moreover, she 
stated that it is not feasible to conduct regulatory impact 
analyses at the NAAQS-setting stage, because the Agency does 
not know what specific regulatory requirements a State will 
choose for implementing the standards.
    However, EPA's analyses assume that the available science 
indicates a threshold for unacceptable risk from which EPA 
could set a standard allowing an adequate margin of safety. In 
fact, this assumption ignores the findings of EPA's own 
scientific advisory committee. Based on the best available 
science, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee [CASAC] 
determined that there are no such bright scientific lines. 
Indeed, CASAC indicated that there is no scientific proof that 
EPA's standards will measurably improve public health. In the 
case of ozone, the panel concluded that the proposed standard 
was not significantly more protective of public health than the 
current one. In the case of PM, they found significant 
uncertainty surrounding the health effects of fine particles. 
In their view, there is no compelling evidence on which to set 
more restrictive standards at this time. As a result, CASAC 
concluded that science could not make the judgment call on 
EPA's new standards.
    In the face of inconclusive science and the prospect of 
questionable public health benefits, compliance with ``good 
government'' procedures takes on added significance. Under 
these circumstances, sound policy judgments can be made only 
after (1) a careful balancing of the weight of the available 
scientific evidence against anticipated costs, risks, and 
likely benefits; and (2) an adequate opportunity for review and 
comment. For this reason, the subcommittee closely reviewed 
EPA's compliance with the Federal laws, Executive orders, and 
administrative procedures that require the Agency (1) to 
analyze and take into account a range of factors in exercising 
its discretion on proper risk management; and (2) to allow 
ample time for the filing and review of comments. The 
investigation focused on the following problems:
    Regulatory Flexibility Act.--EPA certified that its rules 
will not have a significant impact on small business. This 
finding is very problematic because EPA indicated that these 
rules will have a significant economic effect on a substantial 
number of small entities in its regulatory impact analyses. 
Moreover, the Agency has previously prepared analyses of small 
business effects in other NAAQS-setting rulemakings. Finally, 
the Small Business Administration, the controlling legal 
authority, determined that EPA was required to do so in this 
rulemaking proceeding.
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.--EPA has insisted that the 
Clean Air Act (Act) prohibits it from complying with the 
requirements of UMRA. Therefore, EPA did not prepare a written 
statement that evaluated the effects of its changes on State, 
local, and tribal governments and the private sector or provide 
an explanation why the Agency could not select the least 
costly, most cost-effective, and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the Act. Nor did EPA involve 
State and local officials in developing its rules. Yet, the 
Agency had the discretion not to change the existing air 
quality standards and this NAAQS review involved policy 
judgments.
    Executive Order 12866.--Although EPA considered it 
appropriate to evaluate alternative regulatory options, the 
Agency maintained that it would be inconsistent with the Clean 
Air Act for the Agency to take into account the results of its 
economic analyses in determining which option to select. This 
is problematic in light of CASAC's conclusion that science 
could not make the judgment call in this rulemaking proceeding.
    Regulatory Impact Analyses.--At the proposing stage, EPA 
failed to perform full cost analyses of its changes to the PM 
and ozone standards and available alternatives, even though 
doing so would have enabled a more informed evaluation of the 
achievability of these standards and their net benefits.
    Risk Management.--In developing its new PM2.5 annual 
standard, the Agency did not give appropriate weight to the 
inconclusive nature of the scientific evidence on the health 
effects of fine particles, especially the significant 
uncertainties raised by CASAC. Moreover, in spite of the 
marginal public health benefits that its ozone proposal would 
provide and its own determination that the costs of 
implementing the standard would outweigh the benefits, EPA 
preferred this option to issuing an 8-hour equivalent of the 
current standard.
    PM Research.--Despite the many unanswered questions and 
uncertainties surrounding the mortality effects of fine 
particles, EPA refused to validate the two key government-
funded prospective studies upon which the Agency relied, by 
obtaining and making available to the public for independent 
review the data underlying those studies.
    Opportunity for Review.--EPA did not find it necessary to 
provide an adequate opportunity for public comment and 
regulatory review before adopting any revisions to the PM and 
ozone NAAQS. This is very problematic given the complexity of 
this NAAQS review, which addressed both the PM and ozone 
standards, and the amount of time allocated in the past to 
reviewing just one standard. In the case of the ozone standard, 
this is particularly egregious because EPA was not under a 
court-ordered deadline to review that standard. Moreover, in 
its filing with the District Court in Arizona seeking an 
extension of the deadlines for the particulate matter 
rulemaking, EPA recognized that the court provided ``an 
extraordinarily short time period'' for reviewing and 
responding to public comments in a rulemaking of this nature. 
Under such severe time constraints, it is highly dubious that 
EPA was able to perform a meaningful review of all of the 
comments filed on both the PM and ozone proposals.
    In pursuing its oversight work, the subcommittee sent 
letters of inquiry to EPA, OIRA, SBA, and the Council on 
Economic Advisers. The subcommittee also interviewed EPA, SBA, 
and OIRA officials involved in this rulemaking proceeding, 
CASAC scientists, State and local authorities, and economic and 
policy analysts. In addition to the documents provided in 
response to its inquiries, the subcommittee reviewed legal, 
economic and scientific analyses developed by the private 
sector and the public comments submitted on EPA's proposals.
    Finally, on April 16 and 23, 1997, the subcommittee held a 
hearing on EPA's rulemaking. On the first day of the hearing, 
the subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of the 
public, small business, the scientific community, and State and 
local government. Testifying at the second day of the hearing 
were EPA Administrator Browner, OIRA Administrator Sally Katzen 
and SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy Jere Glover.
    On the first day of the hearing, witnesses provided 
persuasive testimony that EPA's proposed new stringent 
standards were misguided. Dr. Christopher Grande, an 
anesthesiologist and intensive care specialist in trauma 
injury, said that the proposed rules are ``the latest example 
in what [he] see[s] as a disturbing trend of the last two 
decades where scarce public health resources are diverted from 
more clearly demonstrated beneficial uses.'' ``For example,'' 
he added, ``if a community is forced to spend its resources 
implementing the ozone and particulate matter air quality 
standards, what other public health needs will the community 
sacrifice?'' This concern was echoed by Faith Kline, a fourth-
grade school teacher and severe asthma sufferer, and Fred 
Congress, a minority business owner. Both admonished the Agency 
not to take a great public policy leap without more scientific 
justification. To do otherwise, they agreed, will just result 
in onerous new control measures being imposed on the backs of 
citizens for minimal health benefits.
    A bipartisan group of State and local elected officials 
also expressed concern that EPA's air quality standards will be 
counterproductive to cleaner air and improvements in public 
health. According to Ohio Governor George Voinovich, ``the 
proposed standards threaten to undo all the hard work and 
sacrifice made by our [citizens] to bring their communities 
into attainment.'' San Diego Mayor Susan Golding and Illinois 
State Representative Jeffrey Schoenberg believed that the rules 
will have an enormous impact on small business and will become 
``one of the largest unfunded mandates'' ever faced by State 
and local government.
    During the course of its oversight, the subcommittee also 
found the following information particularly noteworthy in view 
of its concerns about the conduct of the rulemaking process:
    Interagency Review.--EPA did not adequately address the 
economic and scientific criticism that its air quality 
standards provoked throughout the Clinton administration. The 
President's own Office of Science and Technology Policy 
objected that these standards are not based on adequate 
scientific information. The Council of Economic Advisers [CEA] 
observed that, ``the incremental health-risk reduction from 
more stringent standards is small, while costs are high.'' In 
fact, the CEA estimated that the costs of fully complying with 
just EPA's new ozone standards could reach $60 billion a year. 
According to the SBA, these are ``the most expensive 
regulations faced by small business in 10 or more years.'' The 
Department of Transportation [DOT] commented that it was 
``incomprehensible that the administration would commit to a 
new set of standards without much greater understanding of the 
problem and its solutions.'' A DOT analysis of the impact of 
EPA's standards on States and localities showed that areas in 
noncompliance will face ``economically strangling restrictions 
to daily operations.'' The Department noted that the standards 
will ``bring a significantly larger proportion of the 
population and more jurisdictions under Federal oversight and 
procedural burdens.''
    State and local elected officials.--EPA did not adequately 
address the concerns voiced by numerous governors and thousands 
of mayors about these standards. They maintained that the 
standards will have a disproportionate impact on small business 
and will impose one of the largest unfunded mandates ever on 
State and localities. These standards will force onerous new 
control measures and unnecessary lifestyle changes on hundreds 
of counties that will not be able to comply. The costs of doing 
business will rise considerably, causing massive layoffs. Areas 
in nonattainment will have to adhere to stringent requirements 
regarding building permits and uses, transportations plans, 
industrial uses, and the like. In short, the elected officials 
protested that States and localities will face oppressive 
constraints on their freedom to run their own communities and 
meet the needs of their citizens.
    EPA's Final Regulatory Impact Analysis.--While EPA has 
interpreted the Clean Air Act as requiring the setting of NAAQS 
to be health-based and not based on cost or other economic 
considerations, the Agency nonetheless performed a regulatory 
impact analysis [RIA] to determine the costs and benefits of 
its new standards. Moreover, EPA's final RIA clearly shows that 
its preliminary analysis did not conform to the 
administration's own guidelines for issuing regulations (OMB's 
guidelines for implementing Executive Order 12866). In contrast 
to that preliminary analysis which showed that the standards 
were cost-effective, EPA now has found that its new standards 
may actually result in harm to the public, potentially 
producing net negative benefits of $26 billion. Based on its 
estimates, EPA has concluded that the net benefits for ozone 
are negative and that it is quite plausible that the net 
benefits of the PM2.5 standard also will be negative. Total 
costs could be $47 billion ($37 billion from the PM2.5 rule 
plus $9.6 billion from the ozone rule). By the time EPA 
finalized its rules, its cost estimate rose about five-fold, 
while its measure of public health fell by over 80 percent 
(number of lives saved fell by 97 percent). Finally, the level 
that EPA has adopted for its annual PM2.5 standard is very cost 
sensitive. A change in the level by just 1 microgram per cubic 
meter, from 15 to 16, would result in a 37 percent reduction in 
the number of residual nonattainment areas--from 30 to 19.
    Job Impacts.--In its study, ``Costs, Economic Impacts, and 
Benefits of EPA's Ozone and Particulate Standards, the Reason 
Public Policy Institute found that the standards could cost 
from $90 to $150 billion annually. These costs would have an 
adverse effect on economic growth and employment, taking about 
$1,600 from each family of four after taxes and putting 200,000 
to 400,000 jobs at risk. The costs of these standards could 
reduce the purchasing power of lower income families by more 
than 5 percent. Finally, the study projected that 
disproportionate share of the job losses would come from lower 
paying occupations in the small business sector.
    Better Investments.--EPA did not evaluate the health 
benefits from investing scarce resources in the implementation 
of its stringent PM and ozone standards as compared to benefits 
from investing in other public health and safety programs. In 
terms of cost per life-year saved, EPA's rules are very cost 
ineffective when compared with other investment choices, such 
as mammograms and immunizations. For example, the cost per 
life-year saved of breast cancer screening for women ages 40-64 
is about $17,000, while the cost per life-year saved of 
pneumonia vaccinations for those over 65 is about $2,300. By 
contrast, EPA's PM analysis indicates a cost per life-year 
saved of $2.4 million.
    Research.--Although EPA's 1996 ``Air Quality and Emissions 
Trends Report'' shows that nationwide air quality has improved 
substantially over the last 10 years, the incidence of asthma 
is increasing appreciably. Most experts believe that the 
primary cause of increased asthma prevalence is related to 
indoor not outdoor air pollution. Further research is needed to 
examine the effects of poverty and indoor air quality on the 
incidence of asthma, relative to the effects of outdoor air. 
Moreover, with respect to the health effects of fine particles, 
CASAC urged EPA to ``immediately implement a targeted research 
program to address [the] unanswered questions and 
uncertainties.'' President Clinton's budget request for fiscal 
year 1998 underscored the necessity for research. In requesting 
$26.4 million for PM research, a 37 percent increase over 1997, 
the President indicated, among other things, the need to 
investigate the ``biological mechanisms by which PM 
concentrations in outdoor air may induce health effects and, in 
doing so, evaluat[e] potential links between PM exposures and 
health effects.'' Clearly, absent a better understanding of the 
science, effective control strategies cannot be designed.
    Underlying Data.--The subcommittee sent letters to Harvard 
and the American Cancer Society [ACS] urging that they 
cooperate with efforts to structure a public process for the 
independent review of the data underlying their long-term 
studies, which are critical to EPA's annual PM2.5 standard. 
Prompted by such appeals, Harvard and ASC are working with the 
Health Effects Institute to set up procedures for independent 
scientific review.
    Unintended Adverse Consequences.--EPA did not evaluate any 
of the following potential adverse consequences: (1) Reducing 
ground-level ozone may cause an increase in malignant and 
nonmelanoma skin cancers and cataracts, as well as other health 
risks from ultraviolet B rays; (2) Setting a generic fine 
particle standard may result in controlling particles that 
don't significantly harm the public health, and not controlling 
ones that do; and (3) The regulatory costs that will be 
transmitted throughout the economy will increase poverty 
levels. As a result, workers and consumers will have less 
disposable income to spend on safety devices, on medical 
checkups and procedures, and on clean and safe housing.
    b. Benefits.--The record developed through the 
subcommittee's oversight clearly shows that EPA defied good 
government laws and procedures in developing its new air 
quality standards, that these standards are scientifically 
indefensible, and that they will impose enormous burdens on 
State and local government and the private sector, with little 
or no assurance of public health benefits. Nothing in the Clean 
Air Act removes the Agency's discretion and responsibility to 
take a reasonable approach when the scientific evidence is 
inconclusive. Contrary to good government procedures and 
requirements, EPA rushed to judgment without weighing a range 
of relevant factors and without providing an adequate 
opportunity for public comment and review.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``EPA's Particulate Matter and Ozone Rulemaking: Is EPA Above 
the Law?'' on April 16 and 23, 1997.
8. GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup.
    a. Summary.--On February 13, 1997, the subcommittee held a 
hearing on the preliminary findings of the General Accounting 
Office [GAO] on the duration of the Superfund cleanup process. 
Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] claims to 
the contrary, GAO testified that the pace of the Superfund 
program is actually slowing down. GAO stated that it now takes 
much longer for non-Federal sites to move through the Superfund 
system than it did 10 years ago. Moreover, GAO staff warned 
that longer completion times are significant because many 
listing and cleanup activities remain in the Superfund program.
    The Superfund program was created in 1980 when Congress 
enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 
and Liability Act [CERCLA] to identify and cleanup the Nation's 
worst hazardous wastesites. After nearly 17 years, the public 
and private sectors combined have spent over $30 billion on the 
program, with only 30 percent of the sites on the National 
Priorities List [NPL] cleaned up.
    At the request of former Government Reform and Oversight 
Chairman William F. Clinger, GAO investigated the time it takes 
to assess and cleanup contaminated sites on the NPL and why 
cleanups have been delayed. In March 1997, GAO issued its final 
report, ``Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of 
Hazardous Waste Sites,'' which confirmed its earlier findings. 
Based on EPA's own data, GAO concluded that:
          (1) It now takes substantially longer to list sites 
        on the NPL than it did 10 years ago. In 1996, it took 
        9.4 years to evaluate and place sites on the NPL, while 
        sites listed between 1986 and 1990 took about 5.8 
        years. GAO predicted that long delays will continue 
        because a large number of sites are potentially 
        eligible for Superfund listing and only a limited 
        number of sites are being added to the program each 
        year. GAO estimated that between 1,400 and 2,300 sites 
        could be added to the program in the future;
          (2) The average number of site additions to the NPL 
        has fallen dramatically over this same 10 year period. 
        Only 16 sites per year have been added in recent years;
          (3) The time it takes to clean up a site, once it has 
        been placed on the NPL, is more than twice as long as 
        it was 10 years ago. In 1986, the average time to 
        cleanup a Superfund site listed on the NPL was less 
        than 4 years. In 1993, EPA established a goal of 5 
        years to cleanup a site. However, by 1996, cleanups 
        were averaging 10.6 years; and
          (4) The actual time it takes to do ``construction 
        work''--the real shovels-in-the-dirt part--is being 
        completed in the same length of time. In 1996, remedial 
        actions took about 2 years, as long as it took in 1991.
    EPA told GAO that the increased cleanup times are the 
result of three factors: ``(1) the growing complexity of sites, 
(2) efforts to find parties and reach settlements with them, 
and (3) resource constraints.''
    Certainly, sites are now ``more complex'' in one respect. 
GAO reported in 1993 that a full 40 percent of all the sites 
that EPA had reported as ``construction complete'' required no 
remedial action whatsoever. Basically, EPA finished leaning up 
the sites that were easier to deal with early in the program. 
However, GAO also noted in their report that actual cleanup is 
just as fast today as it was previously. Therefore, the 
``complexity'' that EPA cites as a reason for delay is 
attributable to the pre-cleanup phase--studies, remedy design, 
et cetera. In the case of multi-party sites, this phase is 
dominated by legal battles with potentially responsible parties 
[PRPs] over who should pay and how much, and what should be 
done--that is, issues of liability and remedy selection.
    Moreover, by stating that efforts to reach settlements with 
parties delays the process, EPA acknowledged that the liability 
system hinders site cleanup. Notably, EPA reported to GAO that 
the reason remedial designs are completed twice as quickly at 
Federal sites as they are at non-Federal sites is because 
``Federal cleanups do not usually involve negotiations or 
litigation with private responsible parties.'' EPA's own data 
suggest that the number of parties involved in legal disputes 
is correlated to the speed of cleanup:
         A full 50 percent of all ``orphan'' sites 
        (sites where EPA is unable to identify any viable 
        liable party and simply pays for the cleanup itself) 
        have been completed, and 41 percent of the sites with 
        10 or fewer parties have been cleaned up. However, at 
        sites with 500 or more PRPs, just 17 percent have been 
        finished.
         The average multi-party Superfund site takes a 
        total of 12 years to be completed after it is listed on 
        the NPL. As John F. Lynch, Jr., an experienced 
        Superfund lawyer, testified at the hearing, the 
        problems at multi-party sites are much greater than at 
        single party sites, ``by orders of magnitude.'' The 
        lengthy testing, decision and ``down'' periods are 
        directly attributable to complicated negotiations and 
        litigation with PRPs over remedies and their costs, and 
        which parties should pay.
    Finally, President Clinton sought unsuccessfully to 
increase funding for the current Superfund program during 
fiscal year 1998 by $650 million. Clearly, based on GAO's 
findings, appropriating such amounts without first reforming 
the underlying program would do little to expedite cleanups but 
would simply perpetuate this flawed and inefficient program.
    In presenting data on completion times, GAO used a ``date 
of event'' analysis (e.g., date of a site's placement on the 
NPL, date of completing a cleanup) and looked back to compute 
the length of time. The GAO staff testified that this 
methodology is the most appropriate measure of the productivity 
and management of Super-fund resources over time. GAO's 
analysis considered the actual number of listings, cleanups 
completed, or intermediate steps completed in a given year 
regardless of when the sites were discovered or placed on the 
NPL. The staff pointed out that this approach is consistent 
with the method that EPA uses in its management reports to 
measure the Superfund program's performance and to justify 
budget requests.
    At the hearing, Elliot Laws, Former Assistant Administrator 
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, testified that recent 
EPA reforms have fundamentally changed the program. Among other 
things, he claimed that the Agency's reforms have brought 
relevant stakeholders into the process earlier, increased the 
number of small parties who are protected from liability, 
adopted liability allocations worked out by the relevant 
parties, allowed States to assume more responsibility for 
cleanups, increased the speed of cleanups by using presumptive 
remedies, and reduced cleanup costs by establishing a Remedy 
Review Board to review proposed high-cost remedies at sites.
    In March 1997, EPA submitted its own analysis comparing 
cleanup durations during the Clinton administration to those 
under prior years. The Agency claimed that its data show that 
it has taken only 8 years to clean up a site in recent years 
(1993-1996), as opposed to the more than 10 years it had taken 
for sites in the pipeline between 1987-1992. EPA's study used a 
``date of submission'' analysis, which tracks processing times 
by the year sites were discovered or listed. For each time 
period, EPA's analysis only counted activities started and 
finished during that time period. As a result, EPA's findings 
are skewed. The Agency's study shows improvement in processing 
times only because the data for later years excludes a higher 
proportion of ongoing work than the data for earlier years.
    On September 24, 1997, GAO issued a report entitled, 
``Super-fund: Duration of the Cleanup Process at Hazardous 
Waste Sites on the National Priorities List.'' In that report, 
GAO compared EPA's projection that sites listed in 1993 through 
1996 would be cleaned up in an average of 8 years against the 
program's historical performance. In doing this, GAO used the 
same methodology as EPA, a ``date of submission'' analysis, to 
isolate any effects of recent policy or procedural changes on 
processing times. GAO calculated the duration of the cleanup 
process from a site's listing on the NPL through remedial 
action for all sites that began this process in fiscal years 
1986 through 1994. GAO examined both how long it took to clean 
up completed sites and how long the uncompleted sites have been 
``in process.'' Based on EPA's own data, GAO determined that 
the only way cleanups could average 8 years would be if all 
cleanups ``in process'' had been completed by July 1, 1997. 
However, because such a large proportion of the sites listed in 
the 9-year period are still in process, the average cleanup 
time for these sites will exceed 8 years by a substantial 
margin. Therefore, even after using the same methodology as EPA 
to analyze Superfund processing data, GAO verified that 
cleanups are taking substantially longer.
    Finally, on May 30, 1997, at the request of the 
subcommittee and full committee, GAO completed its report, 
``Superfund: Information on EPA's Administrative Reforms,'' in 
which it examined whether, in fact, EPA's 45 administrative 
reforms have resulted in significant, fundamental changes in 
the program and are achieving demonstrable results. GAO found 
that the Agency could report quantifiable results for just six 
of them. Furthermore, of those six, EPA could document the 
benefits fully for merely four reforms. These results do not 
show any significant progress, let alone a fundamentally 
different program.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's oversight and the GAO 
report on cleanup times provide further evidence that the 
current Superfund program is not working and requires 
comprehensive reform. GAO's findings show that the program will 
probably get worse before it gets better. Even assuming that 
the administration can do a better job, the sheer number of 
potential Superfund sites is staggering. GAO estimated that 
1,400 to 2,300 additional sites may be added in the future. If 
EPA can only clean up 65 sites per year, and it is only taking 
on 16 new sites per year, the job may never be done. Moreover, 
GAO's findings show that the delays are attributable to the 
pre-cleanup phase, which is plagued by legal battles over who 
should pay and what should be done. Actual cleanup time has 
remained steady. Therefore, cleanups will continue to be 
delayed, unless the Superfund's liability system is 
fundamentally reformed. Only those who are truly responsible 
for the pollution, those parties which owned and controlled 
sites and parties which violated disposal laws, should be held 
accountable. Otherwise, the real mission of this program--
cleaning up sites that pose a risk to our citizens--will never 
be achieved. The subcommittee is amazed that EPA is not equally 
concerned by GAO's findings and acknowledging the urgency for 
comprehensive legislative reform.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup,'' on February 13, 1997.
9. OMB's ``Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 
        Regulations.
    a. Summary.--On October 27, 1997, the subcommittee sent a 
letter to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] expressing 
its concerns about the adequacy of the agency's ``Report to 
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations.'' 
These concerns also were shared by the Commerce and 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. Based on a 
thorough review, all three committees found that OMB's report 
failed to provide a sound information base for public policy 
decisionmaking.
    This report was submitted pursuant to Section 645 of the 
Treasury, Postal Services, and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), which required 
the Director of OMB to provide to Congress, by September 30, 
1997, a report containing the following information:
          (1) Estimates of the total annual costs and benefits 
        of Federal regulatory programs;
          (2) Estimates of the costs and benefits of each rule 
        that is likely to result in annual costs of $100 
        million or more;
          (3) An assessment of the direct and indirect impacts 
        of Federal rules on the private sector, State and local 
        government, and the Federal Government; and
          (4) Recommendations from the Director and a 
        description of significant public comments to reform or 
        eliminate any Federal regulatory program or program 
        element that is inefficient, ineffective, or is not a 
        sound use of the Nation's resources.
    In adopting these regulatory accounting requirements, 
Congress sought to obtain a credible and reliable assessment of 
the benefits and burdens of regulation in order to develop a 
more effective and accountable regulatory system that will 
achieve better results. However, OMB's report made painfully 
clear that the Federal Government has not yet established an 
information system that will yield meaningful estimates of the 
effects of regulation on our society.
    In particular, the letter to OMB noted that its report did 
not fully comply with specific statutory requirements. It was 
wholly deficient in assessing the direct and indirect impacts 
of Federal rules and it made no recommendations for reform. In 
addition, OMB interpreted Congress mandate too narrowly to 
achieve the legislative goal. For example, the report did not 
break down information by Federal program, it provided 
information on only a limited number of major rules, and it 
excluded information on rules issued by independent agencies. 
Most significantly, the report exposed the lack of any 
systematic approach to collecting, analyzing, and reporting 
data on regulatory impacts. Moreover, in developing this 
report, OMB did not take the leadership role that Congress 
intended in assuring the quality and reliability of the 
information reported. Without a systematic approach and OMB 
auditing, Congress will not be assured of the accurate, 
complete, and consistently measured information that it needs 
to properly manage the regulatory process.
    The letter recommended that OMB take the lead in 
implementing the following improvements:
          (1) Standardize procedures governmentwide for 
        collecting, analyzing, and documenting the best 
        available information on a regular and systematic 
        basis, including formalizing the agency's ``Best 
        Practices'' guidelines;
          (2) Establish an information database on the benefits 
        and costs of regulation, obtaining information from a 
        variety of sources as it becomes available;
          (3) Establish a system for tracking net benefits of 
        different regulatory programs and their program 
        elements;
          (4) Ensure that the report to Congress includes 
        information on all Federal mandates, provides estimates 
        on paperwork burdens and full social costs, and 
        disaggregates the total overall estimates by regulatory 
        program and economic sector;
          (5) Use traditional economic measures, such as 
        impacts on productivity, employment, and income 
        distribution, to present aggregate information in a 
        more meaningful way; and
          (6) Synthesize and evaluate the information provided 
        by Federal agencies, especially their compliance with 
        OMB's guidelines, and supply both an independent 
        assessment of regulatory impacts and concrete reform 
        recommendations.
    b. Benefits.--Based on the letter's recommendations, the 
subcommittee, along with the Committees on Commerce and 
Transportation and Infrastructure, will work with OMB to 
implement more effectively Section 625 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-
61), which carries forward these regulatory accounting 
requirements for another year. As the OMB report indicated, 
Federal regulation constitutes ``a major component of our 
economy'' and regulations have ``enormous potential for both 
good and harm.'' The committees hope that, working together 
with OMB, we can begin to build a sound information base for 
decisionmaking and can make regulatory accounting the effective 
management tool that Congress intended.
    c. Hearings.--None.
10. EPA's Strategic Plan.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee participated with the House 
Departmental Staff Team which reviewed and commented on the 
strategic plan developed by the Environmental Protection Agency 
[EPA] under the Government Performance and Results Act (Public 
Law 103-62) (Results Act). The overall aim of the Results Act 
is to foster accountability by requiring Federal Government 
agencies to establish goals and measure their performance. It 
is designed to obtain systematic and reliable information about 
where Federal programs and activities are going, how they will 
achieve their goals, and how performance will be measured.
    Specifically, the Results Act requires Federal agencies to 
prepare multi year strategic plans, annual performance plans, 
and annual performance reports. Under the act, Agencies had to 
submit their first 5-year strategic plans to Congress and the 
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] by September 30, 1997. 
The act requires agencies to include the following six critical 
components in their plans: (1) a comprehensive mission 
statement; (2) agency wide long-term goals and objectives for 
all major functions and operations; (3) strategies and the 
various resources needed to achieve the goals and objectives; 
(4) the relationship between the long-term goals and objectives 
and the annual performance goals; (5) an identification of key 
factors, external to the agency and beyond its control, that 
could significantly affect the achievement of the strategic 
goals; and (6) a description of program evaluations used to 
establish or revise strategic goals and a schedule for future 
program evaluation. In developing their strategic plans, 
agencies were required to consult with Congress regarding the 
contents of their plans.
    On July 28, 1997, the committees participating on the House 
EPA Staff Team sent a letter to the Agency providing comments 
on its draft strategic plan. In general, the committees felt 
that the draft plan was a good starting point, but that many 
changes were necessary before it complied with the act. The 
following are some of the changes that the committees 
recommended to improve the draft plan:
          (1) The Agency's mission statement should more 
        accurately reflect its founding statutes and authority. 
        Moreover, the plan should place priority on those 
        strategic goals for which the Agency has statutory 
        authority;
          (2) EPA's goals and objectives need to be more 
        results-oriented and measurable;
          (3) The Agency's goals and objectives should be 
        expressed as environmental outcomes, while 
        organization/program outputs should be classified as 
        implementation tools; that is, strategies for achieving 
        those goals;
          (4) The strategic plan should prioritize among goals 
        and objectives. In particular, EPA should commit to 
        using risk assessment to prioritize environmental risk 
        management decisions;
          (5) The plan should emphasize the need to have 
        reliable information in order to measure results. Also 
        needed are performance measures that link EPA's 
        activities to changes in health and environmental 
        conditions;
          (6) Given the kinds of goals and objectives that it 
        sets, the strategic plan should contain measurements of 
        the costs that EPA's regulatory actions impose on the 
        private sector and State and local government;
          (7) The Agency's numerical objectives must be 
        justified by reference to some statutory or policy 
        requirement;
          (8) EPA should include performance measures relating 
        to its efforts to work with States to achieve 
        environmental goals;
          (9) The draft plan lacked a sufficient assessment of 
        external factors that would limit the Agency's ability 
        to achieve its objectives;
          (10) The draft plan did not include program 
        evaluations used to develop the plan and a schedule for 
        future evaluations;
          (11) The draft plan did not address the relationship 
        between its long-term goals and objectives and the 
        annual performance goals; and
          (12) The draft plan did not discuss coordination with 
        other agencies for crosscutting programs, activities, 
        or functions that are similar to those of other Federal 
        agencies;
    b. Benefits.--Based on these comments, EPA made certain 
changes in the final strategic plan that it submitted to 
Congress and OMB in September 1997. It added sections on 
program evaluations used in preparing the plan and on the 
relationship of the plan's general goals to annual performance 
goals. The plan also described the steps that EPA took to 
coordinate its plan with other agencies, and addressed the role 
of the States in implementing EPA's programs. The section 
identifying key external factors was expanded to include 
additional factors, such as changes in producer and consumer 
behavior, that could directly affect the achievement of the 
plan's goals and objectives. The mission statement also was 
revised to coincide more closely with the language of the 
Agency's statutes. Finally, EPA included an addendum that 
identified its authorities by goal and objective.
    The Team will continue to work with EPA to make further 
improvements, such as: (1) stating goals and objectives in 
quantifiable and measurable terms; (2) relating specific 
strategies to specific objectives; (3) communicating more 
effectively the Agency's priorities; (4) ensuring the 
availability of sufficient scientific and environmental data; 
(5) coordinating plans and activities with other agencies that 
have similar or crosscutting functions; and (6) specifically 
linking the Agency's goals and objectives to each of its 
budgetary program activities.
    c. Hearings.--None.
11. Oversight of EPA and the Regulatory Process.
    a. Summary.--As part of its oversight responsibilities 
concerning Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the 
regulatory process, the subcommittee continued to inquire about 
specific Agency's rulemaking actions. These inquiries have 
focused on the Agency's compliance with ``good government'' 
laws and procedures intended to assure that regulations do not 
do more harm than good. Specifically, the subcommittee has 
investigated the Agency's compliance with the requirements of 
the Administrative Procedures Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the Congressional Review 
Act, and Executive Order 12866. The subcommittee has been 
particularly interested in whether the following types of 
issues were adequately addressed in the rulemaking proceedings: 
the need for regulation; the incremental costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives; whether the benefits of the 
intended regulation would justify its costs; what would be the 
most cost-effective, least costly, and least burdensome 
regulatory option and any reasons why the Agency could not 
select that alternative; paperwork burdens; impacts on small 
business, State and local government, and the private sector; 
efforts to involve small business and State and local 
government representatives early in the development of the 
rule; impacts on the economy; any disproportionate impacts of 
the rule on certain populations or geographical areas; 
opportunity for comment and review.
    In the recent past, the subcommittee conducted inquiries 
into the following specific rulemakings:
    Urban Area Source Program.--On November 18, 1997, the 
subcommittee sent a letter of inquiry to EPA regarding its 
implementation of the Urban Area Source Program under Section 
112(k) of the Clean Air Act. The subcommittee raised concerns 
about whether EPA, in developing a regulatory strategy on area 
sources, is complying with the requirements of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA]. In 
particular, the subcommittee requested information about 
whether EPA is analyzing potential impacts on small business 
entities in developing its strategy; is providing a meaningful 
opportunity for small entities to participate early in the 
process; and is planning to convene a Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel. Also, the subcommittee inquired whether EPA has 
been focusing on chemicals that are, in fact, emitted from area 
sources, in compiling its draft list of candidate air toxics 
for this program.
    Toxic Release Inventory [TRI] Program.--On March 17, 1997, 
the subcommittee sent a letter to OMB concerning its review of 
EPA's draft final rule, ``Addition of Facilities in Certain 
Industry Sectors: Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Community 
Right to Know.'' This ruled extended the requirements under 
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act for the reporting of toxic chemical releases to seven 
new industry sectors. In the letter to OMB, the subcommittee 
raised concerns about the unnecessary paperwork burdens that 
this regulation would create, especially for small businesses. 
The letter requested information on the extent to which such 
burdens on small business had been analyzed and whether all 
practicable steps had been taken to exempt from reporting or, 
alternatively, to minimize the burdens on, small businesses and 
other small entities. The subcommittee also questioned whether 
the benefits from imposing these informational requirements 
justified their costs.
    NOX Rule for Utilities.--On November 21, 1997, the 
subcommittee sent a letter to EPA inquiring about its proposed 
Phase II Nox rules under the Clean Air Act. This letter raised 
concerns about the process that the Agency had followed in 
developing these rules. In this rulemaking, EPA proposed 
lowering Nox emissions for about 750 wall-fired and 
tangentially-fired utility boilers (Group 1 boilers) and 
establishing specific emission limits by category for about 190 
other boilers. The subcommittee questioned whether the Agency 
was providing an adequate opportunity for public input and 
whether EPA and its consultants used realistic methodologies to 
support lowering emissions limits on the Group 1 boilers. The 
subcommittee also questioned the need for changing the Nox 
emissions standard for Group 1 boilers and the need for 
regulating cyclone boilers at all. Finally, the subcommittee 
requested information on why the EPA did not prepare an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis and on the Agency's efforts 
to involve State and local officials in developing its rules.
12. Brookhaven National Laboratory.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee has been investigating 
environmental, health, and safety problems at the Brookhaven 
National Laboratory [BNL], one of the Department of Energy's 
[DOE] major multi-program laboratories, and evaluating actions 
that are being taken at this Federal facility to remedy and 
prevent the recurrence of these problems.
    Initially, the focus of the subcommittee's oversight was on 
DOE and BNL efforts to clean up existing onsite groundwater 
contamination, stemming from the facility's past activities. 
However, when tritium from active operations was detected in 
groundwater on the Lab site, it became clear that the problems 
at BNL were not isolated events, but were, instead, systemic in 
nature. The subcommittee then began investigating institutional 
deficiencies in the management of environmental, health, and 
safety activities [E, H & S] at BNL.
    Because of its former use as a military facility and the 
later operations of the Laboratory, this site became 
contaminated with chemical wastes and hazardous substances. 
After a history of chemical and radiological releases to 
surface water and groundwater on site, the Brookhaven facility 
was listed on the National Priorities List under the Superfund 
law in 1989. While there have been ongoing remedial 
investigations to define future clean-up priorities, activities 
over the past few years have concentrated on capping inactive 
landfills, removing underground storage tanks, excavating 
cesspools, removing above-ground radiological waste tanks, 
installing a groundwater pump and treat system to minimize off-
site contamination, and hooking-up homes south of the site to 
the public water supply. Although BNL officials recognized the 
need for extensive groundwater monitoring back in 1992, this 
was given a low priority.
    In December 1996 elevated concentrations of tritium, a low-
level radioactive form of hydrogen, were discovered in 
monitoring wells adjacent to BNL's High Flux Beam Reactor 
[HFBRA], a research reactor at the site. Results of a DOE 
investigation pointed to the reactor's spent fuel pool as the 
source of the tritium. The tritium groundwater plume was found 
to extend about 2,200 feet and has peak concentrations, close 
to the reactor, over 30 times the Federal drinking water 
standard. Based on the size of the plume, the leak may have 
started as much as 12 years ago. At the time that the leak was 
detected, the HFBR had been shutdown for routine maintenance 
and remains shutdown today.
    Back in 1994, the Suffolk County Department of Health 
Services had informed BNL that the HFBR spent fuel pool did not 
comply with county code requirements for hazardous waste 
storage. While BNL agreed to install monitoring wells near the 
spent fuel pool at that time, the wells were not installed 
until 1996. Also, although the tritium leak was detected in 
December 1996, it was not until January 16, 1997, that the lab 
began notifying regulatory agencies and local officials. This 
delay severely damaged BNL's credibility with the local 
community. Finally, while the tritium plume posed no health 
threat to the surrounding communities and lab employees, this 
incident, which arose after various other problems, showed the 
need for improvement in laboratory E, S & H management and 
oversight.
    As a result of the discovery of the tritium leak and the 
management review and investigation that followed, Secretary of 
Energy Federico Pena terminated Associated Universities, Inc. 
[AUI] as the managing contractor for BNL. AUI had been 
operating contractor for the laboratory since its founding in 
1947.
    As part of its oversight, subcommittee staff visited BNL 
twice and interviewed managers and scientists at BNL; DOE's 
onsite staff, the Brookhaven Group; and local citizens. The 
subcommittee also interviewed officials at DOE headquarters 
within the offices of Oversight and Energy Research, and staff 
at the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The subcommittee 
has reviewed investigatory reports and management reviews that 
have been done regarding BNL, including the ``Integrated Safety 
Management Evaluation of the Brookhaven National Laboratory'' 
by DOE's Office of Oversight, the ``Interim Report of the BNL 
Facility Review,'' the findings of EPA's Multi-Media Compliance 
Evaluation Inspection, and ``Brookhaven National Laboratory: At 
the Crossroads,'' the report resulting from the New York 
Attorney General's investigation.
    Based on such reports and evaluations, DOE has developed an 
Action Plan ``to improve the way DOE and BNL protect the 
environment, provide for the safety and health of employees, 
and address local community concerns and interests while 
conducting world-class science.'' Through its oversight, the 
subcommittee intends to track the implementation of this plan 
to determine whether DOE and BNL are meeting their objectives 
and milestones for change. In particular, the subcommittee will 
be monitoring their progress in the following areas: (1) 
Clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and authorities related 
to BNL; (2) Strengthening management systems and procedures 
used by BNL and the Brookhaven Group to determine necessary 
corrective actions and to prioritize, track, and implement 
those actions; (3) Establishing a structured, standards-based 
approach to the planning and control of work and related 
hazards across organizations, facilities, and activities, with 
a view to fully integrating effective E, S & H management 
processes and allocating appropriate funding support throughout 
BNL; (4) Strengthening DOE's monitoring and assessments of BNL 
E, S & H performance and safety management (especially, BNL's 
compliance with safety management policies, prioritization of 
issues and resources, and control of workforce hazards), and 
including the Department's performance expectations into its 
strategic plan and annual performance plans; and (5) Expanding 
BNL community involvement and outreach efforts.
    b. Benefits.--All of the investigatory reports and 
management reviews that the subcommittee reviewed identified 
opportunities for improvement at BNL. The laboratory must put 
into place E, S & H management systems and controls that will 
serve to prevent environmental problems from occurring and that 
will detect and quickly remedy those that do arise. This 
subcommittee intends to make sure that environmental management 
practices are securely in place, the causes of the tritium leak 
and other problems that have occurred are fully understood, and 
corrective actions are taken expeditiously.

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
                                Justice

1. National Drug Control Policy.
    a. Summary.--The National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 
(21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) established the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]. The act also provided for 
appointment of a Director of ONDCP, and required that the 
Director develop an overall strategy and budget for Federal 
anti-narcotics efforts, including both supply and demand 
reduction. Specifically, the statute provided that ONDCP: ``(A) 
include comprehensive, research based, long-range goals for 
reducing drug abuse in the United States; (B) include short-
term measurable objectives which the Director determines may be 
realistically achieved in the 2-year period beginning on the 
date of the submission of the strategy; (C) describe the 
balance between resources devoted to supply reduction and 
demand reduction; and (D) review State and local drug control 
activities to ensure that the United States pursues well-
coordinated and effective drug control at all levels of the 
government.'' Pursuant to the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee's jurisdiction over ONDCP, as well as all other 
departments and agencies engaged in counternarcotics efforts, 
the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, 
and Criminal Justice convened numerous in-depth oversight 
hearings during 1997 to assess the status and effectiveness of 
the Nation's Federal drug control strategy and the strategy's 
implementation.
    In addition to administration officials, expert advice and 
recommendations were sought from preeminent outside experts, 
including local officials and civic leaders. The subcommittee 
aimed to identify strategic and policy weaknesses, and in the 
course of its investigation, the subcommittee engaged in 
official contact with the various agencies and departments over 
which it has jurisdiction, namely those that engage in 
counternarcotics activities. These include, but are not limited 
to, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Departments 
of Defense, State, Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, 
the U.S. Customs Service, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network.
    Throughout 1997, the subcommittee met extensively with the 
agencies involved in counternarcotics efforts, collecting and 
analyzing both statistical and anecdotal evidence on the 
effectiveness of the Nation's drug strategy and supporting 
programs. This includes the areas of source zone interdiction, 
transit zone interdiction, arrival zone interdiction, law 
enforcement, prevention, and treatment. The subcommittee sought 
further insight from GAO investigators, field agents, and 
departmental Inspectors General.
    Congressional Delegation.--From May 23 through June 1, 
1997, Subcommittee Chairman J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was joined 
by Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN), Mark Sanford (R-SC), Bob 
Barr (R-GA), and Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) on a Congressional 
Delegation [CODEL] which visited Panama, Colombia, Peru and 
Bolivia. The purpose of the visit was to conduct an in-country 
review of current U.S. counternarcotics efforts and determine 
the level of cooperation by source and transit zone countries. 
The CODEL held extensive meetings with United States and host 
nation civilian, military, and law enforcement officials to 
discuss current policies, programs and activities intended to 
stop the flow of illegal drugs coming into the United States. 
The CODEL also explored how financial support for these 
programs could be better directed, and more effectively used.
    On May 23, 1997, the CODEL visited with the Panama country 
team at the Embassy. Those attending included the U.S. 
Ambassador, the intelligence community, the DEA agent in 
charge, U.S. Customs agent in charge, military attache, and 
civilian personnel assigned to the Embassy. The country team 
emphasis seemed to be on unity. They were adamant about how 
well they worked together in their mission. The Embassy brought 
in the Attorney General and several of his associates to 
explain Panama's new money laundering laws and creative efforts 
to stop the flow of laundered money to and through Panama. DEA 
explained that the Panamanian police were ill-equipped to 
handle certain routine tasks, and requested that money be 
provided to the Panamanian police for vehicles and 
communications equipment. United States Customs personnel 
expressed a desire to see more x-ray and other detection 
devices at Panama's airports; the need for Customs aircraft 
throughout the source country region became obvious.
    On May 24, 1997, the CODEL met with General Wesley Clark, 
Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command [SOUTHCOM] at his 
headquarters; SOUTHCOM'S support staff was present for the 
briefing. The General offered his view of how to effectively 
enhance counternarcotics efforts in the source countries and 
described the mission of SOUTHCOM as it related to an array of 
present and future counternarcotics issues. SOUTHCOM plays a 
major role in the region's counternarcotics efforts. It is the 
southern-most U.S. base, and, as such, is strategically vital 
in the war on drugs. SOUTHCOM's use of Howard Air Force Base 
provides regional support for detection, monitoring, and 
interception of illegal drug traffic by air. The U.S. presence 
also facilitates regional inter-military cooperation, jungle 
training, regional police and military training, and 
intelligence coordination. That presence must be strong, 
committed, enduring and well-supported by the Pentagon; despite 
the move of SOUTHCOM to Miami and the importance of continued 
and uninterrupted development of SOUTHCOM activities on Puerto 
Rico, there was a consensus among Members of the CODEL that the 
United States must maintain a strong forward-based presence at 
Howard Air Force base.
    In Colombia, the CODEL visited San Jose del Guaviere, a 
remote forward-operating base for the Colombian National Police 
[CNP], and the Colombian Army's Second Mobile Brigade on May 
25. This area is located in the southeastern region of 
Colombia, also known for its geography as the ``wild zone.'' It 
is the largest coca growing and producing area in the world, 
and is universally acknowledged to be narco-guerrilla infested. 
The CODEL was accompanied by CNP General Rosso Jose Serrano, 
CNP Colonel Leonardo Gallego, director of the DANTI 
(antinarcotics police), Ambassador Frechette and selected 
Embassy staff.
    The CODEL then continued west from Bogota to Maraquita, 
where the CNP maintains its aviation school. There, the CODEL 
witnessed a CNP special operations drug lab assault 
demonstration using UH-1H helicopters, helicopters critical to 
effective counter-narcotics operations in the narco-guerrilla 
regions. This involved a live-fire coca lab ``take down.'' 
Subsequently, the CODEL inspected three of the UH-1Hs, released 
just prior to the CODEL's arrival in Maraquita. They were 
released only after pressing the questions to Ambassador 
Frechette in the country team briefing 2 days earlier. The 
helicopters were in poor condition; notably, the U.S.-provided 
helicopters were inexplicably missing essential mounts for the 
guns that would protect the helicopters during coca lab take 
downs. The helicopters were in need of substantial maintenance 
to place them in flying condition; this was a development 
widely seen as ironic, in view of the U.S. ability to deliver 
repaired and flyable excess aircraft. For each helicopter 
Colombia received from the United States, the CNP must now 
commit an additional $100,000 to make the asset flight worthy. 
Following the CODEL's return, the remaining helicopters were 
released to the CNP. Instructively, these helicopters were 
conducting counternarcotics missions within 3 days of delivery. 
These facts strongly support a pressing need for U.S. draw down 
aid, namely additional ``surplus helicopters.''
    On May 27 and 28, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the CODEL met 
with the Bolivia country team, including the Deputy Charge of 
Mission [DCM], DEA agent in charge, NAS, and civilian assets in 
place. The country team was mission-specific, and appeared to 
be running efficiently and smoothly. The DCM outlined a 
coherent counter-narcotics strategy, which seemed to be the 
United States Embassy's No. 1 priority in Bolivia. The DEA 
reported that it would have seven new DEA personnel shortly. 
The DEA briefed the CODEL about ongoing operations in the 
Chapare region, which is the country's leading coca producing 
region. NAS reported on several alternative development 
projects, and provided persuasive statistics regarding their 
success.
    On May 29 and 30, in Lima, Peru, the CODEL met with the 
Peruvian country team. Considerable attention was given to the 
successful ``shoot down policy'' adopted by President 
Fujimori's government. Additionally, the DEA and NAS touted 
eradication efforts and the decrease in coca production. 
Earlier in Iquitos, Peru, the CODEL witnessed part of Peru's 
riverine interdiction program. The CODEL also visited some 
remote coca field sites in Peru. The ``shoot down'' policy, 
supported by the United States in combination with intensive 
Peruvian law enforcement activities, yielded an 18 percent 
reduction in coca cultivation during 1996. The subcommittee 
subsequently learned that, in 1997, Peru achieved a further 27 
percent reduction in coca cultivation.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee recognizes that the 
availability of drugs on U.S. streets and the number of persons 
using illegal drugs continue to be serious problems in the 
United States, and constitute a major national and personal 
security threat. The subcommittee, through its oversight 
hearings, determined that there are significant policy and 
management obstacles that must be resolved in order to markedly 
improve the U.S. drug control efforts. In addition, the 
effectiveness of U.S. efforts to combat drug production, 
transshipment, and importation remain, on the whole, 
handicapped by low resource allocation. It is apparent that the 
U.S. Government has yet to meet the drug threat with the same 
intensity and dedication that the drug cartels and traffickers 
undertake in their efforts. Obstacles include numerous 
organizational and operational limitations, as well as a lack 
of sufficient and consistent funding. In addition, the lack of 
effective measurement systems makes it difficult to accurately 
assess the results of our National Drug Control Strategy. The 
subcommittee's hearings, meetings, and official correspondence 
assisted in elevating interagency cooperation and coordination, 
as well as providing much needed attention to counternarcotics 
issues. The oversight and investigation of drug policies and 
programs also enabled the subcommittee to determine whether 
current strategies or programs were meeting their statutory 
obligations.
    c. Hearings.--During the first session of the 105th 
Congress, the Subcommittee on National Security, International 
Affairs, and Criminal Justice held nine hearings on the topic 
of the status of this Nation's National Drug Control Policy. 
The hearings focused on all aspects of the war on drugs and 
demonstrated the importance of a several-tiered strategy, 
including source country and transit zone interdiction efforts 
to stop the illegal narcotics and precursor chemicals from 
entering the United States; a strong law enforcement and 
criminal justice system to apprehend and severely punish those 
convicted of drug trafficking; prevention efforts that not only 
educate our young people about the dangers of drug use but 
unite communities against drug use; and finally, an effective 
system of treating those already addicted. By encompassing all 
facets of the counternarcotics effort, we send a strong ``zero-
tolerance'' message to anyone who considers cultivating, 
trafficking, or using illegal narcotics. A detailed description 
of the hearings held by the subcommittee follows:
    On February 27, 1997, the subcommittee received testimony 
from General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] at a hearing entitled, 
``Oversight of the 1997 National Drug Control Strategy.'' The 
purpose of this hearing was to examine the short- and long-term 
plan described in President Clinton's 1997 National Drug 
Control Strategy, and to assess how effectively the Nation is 
fighting the illegal drug problem, both domestically and 
internationally.
    Alarming statistics were cited to portray the status of our 
war on drugs. Drug-induced deaths increased 47 percent between 
1990 and 1994, and now number approximately 14,000 per year. In 
1995, a record high 531,800 drug-related hospital emergency 
room episodes occurred. Heroin-related emergency room episodes 
increased 124 percent between 1990 and 1995. General McCaffrey 
described cocaine use as plummeting and higher purity heroin 
use as increasing. He characterized the increase in 
methamphetamine use as, ``. . . a potentially worse threat to 
America than the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's.''
    Even more threatening to the status of drug use, was the 
shocking decline in the average age of drug users, now dipping 
below the teen years. The perceived risk associated with drug 
use among teens has dropped and consequently the overall number 
of young people using drugs has skyrocketed. Use of illegal 
narcotics among 8th-graders, 11- and 12-year olds, is up 150 
percent over 1989. These numbers were widely viewed as 
startling and corroborate the need to educate all young 
Americans about the perils of drug use.
    General McCaffrey stressed the need to more strongly 
support different aspects of the drug war: stopping the 
cultivation of drugs at the source; interdicting the drugs in 
the transit zones and at the borders; enforcing severe 
punishment for those offenders who sell drugs; preventing young 
people from ever turning to illegal drug use; and providing 
treatment for those already addicted to narcotics. The 1997 
Strategy has established five strategic goals: (1) Educate and 
enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as 
alcohol and tobacco; (2) Increase the safety of America's 
citizens by substantially reducing drug-related crime and 
violence; (3) Reduce health and social costs to the public of 
illegal drug use; (4) Shield America's air, land, and sea 
frontiers from the drug threat; and, (5) Break foreign and 
domestic drug sources of supply.
    With varying degrees of emphasis, all Members, and General 
McCaffrey, acknowledged that current Federal antidrug efforts 
are, while effective, under strain from reduced funding. The 
1997 Strategy will continue to focus on drug-related crime and 
violence, as well as shielding our frontiers and reducing 
availability. The assumption is that it will also trigger an 
aggressive initiative to educate young people on the dangers of 
drug use.
    Highlighting the work of successful prevention efforts 
around the country, the subcommittee held a hearing on February 
26, 1997, entitled, ``Civic Volunteers, Youth Service 
Organizations, and the War on Drugs.'' This hearing focused on 
successful efforts of civic groups and youth service 
organizations in the counterdrug effort. As the level of drug 
use among 8th and 10th graders has risen over the past few 
years, prevention efforts across the country are becoming 
increasingly important for young people. Representatives from a 
number of civic groups described successful, national programs 
that they have developed and sustained without any Federal 
money.
    In 1997, there were 5.6 million youth and adult members of 
the Boy Scouts of America, 260,000 members of the General 
Federation of Women's Clubs, and 132,000 members of the Junior 
Chamber of Commerce. Combined, these groups achieved hundreds-
of-thousands of volunteer hours and touched the lives of 
millions of young people. These organizations have the unique 
ability to reach out to all socioeconomic backgrounds and 
regions and successfully unite these that may normally not 
interact. Notably, each organization has approached the problem 
of youth drug abuse in a different and distinct manner. Several 
programs focused their exercises on character building, some 
follow the faith-based model, while others concentrate on 
building ties to the community through sports and community 
service projects. These organizations integrate the health 
dangers of drug use but the social and criminal perils as well.
    On the first panel, testimony was received from Mr. Frank 
Sarnecki, director, Loyal Order of Moose; Mr. John Creighton, 
Jr., president, Boy Scouts of America; Ms. Faye Dissinger, 
international president, General Foundation of Women's Club; 
and Mr. Mike Marshall, president, U.S. Junior Chamber of 
Commerce. Witnesses detailed the importance of building self-
esteem in our young people. By showing each and every teenager 
that they are important and can control the outcome of their 
lives, such programs taught responsible and well-reasoned 
decisionmaking skills.
    The second panel consisted of Mr. Dick Herndobler of the 
Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks; Mr. Gordon Thorson, 
national youth program director of the Veterans of Foreign 
Affairs; Mr. Howard Patterson, vice-president of Lions Club 
International; Mr. William Pease, assistant director for 
children and teens program of the American Legion Child Welfare 
Foundation; Mr. Don Baugher, president, Masonic National 
Foundation for Children; Mr. Larry Chisolm, also of the Masonic 
National Foundation for Children; and Mr. Dennis Windscheffel, 
a prominent drug prevention program consultant. Panel two 
brought a different perspective to the hearing. The essence of 
their message was that it is imperative that we demonstrate, as 
competent and dependable adults, that when you begin success in 
your teenage years, it paves the way for a successful 
adulthood. This panel emphasized that, too often, society is 
eager to point the finger at the young people and say, ``We 
need to change your behavior.'' While this may be true, we must 
demonstrate how to be an effective, reliable and productive 
adult.
    On May 14, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing 
highlighting the extraordinary efforts of the National Guard in 
the antidrug effort entitled, ``National Guard Support in the 
Fight Against Illegal Drugs.'' Historically, the National Guard 
has performed missions tasked by their respective Governor. 
However, as the drug epidemic has increased in this country, 
Governors have turned to the National Guard to combat the flow 
of illegal narcotics. To continue their high-level of mission 
performance, the Guard needs consistent support from Congress 
and the Pentagon.
    There are serious concerns that the fiscal year 1998 budget 
does not adequately support the needs of either their supply or 
demand reduction activities. A decrease in funding could result 
in severe reductions in aviation capabilities, intelligence, 
and engineering support. This hearing highlighted the 
successful efforts of the National Guard in tackling the rise 
in methamphetamine and heroin use, and their vital border 
support.
    The subcommittee received testimony from the Honorable Brad 
Owen, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Washington; the 
Honorable Michael Bowers, attorney general of the State of 
Georgia; Major General Russell Davis, Vice Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau; Mr. James Copple, president and CEO of 
the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; and Mr. Ronald 
E. Brooks, chair of the drug policy committee, California 
Narcotics Officer's Association. The witnesses all testified 
regarding the value of National Guard counterdrug assistance. 
According to Attorney General Bowers, in 1996, National Guard 
assistance resulted in, ``. . . over 128,000 arrests and the 
confiscation of l,371 metric tons of processed marijuana, 
12,671 pounds of heroin, and 16,116 weapons.'' These statistics 
alone demonstrate the essential nature of the National Guard's 
long-term commitment to a drug-free America.
    On March 10, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled, ``Coast Guard Drug Interdiction Efforts in the 
Transit Zone.'' The purpose of this hearing was to examine the 
national security threat posed by the explosion of maritime 
drug trafficking in the transit zone, and better understand 
efforts by the U.S. Coast Guard to combat it. Of particular 
interest were: (1) the nature of drug trafficking activities in 
the transit zone, especially the Eastern Caribbean; (2) host 
nation impediments to an effective regional strategy; (3) the 
adequacy of the U.S. Coast Guard's capabilities to interdict 
drug trafficking; (4) the extent of Federal agency planning, 
coordination, and implementation of U.S. interdiction efforts; 
and (5) the needs of the ``front-line'' drug agents.
    At this hearing, testimony was received from Admiral Robert 
E. Kramek, President Clinton's Interdiction Coordinator and the 
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as several front-
line Coast Guard personnel, including Lieutenant Commander Mike 
Burns, a C-130 aircraft pilot; Lieutenant Commander Randy 
Forrester, an HU-25C aircraft pilot; Lieutenant Jim Carlson, 
Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard cutter Vashon; Petty 
Officer Mark Fitzmorris, a Boarding Officer on the Coast Guard 
cutter Tampa. Finally, the subcommittee heard testimony from 
Admiral Paul A. Yost, president of the James Madison Memorial 
Fellowship Foundation, and former Coast Guard Commandant, on 
how the Coast Guard effectively shut down the Caribbean to drug 
traffickers in the late 1980's.
    The subcommittee found that interdiction is vital. As 
stated by Admiral Kramek, ``When the correct resources are 
applied, as the Coast Guard has recently demonstrated during 
Operation Frontier Shield, we get a lot of bang for our buck''. 
Operation Frontier Shield was a ``surge operation'' implemented 
on October 1, 1996, was designed to deny smuggling routes into 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Using available 
intelligence, this concentrated effort resulted in the 
confiscation of almost 14,000 pounds of cocaine. Another 17,000 
pounds were jettisoned by smugglers during the first quarter of 
fiscal year 1997. Admiral Kramek testified to the importance of 
bi-lateral maritime agreements and how essential close 
cooperation is to their success. He noted that, currently, we 
have no such agreement with Mexico.
    The front-line Coast Guard Officers explained firsthand how 
intelligence, monitoring, detection, and ``end-game'' are 
linked for effective counterdrug operations; one link missing 
is failure. The importance of adequate resources for effective 
counterdrug operations was identified, including aircraft, 
patrol boats, DOD vessels, infrared and aperture radars, 
intercept radars, communications equipment, and other 
technology.
    Admiral Yost testified that, during his tenure as 
Commandant, the Coast Guard had more forces dedicated to drug 
interdiction (in 1990) than they have presently in 1997. He 
stated: ``I think that if you add assets to [the Drug War] you 
are going to reduce the amount of drugs coming across the 
Caribbean''. Subcommittee Chairman Hastert noted that our 
national strategy isn't a war anymore, but that the 
administration prefers to call it a cancer. He added, ``When 
something is a cancer, you don't usually win that. A war you 
can win. You have to put your resources out there and make sure 
you do win it''. A dominant theme was the cost-effectiveness of 
added resources for interdiction.
    On September 15, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled, ``Needle Exchange, Legalization, and the Failure of 
Swiss Heroin Experiments.'' The purpose of the hearing was to 
examine the current needle exchange programs in the United 
States, Europe, and in British Colombia which began as a way to 
deter the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users. Since the 
implementation of this program, however, in Europe and here in 
the United States, this initial goal has proven to be out of 
reach. Moreover, the programs appear to be genuinely harmful in 
most, if not all, locations described.
    Testimony was received from Ernst Aeschbach, M.D., vice 
president, Youth Without Drugs; Dr. Matthias Erne, expert on 
Switzerland Drug Policy; Mr. Robert Maginnis, senior policy 
advisor, Family Research Council; Ambassador David Jordan, 
former Ambassador to Peru, and professor, University of 
Virginia; Ms. Nancy Sosman, Coalition for a Better Community; 
and Dr. Peter Beilenson, commissioner, Department of Health, 
Baltimore City, MD.
    The subcommittee found that initiatives in other nations, 
which began similarly to programs in the United States, have 
proved to be highly destructive. They did not reduce the 
transmission of AIDS or HIV; in fact, in the Vancouver and 
Montreal studies, the incidence of AIDS transmission actually 
rose with the onset of needle giveaways. The programs were 
``moral compromises'' that provided drug paraphernalia to drug 
addicts for shooting an illegal drug into their veins. This is 
clearly the wrong message to send to America's children. The 
subcommittee heard testimony of a needle exchange program in 
Baltimore which may have had adequate ``exchange'' controls, 
but this program is not the norm and is also self-selecting; 
Baltimore virtually leads the Nation, today, in heroin 
addiction. Nancy Sosman testified that she was able to obtain 
needles, paraphernalia, and instructions on how to ``shoot up'' 
without providing any needles to ``exchange'' at the New York 
City program.
    Several hearings were held to highlight counterdrug efforts 
fought on foreign soil. Foreign efforts are vital to keeping 
drugs out of our country. Colombia is the world's leading 
producer and distributor of cocaine, and remains a major source 
of heroin consumed in the United States. Since fiscal year 
1990, the United States has programmed approximately $750 
million in assistance and equipment to support Colombian police 
and military units involved in counternarcotics activities. On 
February 14, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Oversight of United States Counternarcotics Assistance to 
Colombia.'' Witnesses at this hearing included Robert S. 
Gelbard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics 
and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State; General 
Harold Bedoya Pizarro, chairman, Joint Staff, Colombian Armed 
Forces; Major General Rosso Jose Serrano Cadena, director 
general, Colombian National Police; Honorable Morris Busby, 
Former Ambassador to Colombia and Former Ambassador-at-Large 
for Counter-Terrorism; and Major F. Andy Messing, Jr. USAR 
(Ret.), executive director, National Defense Council 
Foundation. At this hearing a number of issues were examined. 
These included: what levels of counternarcotics assistance is 
the Government of Colombia receiving from the United States 
Government; did President Clinton's decision to decertify 
Colombia in 1996 have a significant detrimental effect on the 
levels of counternarcotics support Colombia received from the 
United States via the Department of State and Foreign Military 
Sales [FMS]; how involved are the Colombian guerrillas in 
narco-trafficking; what are the goals of the Colombian 
Government for 1997 in the war against illegal drug production, 
manufacturing and the organized narcotics traffickers; what 
support will be necessary from the United States to accomplish 
these goals; what are the constraints that the United States 
Government faces in Colombia; how close is Colombia to civil 
war with the narco-guerrillas and how many Colombian National 
Police and Military personnel have lost their lives in direct 
combat with the narco-traffickers; what should the United 
States do to assure the most effective counternarcotics effort 
in Colombia by the Colombian National Police and Colombian 
Military; and has the administration's decertification of 
Colombia caused delays in the delivery of vital 
counternarcotics aid? The overarching conclusion was that 
additional support for the Colombian National Police is 
imperative to permanently winning the United States drug war.
    On July 9, 1997, the subcommittee held a second hearing on 
counternarcotics activities relating to Colombia entitled, 
``International Drug Control Policy: Colombia.'' Witnesses 
included Myles Frechette, Ambassador, United States Embassy, 
Bogota, Colombia; Jeffrey Davidow, Assistant Secretary of 
State, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Department of State; 
Robert Newberry, Principal Director, Drug Enforcement Affairs, 
Department of Defense; Donnie Marshall, Chief of Operations, 
Drug Enforcement Administration; Jane E. Becker, Acting 
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs, Department of State; Henry L. Hinton, Jr., 
Assistant Comptroller General, United States General Accounting 
Office; and Jim Thessin, Deputy Legal Advisor, Office of Legal 
Advisor, Department of State. At this hearing an examination of 
the status of the promised 614 waiver for Colombia; the status 
of the placement of fiscal year 1997 appropriated DEA agents 
for Colombia; the delay in the production of documents, 
requested by General Accounting Office, for an examination of 
United States and Colombian efforts to combat drug trafficking 
activities; and the proposal by the Department of Defense, for 
expanded authority to provide enhanced interdiction 
capabilities of the counterdrug forces in Colombia were 
discussed. The hearing was characterized by a sense of enormous 
disappointment with the United States State Department and 
United States Embassy in Colombia during Mr. Frechette's 
tenure, both on policy decisions and management issues.
    According to estimates by the Department of State's Bureau 
for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs [INL], 
Mexico is a major transit point for cocaine entering the United 
States from South America, and a major source country for 
heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Today, at least 400 
tons of cocaine enter the United States annually, 70 percent 
across the Mexico-United States border; and 150 tons of 
methamphetamine are now produced in Mexico. Cross-border 
shipments of these drugs have increased markedly in the past 
several years. On February 25, 1997, the subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled, ``Drug Interdiction Efforts along the 
Southwest Border and Mexico's Efforts to combat Narco-
Trafficking.'' Witnesses at this hearing included Congressman 
Henry Bonilla (R-TX); Thomas A. Constantine, Administrator, 
Drug Enforcement Administration; Robert S. Gelbard, Assistant 
Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs, Department of State; Mary Lee Warren, 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; 
Douglas M. Kruhm, Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Border Patrol; 
and Tony Castaneda, Chief of Police, Eagle Pass, TX. These 
witnesses testified to the fact that the growing influx of 
narcotics along the U.S. Southwestern border poses a direct, 
palpable, insidious and deepening national security threat.
    Drug trafficking through the Caribbean region and into 
Florida is a major drug threat to the United States. According 
to United States law enforcement officials, up to 30-40 percent 
of the cocaine entering the United States may enter through the 
Caribbean section of the transit zone. During the past several 
years, traffickers in the Caribbean have shifted their 
operations from primarily air-related activities to maritime 
activities. In addition, traffickers are using improved 
technologies to counter efforts by U.S. agencies to identify 
and monitor their activities. In an effort to better understand 
the dynamic trafficking patterns of the Caribbean, the 
subcommittee on July 17, 1997, held a hearing entitled, ``Drug 
Interdiction in Florida and the Caribbean.'' Witnesses at this 
hearing included Newt Gingrich, Speaker, U.S. House of 
Representatives; Samuel Banks, Deputy Commissioner, U.S. 
Customs Service; James Milford, Deputy Administrator, Drug 
Enforcement Administration; Rear Admiral Norman Saunders, 
Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; 
Peter Girard, group supervisor for Cargo Theft, Miami Seaport, 
Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs Service; Mike Sinclair, 
Chief of Miami Seaport Cargo Inspection Team, U.S. Customs 
Service; James H. Wallwork, commissioner, Waterfront Commission 
of New York Harbor; Edward V. Badolato, chairman, National 
Cargo Security Council; and Art Coffey, international vice 
president, International Longshoremen's Association. This 
hearing focused on: 1) the nature and threat of drug-
trafficking activities in the transit zone with particular 
emphasis on south Florida and the northern Caribbean; 2) the 
capabilities of United States agencies to interdict illegal 
drugs in the Caribbean and in Florida's ports of entry; 3) the 
extent of Federal agency planning, coordination, and 
implementation of United States interdiction efforts in south 
Florida and the northern Caribbean; and 4) and the 
effectiveness of United States enforcement efforts in Florida's 
ports of entry. The importance of increased effort in this 
region was plainly corroborated.
    Field Hearings.--In addition to the nine hearings held in 
Washington, members of the subcommittee traveled to several 
regions of the country to examine counternarcotics efforts by 
communities, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well 
as cooperation by those groups with Federal counternarcotics 
agencies and vice versa. Survey after survey shows that drug 
abuse, especially among teens, is an increasing problem in the 
United States. Since 1991, teenage use of marijuana, inhalants, 
cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, heroin, and other drugs has 
increased dramatically. This is a sudden reversal of successful 
antidrug policies in the 1980's, lowering cocaine use, for 
example, 70 percent in 4 years and reinforcing strong ``no 
use'' attitudes. In 1993, the trends began a dramatic reversal. 
Over the past several years, many communities--both rural and 
urban--have reported increasing difficulties in dealing with 
the effects of escalating drug use and drug-related crime. 
Local law enforcement authorities have been particularly 
frustrated as their communities have been subjected to an 
increase in violent crime and drug use. The subcommittee heard 
testimony at these field hearings highlighting the cooperative 
efforts of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials 
who continue to take positive steps toward winning the war on 
drugs. Also apparent was the rising threat posed by traffickers 
employing more sophisticated technology. These field hearings 
highlighted two important conclusions. First, the most 
successful way to combat drugs is for entire communities to 
become engaged in tackling the issue, working in partnership. 
This includes families, schools, law enforcement, business, 
church, synagogue, and other community leaders. Second, 
interdicting drugs before they cross our border, either at 
their source or in transit, is essential to combating drug 
abuse and can be highly effective when properly funded. 
Effective drug interdiction, the most recent and best science 
indicates, raises drug prices, reduces drug availability and 
lowers drug purity. Accordingly, source country and transit 
zone programs can, if well managed, be highly cost-effective.
    On July 7, 1997, the subcommittee held two hearings in 
Illinois to examine the threat of drugs and gangs to kids in 
rural communities. In DeKalb, at the hearing entitled, ``Report 
From the Frontline: The Drug Threat to Teens in Our Rural 
Communities,'' testimony was received from the following 
witnesses: Ms. Pam Maakestad, whose son was a victim of drug-
related violence; ``Connie''--a teenager who has never used 
drugs; ``Jerome''--a teenager who formerly organized drug 
dealers; ``Derrick''--a former gang member; Mr. Mike Coghlan, 
former States attorney; Kris Povlson, project coordinator of 
the DeKalb County Partnership for a Substance Abuse Free 
Environment; Mr. John Nakonechny of DeKalb County Schools; Mr. 
Michael Haines, a professor at Northern Illinois University; 
Mr. Tim Johnson, DeKalb County States attorney; Sheriff Richard 
Randall of Kendall County; and Mr. Bob Miller, representing the 
Just Say No To Drugs Parade in Lee County.
    In Algonquin, at ``Report From the Frontline: Drugs and 
Gangs in McHenry County,'' testimony was taken from the 
following witnesses: Mr. Jerry Skogmo, the program director of 
the Renz Addiction Counseling Center; Mr. Carlos Chavez, 
coordinator of Youth Prevention Programs; Mr. Les Lunsmann and 
Mr. Bill LeFew, representing Communities Against Gangs; Mr. 
Gary Pack, McHenry County State's attorney; Mr. William Morley, 
Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement 
Administration Chicago Field Office; and Sheriff Nygren of the 
McHenry County Sheriff's Department.
    When most people think of drugs and teens, they tend to 
think of impoverished urban areas crowded with crack dealers 
and gangs. Rural areas and small towns, such as DeKalb and 
Kendall, are generally not thought of as places where drug 
abuse is a problem. Unfortunately, this image no longer 
accurately reflects the true nature of the drug scourge in 
America. The victim's of this drug war painted a picture of the 
true status of drug use in this area. They related stories of 
drive-by shootings, kids as young as 11- and 12-years-old using 
heroin, and young people afraid to stand up to the gangs that 
terrorize their daily routine. This testimony was not meant to 
discourage the citizens of DeKalb and Algonquin, it was 
intended to send a message to Congress that the deadly epidemic 
is continuing and must be handled like the war on drugs it has 
become.
    Our public safety witnesses highlighted the role of our law 
enforcement officers as they face increasingly intense battles 
on the streets. With the rapid emergence of drugs such as 
heroin and methamphetamine which have been found to have purity 
levels high enough to kill a first-time user, the struggles 
facing our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 
multiply and increase in danger each day they report to work.
    Testimony from prevention groups and community coalition 
representatives described successful efforts being taken by 
citizens and members of the community to stop our kids from 
ever turning to drugs. As the burden on our law enforcement 
community continues to grow, the need for citizens in each and 
every community to take responsibility and play an important 
role in the battle against drugs is vital. The witnesses at 
both hearings have demonstrated that commitment and 
perseverance are essential in successfully keeping kids off 
drugs.
    On July 21, 1997, the subcommittee also held a field 
hearing at West Mesquite High School in Mesquite, TX entitled, 
``Report From the Frontline: The Status of Dallas' Fight 
Against Drugs.'' Witnesses included Paul Coggins, U.S. 
attorney, northern District of Texas; Donnie R. Marshall, Chief 
of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration; Julio F. 
Mercado, Special Agent in Charge, Dallas Divisional Office, 
Drug Enforcement Administration; and Ken Yarbrough, chief of 
police, Richardson Police Department. These witnesses confirmed 
that cocaine continues to be readily available throughout the 
Dallas area; heroin remains available at all levels throughout 
northeast Texas; methamphetamine and amphetamine are trafficked 
in and around Dallas; and marijuana is encountered regularly by 
law enforcement authorities. The link between marijuana and the 
other drugs was made painfully clear. Additionally, the 
subcommittee visited a former crack house that was being 
transformed into usable living space by local business people, 
with the active support of the law enforcement community.
    On September 22, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing in 
Aurora, IL entitled, ``Report From the Frontline: From South 
America to South Aurora.'' This field hearing highlighted the 
effect our counterdrug efforts in the source countries in South 
America have on the communities across the United States, like 
Aurora, IL. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
following witnesses: the Honorable Juan Carlos Esguerra, 
Colombian Ambassador to the United States; Lt. Col. Francis 
Kinney, Director of Strategic Planning for the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy; Mr. Juventino Cano, president of 
the Aurora Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Bob Barwa, 
principal of East Aurora High School; Mr. Harold Osby, a former 
gang member; Mr. Mike Murphy, executive director of the Prayer 
Coalition for Reconciliation; Ms. Judy Kraemer, president of 
Illinois Drug Education Alliance; Sgt. Roy Garcia, of the North 
Central Narcotics Task Force, Illinois State Police; Chief 
Larry Langston of the Aurora Police Department; and Mr. Joseph 
Birkett, DuPage County State's attorney.
    This hearing focused on the nexus between drug cultivation 
in South America and how these deadly narcotics come across our 
borders and into our neighborhoods. The Colombian Ambassador 
discussed the country's persistent and courageous efforts to 
reduce drug cultivation and trafficking of the dangerous 
substances. State and local law enforcement witnesses testified 
to the various enforcement and prosecution issues inherent in 
the drug trade, as well as it's impact on drug-related criminal 
activity. Civic leaders described to our Members the various 
successful programs underway within the community to halt the 
spread of drug use, trafficking, and gang-related violence. All 
witnesses provided unique and invaluable information for the 
Members to bring back to Washington to assist in evaluating the 
current drug policy, as well as creating new legislative 
initiatives.
    On Monday, October 20, 1997, the subcommittee held a field 
hearing at Freehold Borough High School in Freehold, NJ. At 
this hearing the subcommittee heard testimony about rising drug 
use and violence in the community of Central New Jersey. 
Witnesses at this field hearing included Greg Williams, Chief 
of Domestic Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration; John 
Coleman, Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; John Kaye, Monmouth County prosecutor; Michael 
Paquette, chief of police, South Brunswick Police; Captain 
Howard Butt, Narcotics Division, New Jersey State Police; 
Elliot White, director, Local Advisory Committee on Alcohol and 
Drug Abuse; Mary Pat Angelini, executive director, Substances 
Abuse Resources; Ernestine Winfrey, executive director, Mercer 
Council on Alcoholism & Drug Addiction; and Scott Sechrist, 
director, Good News Home for Women. In addition, local high 
school students contributed testimony regarding the current 
state of drug trafficking and abuse in their schools. Witnesses 
also testified to the effects drug use and availability had on 
their community and what is being done to effectively curb the 
spread. The community of Central New Jersey is proof that the 
social and economic problems caused by drug trafficking and use 
can occur anywhere, and can also be prevented when a community 
comes together to prohibit the spread of drug use by their 
young people.
2. Department of Defense Inventory Management.
    a. Summary.--This investigation is exploring the entire 
universe of acquisition, storage, use and disposal of 
Department of Defense [DOD] supplies and repair parts, 
including everything from field rations and medical supplies to 
aircraft engines. The subcommittee's three policy goals were 
and are: (1) to identify more modern and efficient inventory 
management practices, which can simultaneously save taxpayer 
dollars and improve military readiness; (2) to insure that such 
practices, once identified, are fully implemented by DOD; and 
(3) to achieve substantial financial savings in inventory 
management, freeing up defense dollars for military 
procurement, research and development, combat training, and 
other war fighting necessities which have been under funded in 
recent years. By devoting consistent congressional attention to 
these issues, and by rendering assistance and applying pressure 
when necessary, the subcommittee hopes to assist DOD in 
formulating and executing a plan which will result in a 
substantially less expensive and more efficient system.
    Defense inventory management, for the last 6 years, has 
been identified by the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] as 
one of the 25 ``high-risk'' areas in the Federal Government. 
Defense inventory management was targeted as vulnerable to 
waste, fraud and abuse because of the enormous amounts of money 
spent on inventory and the inefficiencies which have long been 
rampant within the field.
    The Defense Logistics Agency [DLA] and the three service 
departments maintain extensive support and logistics 
infrastructure designed to supply our armed forces. 
Headquartered at Fort Belvoir, VA, DLA employs over 50,000 
military and civilian personnel worldwide and manages 
approximately 560 million cubic feet of storage space. DLA 
maintains a stockpile of millions of secondary inventory 
items--such as medical supplies, food, clothing and spare 
parts--worth an estimated $69.6 billion.
    The system continues to be based on ``just-in-case'' 
practices of overbuying and stockpiling excess inventory at 
many different locations and levels. This approach usually 
provides good availability of supplies and repair parts, but 
only by sacrificing efficiency and savings. However, modern 
methods of inventory management can provide both availability 
and efficiency, by making timely deliveries from centralized 
facilities. This has already been successfully demonstrated in 
certain areas of defense inventory management, such as medical 
supplies and food items.
    There are additional factors which aggravate the 
inefficiency of the inventory system. Cumbersome acquisition 
practices, which have begun to be reformed by Congress during 
the last two sessions, still contribute substantially to the 
problem. Furthermore, many of DOD's accounting systems are 
outdated and inefficient, which makes it difficult to identify 
exactly what inventory is in storage, or exactly how much money 
has been spent. This situation is further complicated by the 
fact that DLA, as well as the Army, the Air Force, and the 
Navy, all maintain their own logistics systems, which often do 
not share information in an efficient manner.
    As the military budget has decreased steadily, DOD's force 
structure and military readiness have suffered more than 
supporting infrastructure. At the same time that billions are 
wasted through inefficient inventory management and depot 
maintenance, there is less and less money for combat troops, 
combat training, military procurement, research and 
development.
    As part of the investigation, committee staff visited seven 
different military facilities, each of which added 
substantially to the committee's oversight investigation and 
plans for reform. On April 8-9, 1997, majority and minority 
staff from the committee, accompanied by personnel from the 
GAO, traveled to three different military facilities. The first 
stop was DLA headquarters at Fort Belvoir, VA, where the group 
was briefed by managers who provided an overview of DLA's 
current operations and plans for the future. The staff then 
traveled to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in Washington, DC, 
to see DOD's innovative virtual prime vendor operations for the 
purchase of medical supplies. The group then traveled to the 
New Cumberland and Mechanicsburg supply depots in Susquehanna, 
PA. There are 90 warehouses at these two depots, each the size 
of approximately two or three football fields, and over $6 
billion worth of consumable and reparable parts are stored 
there. Compounding the acquisition of excess and unnecessary 
material is the enormous cost of continued storage for often 
obsolete or unnecessary inventory.
    On May 2, 1997, the staff and GAO personnel then traveled 
to Philadelphia to see the Defense Industrial Supply Center 
[DISC] and the Naval Inventory Control Point [NAVICP], where 
item managers determine the requirements for supplies, order 
new inventory, and give orders for storage and disposal. The 
DISC is responsible for hardware items--nuts, bolts, bearings, 
metal, electrical wiring, et cetera--and the NAVICP is 
primarily responsible for aircraft parts.
    From May 27 to May 30, 1997, the subcommittee staff 
traveled to the U.S. Army maintenance depot in Corpus Christi, 
TX, and the U.S. Air Force maintenance depot in Oklahoma City, 
OK. DLA storage and distribution facilities are collocated at 
these sites and support the depots. Helicopters and aircraft 
are upgraded and repaired at these facilities. The maintenance 
depots are major customers of the inventory system.
    b. Benefits.--Although there is much dispute about the 
complex issues involved in DOD inventory management, one thing 
is clear: substantial savings of hundreds of millions, if not 
billions, of dollars can be achieved from reform of the 
domestic defense infrastructure in general and defense 
inventory management in particular. However, the subcommittee 
does not suggest that money saved through improving the 
logistics system should be cut from the Defense budget.
    Rather, any savings that can be realized should be shifted 
toward procurement and modernization accounts that have been 
cut by more than 70 percent in real dollars as the Defense 
budget has been cut for 13 straight years. As the military 
budget has declined, the combat forces, or ``tooth,'' have 
undergone more severe reductions than the supporting 
infrastructure, or ``tail.'' Both DOD and Congress are 
committed to improving the ``tooth-to-tail'' ratio, and DOD 
recognizes that inventory management is one part of the 
``tail'' where significant savings may be realized. In 
comprehensive reform of support systems lies the opportunity to 
restore needed resources to the war fighters.
    In addition, even if DOD's budget was not continuing to 
decline, improving inventory management should still be a high 
priority. Good financial management and efficient utilization 
of resources are extremely important; reform of the system 
would be a laudable goal even if financial considerations did 
not now dictate it. Thus, saving billions of dollars through 
reform of inventory management is not only beneficial for the 
military but is compelled by our commitment to responsible 
fiscal management.
    DOD recognizes that it has to reform inventory management 
and is working with the subcommittee, GAO, and other 
congressional offices to resolve these long-standing problems. 
Serious and thoughtful reforms have been initiated by DOD over 
the last few years which should lead to substantial management 
improvements and cost-savings over the next several years. 
Nevertheless, this will be a long, difficult process which will 
certainly require vigorous congressional involvement to 
encourage DOD to continue to aggressively pursue reform.
    c. Hearings.--On March 20, 1997, the subcommittee held an 
introductory hearing on DOD inventory management practices and 
related issues entitled, ``Improving Defense Inventory 
Management.'' The hearing focused on general defense inventory 
management problems, measures undertaken by DOD to address the 
problems and the effectiveness of internal reforms, and the 
implications that extensive reform might have on DOD's budget, 
and ways that the committee, working in cooperation with DOD, 
GAO, and outside experts, can work together to address and 
solve inventory problems.
    Mr. James B. Emahiser, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Materiel and Distribution Management, and Mr. 
Jeffrey A. Jones, executive director for Logistics Management, 
Defense Logistics Agency, presented DOD's perspective of the 
problem and discussed the measures that have been, or are 
being, implemented to modernize the logistics system. While 
they strongly disagreed with many of GAO's definitions and 
conclusions, they acknowledged that DOD is currently holding 
billions of dollars' worth of excess inventory. They testified 
that the purchase value of current excess inventory is 
approximately $12 billion, which for accounting purposes they 
value at about $300 million. This inventory is sometimes 
difficult to properly dispose of, but DOD recognizes that 
disposing of excess inventory, and avoiding purchases of more 
excess inventory, will ``free up'' scarce resources. Although 
further inquiry will follow in 1998, these DOD witnesses denied 
that DOD is continuing to buy inventory in excess of current or 
foreseeable requirements.
    Both witnesses stated that DOD has proposed incremental 
changes to improve support functions and operate more like a 
private business, but appeared resistant to dramatic or 
sweeping changes. Commercial practices, the DOD witnesses 
argued, are not entirely feasible for the military and that the 
burden of supplying the military cannot be shifted to the 
private sector. They cautioned that excessive outsourcing or 
privatization of support functions could adversely affect 
national security.
    The second panel was composed of personnel from GAO. Mr. 
Henry L. Hinton, Jr., Assistant Comptroller General, Mr. 
Kenneth R. Knouse, Jr., Assistant Director, and Mr. Robert L. 
Repasky, Senior Evaluator, presented an overview of the defense 
inventory problem, on which GAO has been reporting for over 30 
years and on which it has issued over 100 reports. The panel 
addressed problems ranging from adopting commercial sector best 
practices to trimming budgets for secondary inventory items. 
GAO asserted that inventory oversight is essential, and there 
remain weak financial accountability measures and a tendency 
toward overstated requirements. Within DOD's vast supply 
system, the GAO estimates that roughly half of the $69.6 
billion of secondary inventory items that DLA stockpiles--$33.7 
billion worth of inventory--is excess to DOD war reserve or 
current operating requirements. This excess inventory results 
in hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on storage costs each 
year. In addition to the problem of excess inventory from past 
purchases, it is likely that DOD is continuing to purchase and 
store more inventory than is needed for military requirements, 
or than would be needed if DOD's inventory management and 
maintenance operations were run more efficiently.
    Even though GAO asserts that over half of DOD's current 
inventory is excess to current operating or wartime 
requirements, they decline to advocate massive disposal of 
excess stocks. While they assert support for adoption of modern 
business practices, they appear somewhat short on action. DOD 
acknowledged, however, that the enormous amount spent on 
purchasing secondary inventory--approximately $15 billion a 
year, more than NASA's entire budget--makes reform imperative.
    The third panel was composed of Dr. Jacques A. Gansler (now 
serving as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology), vice chairman, Defense Science Board, and Admiral 
Luther F. Schriefer (USN, Ret.), executive director, Business 
Executives for National Security. Both Dr. Gansler and Admiral 
Schriefer testified that ``billions of dollars'' could be saved 
through outsourcing and privatization of most domestic military 
``infrastructure'' functions. They asserted that moving 
commercial functions into the private sector would allow DOD to 
save money while putting greater focus on DOD's core mission--
preparing for and fighting wars.
    Dr. Gansler discussed the current imbalance in Defense 
spending, estimating that 55 percent of the Defense budget, or 
$140 billion a year, is spent on support and infrastructure. Of 
that, he testified that an estimated $60 billion is spent on 
logistics alone. He cited a November 1996 report by the Defense 
Science Board, entitled, ``Achieving an Innovative Support 
Structure for 21st Century Military Superiority,'' which claims 
reform consisting of privatizing and outsourcing most domestic-
based logistics and infrastructure functions could save $30 
billion a year, including $2.5 billion from inventory 
management accounts. These funds could then be shifted to 
modernization and training.
    Admiral Schriefer is part of a ``Tail-to-Tooth 
Commission,'' focused on ``re-engineering'' the Pentagon and 
spending money more efficiently. He argued, with 70 percent of 
Defense dollars going to pay for support and infrastructure 
``war fighters'' needs are going unmet. He stressed that DOD 
must learn from American industry. DOD must dramatically 
transform the way it manages inventories in order to be 
``globally competitive.'' He believes that, ``Revolution, not 
evolution'' is required. Admiral Schriefer recommended that DOD 
buy advanced software to manage the inventory; buy off-the-
shelf commercial products as much as possible; rely on 
contractor support and outsourcing maintenance as much as 
possible with new systems; and that inventory management be 
centralized.
    On July 24, 1997, the subcommittee held a second oversight 
hearing on DOD inventory management entitled, ``Reforming 
Inventory Management Through Innovative Business Practices.'' 
The subcommittee narrowed the focus of this hearing and 
specifically addressed the ways in which DOD could employ 
``cutting edge business practices'' to improve inventory 
management. Witnesses were asked to discuss the success that 
DOD has demonstrated with ``virtual prime vendor'' and ``direct 
vendor delivery'' practices in acquisition and delivery of 
medical and pharmaceutical supplies to over 200 medical 
facilities nationwide. Similar successes revolving around food 
and clothing items were discussed, and the feasibility of using 
virtual prime vendor and direct vendor delivery for other types 
of inventory items, such as hardware items, was explored.
    The first panel was composed of personnel from GAO. Mr. 
David Warren, Director, Defense Management Issues, National 
Security and International Affairs Division, Mr. Kenneth R. 
Knouse, Jr., Assistant Director, Mr. Robert L. Repasky, Senior 
Evaluator, and Mr. Matthew B. Lea, Senior Evaluator, discussed 
how American business has developed sophisticated methods for 
inventory management, ensuring both efficiency and economy. 
Many of these methods--such as ``just-in-time delivery,'' use 
of supplier parks, and prime vendor contracts--could be applied 
to DOD's inventory management operations for similar 
efficiencies and savings. Commercial methods could not be 
applied to DOD in a wholesale manner, but must be tailored to 
military readiness needs. The cutting edge ``best practices'' 
that GAO believes DOD should aggressively adopt include virtual 
prime vendor in combination with direct vendor delivery 
innovations. Using these practices, acquisition personnel are 
able to order items electronically. The prime vendor then has 
the items delivered directly to buyer, eliminating the need for 
inventory backup.
    GAO addressed DOD's success in using virtual prime vendor 
and direct vendor delivery practices in purchasing medical 
supplies, pharmaceuticals, and food. GAO asserted that by using 
direct vendor delivery for medical supplies and food items, 
which represent about 3 percent of inventory items for which 
these practices could be used, DOD saved $714 million over the 
past 6 years. GAO suggested that similar techniques be used for 
other categories of defense inventory items such as industrial 
hardware, fasteners, wiring, construction supplies, and similar 
types of common, commercially available material. The estimated 
value of these items in the inventory is $7.2 billion. If 
implementation of best practices for these items were 
successful, DOD could reduce their inventory dollar value by 
several billion dollars, as well as reducing future purchases 
of such items and improving service to DOD customers.
    One of GAO's chief criticisms was that DOD is not moving 
aggressively enough to adopt efficient, cost cutting measures 
at a time when the Department's budget is continuing to shrink. 
GAO cited service parochialism and a DOD supply and maintenance 
``culture'' resistant to institutional reform in identifying 
``major roadblocks'' to substantial changes. Overcoming these 
barriers will be necessary for DOD in the coming years.
    Dr. Edward Martin, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Health Affairs, Mr. James B. Emahiser, Assistant Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense for Materiel and Distribution 
Management, and Mr. Jeffrey A. Jones, Executive Director for 
Logistics Management, Defense Logistics Agency, testified for 
DOD. They discussed the success of reforms enacted to date and 
outlined additional reforms that DOD plans to implement in the 
future. Dr. Martin took the opportunity to discuss the history 
of the virtual prime vendor use for medical supplies and noted 
successes, difficulties encountered to date, and plans to 
improve the system in the future. When asked if additional 
legislation would be required to hasten reform efforts, Mr. 
Emahiser responded emphatically that it would not be required, 
and said he considered ``. . . existing legislative authority 
as sufficient to continue to appropriately implement innovative 
private sector practices.'' This conclusion remains subject to 
further scrutiny.
3. Immigration and Naturalization Service's Program Citizenship USA.
    a. Summary.--The investigation of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service's [INS] Citizenship USA program [CUSA], 
initiated in June 1996, has uncovered a pervasive and alarming 
pattern of election-year fraud and abuses within the INS' 
naturalization process, the process by which resident aliens 
become American citizens. The subcommittee has, so far, held 
three public hearings on the program, the second of which 
featured INS line-agent whistle-blowers.
    This politically-motivated program was evidently intended 
to naturalize 1.3 million people during fiscal 1996, concluding 
with the close of voter registrations in September 1996, just 
prior to the 1996 elections. The program eventually naturalized 
1.1 million people. This number represents a massive increase 
over previous years; from 1990 to 1994, INS naturalized about 
300,000 new citizens per year.
    Throughout the course of this program, legal and procedural 
requirements governing naturalization were consciously 
weakened, discarded or ignored. Immigration law requires each 
applicant for citizenship to have ``good moral character.'' 
This means that the applicant may not become a U.S. citizen if 
he has committed certain crimes, or lied to the INS about his 
criminal record. To enforce these requirements, the INS 
requires each applicant to disclose any criminal history on the 
application for citizenship, under penalties of perjury. More 
importantly, the INS takes fingerprints of each applicant and 
is required to submit them to the FBI. If a candidate's 
fingerprints match a criminal record on file with the FBI, the 
FBI sends a copy of the criminal record, or ``rap sheet,'' back 
to the INS. Because the rap sheet contains criminal charges, 
but generally does not report dispositions, the INS must then 
investigate the charges to discover resulting convictions and 
sentences. At that point, the INS examiner is able to match an 
application form with the applicant's complete criminal 
history. The examiner can then determine whether citizenship 
should be denied based on either (A) the seriousness of the 
criminal record, or (B) the applicant's failure to report it on 
his application.
    Historically, the INS' criminal background check process 
has suffered from a number of ingrained problems. They were 
described in reports issued in 1994 by both the Department of 
Justice Office of the Inspector General [DOJIG] and by the U.S. 
General Accounting Office [GAO]. The DOJIG and GAO reports 
pointed out that the INS' procedures left open the possibility 
that, in some cases, individuals with criminal records could be 
improperly naturalized. Both reports made strong 
recommendations to correct the serious flaws appearing in the 
process. However, for reasons that remain unexplained, the INS 
did not adopt the recommendations made by either DOJIG or GAO. 
Moreover, in many cases, the INS failed to submit fingerprint 
cards to the FBI, or submitted defective fingerprint cards 
which were rejected by the FBI. In other cases, the INS 
submitted fingerprint cards but failed to await the return of 
the rap sheet before granting citizenship. Instead, under the 
enormous, knowingly generated load of the Citizenship USA 
program, the system broke down completely.
    Compounding the crisis, for many months, these problems 
were deliberately concealed by the INS. Beginning in September 
1996, the subcommittee requested detailed information and 
documents on the issue of criminal background checks. The INS 
refused to provide any information, and then went so far as to 
openly defy two congressional subpoenas. In addition, public 
statements made by senior INS officials and the INS press 
office were repeatedly misleading, even after receiving 
incontrovertible corrections from congressional investigators. 
For example, Alexander Aleinikoff, then the INS Executive 
Associate Commissioner for Programs (who has left the agency), 
told National Public Radio in September that the problem was 
restricted to ``. . . perhaps 40 or 50 cases nationwide.'' The 
truth was somewhat different. Louis Crocetti, the INS' 
Associate Commissioner for Examinations, stated under oath 
during a congressional hearing last September that the number 
``. . . was 60 for the entire naturalization program.'' To 
date, the INS still has not admitted the true scope and nature 
of its problems with criminal background checks, which--at a 
minimum--involves ten of thousands of applications.
    Unfortunately, INS' disregard for its own procedures and 
safeguards has had predictable and serious consequences. On May 
12, 1997, DOJ, the parent agency over both the INS and FBI, 
reported to the subcommittee that out of 1,049,867 persons 
naturalized, 81,492 were identified as having FBI records which 
include INS administrative actions, dismissals, misdemeanor and 
felony arrests and convictions for serious and violent crimes 
such as drug trafficking, child molestation, assault, robbery, 
burglary, rape and murder; 124,740 persons were further 
identified as not having had definitive criminal history checks 
conducted because their fingerprint cards were rejected by the 
FBI because of poor quality prints; 55,750 persons were 
additionally identified for whom it could not and cannot be 
determined whether or not FBI record checks were ever 
conducted. Of the 81,492 persons identified as having FBI 
records, at least 5,500 were identified as convicted felons 
with disqualifying criminal histories. The DOJ and INS are 
currently trying to denaturalize these people, and determine if 
there are additional criminals who were granted citizenship, 
and if so, how many were granted citizenship.
    DOJ's review process is still underway, and it is not known 
exactly how many of the quarter million cases under review 
should have been denied citizenship, based on criminal 
convictions and misrepresentation of criminal records. In many 
cases, especially the 180,000 who became citizens without 
having proper background checks, the full truth may never be 
known. In addition, fully remedying the problem may prove 
difficult or, in many cases, impossible, based on the automatic 
attachment of due process rights following naturalization, 
regardless of whether the naturalization in question was 
legitimate. The legal and logistical obstacles to removal of 
citizenship are mammoth, and the INS has historically 
denaturalized only 10 or 15 people per year. If thousands, much 
less tens of thousands, of people were improperly granted 
citizenship, the problem may never be fully remedied.
    The subcommittee intends to continue its investigation as 
long as it is necessary to expose and correct the fraud, abuse 
and recklessness engendered by CUSA, and may hold additional 
hearings in the future. One disconcerting aspect of the CUSA 
acceleration and waiver of critical regulations is the 
documented involvement of the White House, including intense 
involvement by the Vice President and several of his senior 
staff in the election-year acceleration.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's investigation and hearings 
have brought the full scope and nature of CUSA fraud, abuse and 
recklessness into the public eye, as media reports from coast 
to coast have described criminal activities and abuses of power 
wrought by this politically-motivated and undeniably errant 
program.
    The INS has belatedly enacted new regulations which allow 
the agency to conduct administrative denaturalization 
proceedings, and to theoretically permit denaturalization of 
people who have been erroneously naturalized. The INS has had 
statutory authority to enact such regulations since 1990, but 
has heretofore neglected to promulgate any such regulations. 
Responding to our congressional investigation, this is a small 
step in the right direction. These administrative proceedings 
will be substantially less time-consuming and burdensome than 
judicial denaturalization, which until now was the agency's 
only method of denaturalization. Unfortunately, for legal and 
logistical reasons, these new procedures are unlikely to be 
retroactively applied to the large number of people who were 
illegally and improperly naturalized under CUSA during 1996 or 
prior. This raises additional legal and national security 
concerns beyond the scope of this report.
    In addition, the DOJ IG has undertaken its own 
investigation to which it is devoting considerable resources. 
They should make some preliminary findings by the summer of 
1998. At the request of the subcommittee and other 
congressional offices, GAO is also conducting its own 
investigation. Specifically, they are examining the findings 
and recommendations made by Peat Marwick in addition to 
reviewing new INS naturalization regulations and procedures.
    In sum, the INS, under intense pressure from Congress, the 
public, and the media, has taken incremental steps to reform 
its badly-damaged naturalization process. However, this is only 
a small beginning, and much remains to be done by the INS, DOJ, 
and the FBI. Continued congressional oversight is necessary to 
ensure the success of reform efforts.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held its third hearing on 
mismanagement of the naturalization process on March 5, 1997. 
The hearing, held jointly with the Subcommittee on Immigration 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, entitled, ``Improper 
Granting of U.S. Citizenship Without Conducting Criminal 
Background Checks,'' focused on the breakdown of safeguards at 
INS that led to the naturalization of at least 5,500 convicted 
criminals.
    Mr. Stephen R. Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for 
administration, testified on behalf of DOJ. He was accompanied 
by Ms. Dawn Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the 
Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, and Mr. Gary 
Ahrens, KPMG Peat Marwick LLP. Mr. Colgate discussed the 
measures that DOJ was taking both to discover the exact 
magnitude of the problem and reinvent the naturalization 
process so that such abuses did not happen again. Mr. Ahrens 
discussed Peat Marwick's role in the naturalization review. Dr. 
Laurie E. Ekstrand, Associate Director for Administration of 
Justice Issues, General Accounting Office, discussed GAO's role 
in the review, which was to review Peat Marwick's methodology 
and implementation strategy.
    The Honorable Doris Meissner, Commissioner, Mr. David 
Rosenberg, Citizenship USA Program Director, Mr. Louis D. 
Crocetti, Associate Commissioner for Examinations, and Mr. 
David Martin, General Counsel, testified for the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. Mrs. Meissner denied any political 
influence was exerted on the program by the Clinton 
administration. She also discussed the new safeguards that INS 
instituted on November 29, 1996, that she believed would 
prevent such lapses in the future. She did not explain the 
apparent connections of the CUSA program to the 1996 Federal 
elections; nor did she address, at all, the failure to act on 
either past GAO or past DOJ IG criticisms of and 
recommendations to INS. She offered no suggestions on how those 
responsible within INS should be held accountable, or how to 
address the legal and security concerns raised by the INS' 
abdication of responsibility in 1996. She explained that the 
Citizenship USA program had been implemented to address the 
surge in naturalization applications in the last few years 
while improving the entire process; she could not, however, 
explain why she had also, consonant with White House 
memorandums, simultaneously ramped up recruiting of 
applications in 1996. While she admitted that mistakes were 
made, she believes that new policies and procedures that INS 
recently implemented will preclude such errors in the future. 
On balance, the Commissioner appeared not to grasp the enormity 
of INS' misfeasance, and potential malfeasance, in 1996.
4. Force Protection and Antiterrorism.
    a. Summary.--As part of the subcommittee's oversight of 
both terrorism and the security of United States personnel 
abroad, the subcommittee began an examination of the security 
of United States Government personnel, mostly from the 
Departments of Defense and State, stationed in South West Asia, 
where, as in many other parts of the world, terrorism is a 
constant threat. In June 1996, terrorists employing a truck 
bomb killed 19 United States airmen and injured hundreds of 
others at the United States Air Force base at Khobar Towers in 
Saudi Arabia, prompting a major review of force protection 
policy. The subcommittee's purpose was to examine the threats 
facing U.S. personnel deployed abroad, the changes in force 
protection policy made as a result of terrorist attacks, the 
status of implementing new force protection policies, and the 
success the United States has had in working with host 
countries to increase the security of U.S. personnel.
    In the aftermath of the Gulf war, there are approximately 
30,000 United States military personnel (including naval 
personnel stationed off shore) and over 500 State Department 
personnel in the Persian Gulf region. Unfortunately, they have 
been, and continue to be, the target of terrorist extremists 
from countries such as Iraq and Iran that are determined to 
force the withdrawal of United States forces from the Persian 
Gulf. Two terrorist attacks on United States military bases in 
Saudi Arabia, one in November 1995 and the other in June 1996, 
killed 24 United States personnel and injured hundreds of 
others. The terrorist groups that executed these attacks have 
not been definitively linked with any country in the region. 
These incidents focused congressional and public attention on 
force protection policy.
    Following the attacks, the Department of Defense [DOD] 
undertook a thorough review of its force protection policies. 
The review, conducted by the Downing Assessment Task Force, 
completed its work in August 1996. The Downing Report found 
that the U.S. military lacked a comprehensive strategy for 
combating terrorism based on common guidance, standards and 
procedures. The report also includes a series of 
recommendations to improve the security of U.S. military 
personnel abroad. It stressed that a single entity within DOD 
should be responsible for force protection, including 
antiterrorism and counterterrorism. Furthermore, the report 
called for greater interagency cooperation between the 
Departments of Defense and State in coordinating force 
protection policy.
    The State Department and DOD are responsible for the 
security of all U.S. personnel abroad. However, they conduct 
their missions differently in accordance with the respective 
missions, polices and resources of their departments. For 
example, the State Department issues general security 
guidelines and instructions to which every State Department 
facility must adhere. The Defense Department, on the other 
hand, issues some guidance, such as vulnerability assessments, 
but is resistant to issuing prescriptive physical security 
standards, preferring to leave the decision of which security 
measures to implement to the field commanders.
    One of the Downing Report findings was that the State 
Department and DOD, ``. . . ascribe different Threat Level 
assessments for countries of the same region, causing confusion 
among recipients of this information.'' It recommended that, 
``One interagency methodology for assessing and declaring 
Threat Levels, allowing commanders to determine Threat 
Conditions in a local area . . .'' be instituted. Reconciling 
the differences between the Departments of Defense and State is 
just one of the challenges confronting policymakers formulating 
comprehensive force protection policy.
    Congressional Delegation.--From November 17 through 
November 25, 1997, Subcommittee Chairman J. Dennis Hastert (R-
IL) was joined by Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN), Mark 
Sanford (R-SC), John Mica (R-FL), John Shadegg (R-AZ), and 
Delegate Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS) on a Congressional Delegation 
[CODEL] which traveled to Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, 
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Greece. The purpose of the trip was 
to conduct an in-country assessment of force protection and 
antiterrorism policy following the terrorist attack at the 
United States Air Force base at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi 
Arabia in June 1996.
    The CODEL toured United States military bases and State 
Department facilities throughout the Middle East and Persian 
Gulf region, and at every stop, CODEL members were briefed on 
force protection and antiterrorism policy. The CODEL met with 
U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense personnel to 
determine what additional measures were necessary to protect 
our personnel deployed abroad to the maximum extent possible. 
Since the majority of the forces stationed in the countries of 
interest are actively involved in the containment of Iraq, 
CODEL members were also given mission briefs at all military 
facilities. Finally, the CODEL held meetings with civilian and 
military officials from host nations to learn about the level 
of cooperation and security provided to U.S. personnel from 
host nations.
    In Jerusalem, CODEL members met with senior officials in 
the Israeli Foreign Ministry, after which some members met with 
Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai while others met 
with Palestinian leader Chairman Yasser Arafat. At these 
meetings, Members took the opportunity to discuss the stalled 
Middle East peace process and other related issues.
    On November 19th, the CODEL traveled to Amman, Jordan, 
where the group visited the new United States Embassy and were 
briefed by Ambassador Wesley Egan. That evening the CODEL 
continued on to Kuwait City, Kuwait, and that night dinned as 
guests of Kuwaiti Minister of Information Saud Nasser Al-Sabah. 
On November 20th, the CODEL visited Camp Doha, a United States 
Army base outside of Kuwait City which maintains enough forward 
deployed military vehicles and equipment for an Army brigade. 
Colonel Robert Polard, USA, the base commander, briefed Members 
on security issues and the Army mission. From there the CODEL 
traveled to Ali Al-Salem Air Base, where the U.S. Air Force 
operates a radar facility. That afternoon, the CODEL took a 
sobering tour of the Khobar Towers complex at Dhahran, Saudi 
Arabia. The group saw the bombed-out buildings where 19 U.S. 
airmen died and hundreds more were injured when terrorists 
detonated a truck bomb in June 1996. That evening the CODEL 
arrived in Bahrain and Members and staff had the opportunity to 
meet with several United Nations weapons inspectors who had 
recently been forced to leave Iraq.
    On November 21st, the CODEL was briefed at the headquarters 
of United States Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, where the United 
States Navy has maintained a presence for almost 50 years. 
Following the briefing the group was flown out to the aircraft 
carrier U.S.S. Nimitz that was on patrol in the Persian Gulf. 
That afternoon the CODEL went on to Prince Sultan Air Force 
Base in Saudi Arabia. Following the attack at Khobar Towers, 
almost all Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia were relocated 
to this remote base, 90 miles south-east of Riyadh. Almost 
4,000 men and women are stationed there, and Operation Southern 
Watch, which enforces the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, is 
run primarily out of this base.
    On November 22nd, the CODEL met and were briefed by 
Ambassador Wyche Fowler at the United States Embassy in Riyadh, 
following which the group traveled to Eskan Village, the Joint 
Task Force Southwest Asia headquarters. After meeting with the 
commander of the Joint Task Force, Major General Roger 
Radcliff, USAF, the group toured Eskan Village. Members then 
went to a private meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, the 
likely successor to King Fahd. On the evening of November 22nd 
the CODEL flew on to Incirlik, Turkey. The next morning the 
CODEL toured Incirlik Air Base and were briefed on the mission 
of the United States and British air forces operating out of 
Incirlik, which is to patrol the northern no-fly zone over 
Iraq. That afternoon the group traveled to Izmir, Turkey, and 
toured the facilities of an Air Force unit which supports NATO 
forces stationed in Turkey. On November 24th the CODEL traveled 
to Greece, and were briefed by United States Embassy personnel 
as well as Drug Enforcement Agents operating in Greece. The 
CODEL returned to the United States on November 25th.
    This trip gave Members of Congress and staff the 
opportunity to meet with Defense and State Department officials 
in-country and see firsthand the conditions under which they 
work and better understand their requirements. The Members were 
also able to see the strenuous efforts being made to protect 
our deployed personnel and ensure that they are protected to 
the maximum extent possible. There is no doubt that both 
Members and staff returned with a greater appreciation of the 
difficult but important missions being carried out by our 
professional foreign service and military personnel who fully 
deserve the support of the Congress.
    b. Benefits.--By focusing attention on this issue and 
raising its profile in the eyes of Congress and the general 
public, the subcommittee intends to assist DOD in its efforts 
to provide for the security of our deployed forces to the 
maximum extent possible. During the second session of this 
Congress the subcommittee will work with DOD and the 
authorizing and appropriating committees to secure adequate 
funding for force protection initiatives that have been started 
during the last several years. For fiscal year 1998, for 
example, DOD requested $31.5 million for the purchase of 
commercial, off-the-shelf physical security equipment. However, 
that request was eventually reduced to $18.7 million by the 
appropriations committees. Furthermore, the subcommittee hopes 
to demonstrate that despite the fact that we are at peace and 
there are currently no serious military challengers to the 
United States, there remain threats to our national interests 
and security that require a competent, vigilant and well-funded 
military.
    c. Hearings.--On October 28, 1997, the subcommittee held a 
closed oversight hearing on the security of United States 
personnel stationed in South West Asia, entitled, ``Security 
Status of U.S. Personnel Overseas.'' The purpose of the hearing 
was twofold. First, it allowed the subcommittee to examine the 
threat, from both terrorist and conventional military forces, 
to all United States Federal Government personnel, but 
especially Department of Defense and Department of State 
personnel, stationed in South West Asia; measures taken since 
the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers to increase the safety of 
United States personnel, and; the success that the United 
States has had in coordinating with the governments of host 
countries in reducing the threat to United States personnel. 
Second, this hearing provided background information to the 
Members who traveled to Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi 
Arabia, Turkey, and Greece in November 1997 to observe 
firsthand the threat conditions under which thousands of United 
States personnel, mostly military, operate. The congressional 
delegation took the opportunity to learn from in-country 
military commanders and officials what changes have been made 
to increase the security of our personnel in the aftermath of 
the Khobar Towers attack.
    This hearing was prospective, not retrospective; it 
examined current and future force protection policy, not past 
policy. Therefore, the hearing did not address the attack on 
the United States Air Force base at Khobar Towers, the status 
of the continuing investigation, or the disciplinary actions 
taken by Secretary of Defense Cohen last year.
    Major General James C. King, Director for Intelligence, 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided an overview of the threat in 
the region. The Honorable H. Allen Holmes, Assistant Secretary 
for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, was 
accompanied by Brigadier General J.T. Conway, Deputy Director 
for Combating Terrorism, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Ambassador 
Holmes' office has responsibility for counterterrorism and 
antiterrorism policy at the Defense Department. The Defense 
Department has the majority of U.S. personnel in the countries 
of interest and shares the responsibility for the security of 
all U.S. personnel in these countries with the Department of 
State. The Honorable Eric Boswell, Assistant Secretary for 
Diplomatic Security, testified on behalf of the Department of 
State who has the second largest contingent of personnel 
stationed in the countries of interest. Mr. Boswell discussed 
the State Department's ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of 
all government personnel abroad who fall under the protection 
of the Secretary of State. The Honorable Jacquelyn L. Williams-
Bridgers, Inspector General, Department of State, focused on 
the frequent inspections and examinations of the Department of 
State's security policies and facilities conducted by her 
office. Mr. Mark Gebicke, Director, Military Operations and 
Capabilities Issues, National Security and International 
Affairs Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, discussed the 
examination of force protection policy undertaken by GAO at the 
request of Congress following the attack at Khobar Towers. 
Since the hearing was closed, the testimony may not be 
summarized here. This hearing will not be printed.
5. Oversight of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    a. Summary.--In accordance with the subcommittee's 
oversight responsibilities, the subcommittee took a review of 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's [NASA] missions 
and long-term vision. In an environment of tight budgets, and 
NASA's being repeatedly directed to reduce its future year's 
budget levels, it is imperative that NASA have a focused 
mission and vision, and be ever-conscious of the costs and 
benefits of investments made.
    The subcommittee hoped to highlight NASA in the public eye 
as still being a symbol of our Nation's preeminent position as 
a scientific leader in the world, and illustrate to NASA the 
importance of vision, missions, and management. Additionally, 
the subcommittee will continue to take a broader look at the 
long-term importance of human space exploration, commercial 
opportunities in space, solar and alternative energy sources, 
the educational impact on kids of restarting space exploration 
and space development, and of balancing cost-efficiencies with 
long-term vision.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's review of NASA's missions 
and visions focused attention on the overarching importance of 
having a well-defined and vision for future space exploration, 
potential space related commercial development, and 
technological and medical breakthroughs. In this time of down-
spiraling budgets, it is important to ensure that NASA's 
programs are properly defined, well-managed, and that the 
American taxpayer's expectation of responsible expenditures are 
met.
    c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held two hearings on this 
issue. On May 9, 1997, the subcommittee held it's first hearing 
entitled, ``Defining NASA's Mission and Americas Vision for the 
Future of Space Exploration.'' Testimony was received from Dr. 
Buzz Aldrin, former Apollo 11 astronaut and one of the first 
two men to walk on the Moon; Walt Cunningham, former astronaut 
who flew the first manned Apollo mission (Apollo 7); Story 
Musgrave, NASA astronaut who has flown six shuttle missions 
including the repair of the Hubble telescope; Ron Howard, movie 
producer/director and producer of the movie ``Apollo 13;'' Dr. 
Peter E. Glaser, vice president, Advanced Technology; Dr. David 
R. Criswell, director, Institute for Space Systems Operations, 
University of Houston; Dr. David Webb, consultant, Science & 
Engineering Education Council of Universities Space Research 
Association; and Dr. Richard Berendzen, professor of physics, 
American University.
    On May 19, 1997, the subcommittee held it's second hearing 
entitled, ``Defining NASA's Mission and America's Vision for 
the Future of Space Exploration--Part II.'' Testimony was 
received from Scott Carpenter, former Mercury 7 astronaut; 
Captain Eugene A. Cernan, USN (Retired), former Gemini 9, 
Apollo 10, and Apollo 17 astronaut, and the last man to have 
walked on the Moon; Dr. Buzz Aldrin, former Apollo 11 
astronaut; Mr. Joshua Ouellete, 15-year-old student, Academy of 
Science and Technology; Dr. Seth Potter, professor of applied 
physics at New York University; Dr. Bob Zubrin, president, 
Pioneer Astronautics; Mr. Tom Rogers, Near-term Commercial 
Space Transport Opportunities; and Dr. John Lewis, 
astrogeologist.
    Both hearings examined NASA's long-term mission, manned 
space travel, and the future vision of space exploration. Also 
explored were space station research, the discoveries of 
possible water on the Moon, microbes on Mars, breakthrough 
space-energy and space-medicine technologies, and the impact of 
renewed commitment to science, engineering and math on our 
Nation's youth through a renewed commitment to human space 
exploration. The hearings had a common theme of promoting a 
wise investment in America's future through space research, 
development, and exploration. Dr. Buzz Aldrin addressed the 
issues of revitalizing the inspiration that the United States 
had during the Apollo program which energized children to flock 
to math and sciences, reusable space transportation options as 
a good investment, private sector rocketry and space 
exploration, and the endless spin-off technologies and 
commercial development from manned missions to the Moon and 
Mars.
6. Oversight of the Census Bureau and Census 2000.
    a. Summary.--As per its responsibilities under the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee's oversight plan for 
the 105th Congress, the subcommittee has continued its scrutiny 
of the Census Bureau's preparations for the 2000 decennial 
census. During the first session of the 105th Congress, this 
scrutiny focused primarily on the Bureau's controversial plans 
to use ``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment'' in the 
decennial census.
    Census oversight activities in 1997 by the subcommittee 
represented a continuation of efforts begun under the 
leadership of Chairman William F. Clinger, Jr., at the full 
committee level in the 104th Congress, and actively pursued by 
subcommittee staff in 1996. In a report issued by the committee 
during the 104th Congress, in September 1996, ``Sampling and 
Statistical Adjustment in the Decennial Census: Fundamental 
Flaws'', numerous concerns were articulated about the Bureau's 
sampling plan. These concerns included, but were not limited 
to, the lack of completeness in the Bureau's plan, the 
vulnerability of sampled census data to unacceptable rates of 
error and to political manipulation, issues such as the 
statutory legality and constitutionality of sampling, and the 
multi billion-dollar risk posed to American taxpayers if and 
when the Bureau's untested scheme was ruled illegal or 
unconstitutional by the courts.
    The response of the Census Bureau and Commerce Department 
to these criticisms was one of arrogant ambivalence, studied 
unconcern and, in general, capricious disregard for the 
concerns of Congress and the average American taxpayer. In 
dismissing the legitimate and bipartisan concerns of this 
committee and subcommittee, the Census Bureau arrogantly 
indicated that it is entertaining no plans to reconsider its 
flawed, risky, and likely unconstitutional approach, or to re-
evaluate its questionable methodologies. Instead, the Bureau 
chose to proceed apace with its Decennial Census Plan in an 
unmodified form, disregarding both the shortcomings raised by 
the committee and palpable concerns of American taxpayers.
    Early in 1997, as the subcommittee began its renewed 
oversight of the Bureau for the 105th Congress, two significant 
events occurred. In February, the General Accounting Office 
added the 2000 Decennial Census to its ``High Risk Series,'' a 
list of 25 Federal Government programs that present the most 
imminent danger of wasting taxpayers' funds while also not 
yielding satisfactory results. The primary reason that the 
Census plan was added to this list was the Bureau's self-
conceived, risky and controversial plan to use ``sampling'' and 
``statistical adjustment'' in the 2000 Decennial Census. The 
GAO's report went on to severely criticize the Bureau for not 
outlining its plan adequately to Congress, failing to 
demonstrate to Congress what effects the new procedures would 
have, and failing to plan for the possibility that the use of 
``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment'' might be forbidden 
by Congress (or ruled illegal by the Courts), thus leaving the 
Bureau with no practical alternatives for taking the 2000 
Census. The addition of the 2000 Census to the High Risk Series 
was a reaffirmation of criticisms raised by the committee's 
1996 report, and further indicated that a drastic revision was 
necessary.
    The second key event was the March 1997 release by the 
Bureau of the ``Census 2000 Operational Plan.'' Upon examining 
this document, the subcommittee determined that despite 
numerous and varied criticisms of the Bureau's plans to use 
sampling and statistical adjustment, the Bureau was continuing 
to forge ahead with their plans to implement ill-conceived 
measures, heedless of the criticisms by the committee and GAO, 
and again with no alternatives or back-up plans available in 
the event of legal or practical failure.
    The combination of these two events, and on the heels of 
acute criticism by the committee's 1996 report, the 
subcommittee briefed leadership of the House and Senate on the 
dire risk posed to the taxpayers of a failed, inaccurate, 
potentially illegal and politically manipulated census in 2000. 
This briefing led the joint leadership to determine that the 
Bureau must be prohibited from proceeding any further with its 
plans to use either ``sampling'' and ``statistical 
adjustment''.
    At the request of the leaders of the House and Senate, the 
subcommittee developed legislative language to prohibit the 
Bureau from proceeding further with its plans. This task was a 
difficult consensus building effort, as many legal experts 
believed that the Bureau's plan was already in violation of the 
law (13 U.S.C. 195) and the constitutional requirement that the 
Census be an ``actual enumeration.'' Accordingly, the 
subcommittee was asked to relegislate in an area where the law 
was already established and the Bureau was openly acting in 
direct violation of it. After intense legal research, the 
subcommittee developed legislative language that reinforced the 
current statutory and constitutional ban against ``sampling'' 
and ``statistical adjustment'', and further prohibited any 
Federal funds from being spent to ``sample'' or ``adjust the 
census'' in perpetuity. In May, this language was added in 
conference to the conference report making supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997.
    In June, the President vetoed this supplemental 
appropriations bill, citing the census language as one of the 
principal reasons for his veto. After this Presidential veto, 
the subcommittee entered into negotiations with the White House 
and Commerce Department to reach a compromise acceptable to 
both parties. The result of these negotiations was a 
requirement that the Bureau prepare a detailed report of its 
plans and activities for Census 2000, including providing data 
on the sampling processes that had previously been withheld 
from the Congress. These reporting requirements were codified 
as Title VIII of Public Law 105-18, and became commonly known 
as the ``Riche Report.''
    The Riche Report was presented to Congress on July 14, 
1997. The subcommittee extensively scrutinized the report, 
concluding the Census Bureau did not comply either with the 
letter or in spirit with the legal requirements of Title VIII 
of Public Law 105-18. The subcommittee further discovered that 
the data provided by the Bureau was incomplete, superficial, 
and boldly stated claims for the ``accuracy of sampling'' which 
were and are unsupported by any corroborating facts. Adding to 
Members' concerns regarding the Bureau's claims of accuracy, 
the Bureau in August issued a revision of the report indicating 
that the estimates made in the July 14 report, concerning the 
rate of error for sampling in the 1995 test census, were 
understated. Indeed, the revised figures released by the Bureau 
indicated that the error rate for sampling was, in some cases, 
as high as 243 percent. This fact, coupled with the failure of 
the Bureau to objectively report or to accurately inform 
Congress on information it had possessed for nearly 2 years, 
caused grave and deepening concern among subcommittee members 
about the Bureau's basic competence and technical ability to 
carry out complex plans for the 2000 decennial census.
    When Congress reconvened in September, the subcommittee 
briefed the House and Senate leadership on its findings on the 
Riche Report. Fresh evidence of the Bureau's inability to 
execute its plans, its continued refusal to recognize that 
``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment'' of the census are 
of both questionable constitutionality and legality, coupled 
with the Bureau's continuing lack of candor or accurate 
information led the joint leadership to determine that another 
effort to prevent the Bureau from proceeding with this risky 
scheme was imperative. At the request of the bicameral 
leadership, the subcommittee assisted the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations, in developing 
legislation which would address the Census Bureau's cavalier 
non-responsiveness to congressional concerns.
    The subcommittee worked throughout September and October 
with the Appropriations Subcommittee to develop legislation 
that would protect the American taxpayer and prevent the Census 
Bureau from proceeding with sampling until such time as the 
Supreme Court has issued a final ruling on its legality. This 
measure was designed to protect taxpayers from the risk of 
wasting billions of dollars on an illegal and misguided census. 
Additionally, legislation was developed to expedite the Supreme 
Court review process and improve the ``standing'' of the 
Congress and the administration to sue, as well as to increase 
the chances of resolution in 1998 by using precedent from the 
recent Byrd v. Rains case.
    The subcommittee ultimately entered into high-level 
negotiations with the White House and Commerce Department over 
the Census bill's language. A compromise was reached and 
language was included in the Conference Report on H.R. 2267, 
the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 1998. In addition to preserving the expedited court review 
and ``standing'' language, this negotiated compromise imposed 
new disclosure requirements on all Census Bureau data releases 
and created a new, bipartisan Census Oversight Board to monitor 
preparations for the 2000 Decennial Census (as an adjunct to 
current congressional oversight). The new disclosure 
requirements mandate that all data released by the Census 
Bureau include the actual numbers of persons actually counted 
before any fictitious or estimated persons are added or 
subtracted by the device of ``statistical inference.'' This 
critical measure greatly assists congressional oversight by 
clearly delineating, both for Congress and the public, the 
explicit effects of ``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment'' 
of previously concrete or ``actual count'' numbers. The 
subcommittee believes that this negotiated accord represents a 
major legislative accomplishment, and will partially lift the 
``veil of secrecy'' which has until recently surrounded the 
Bureau's plans.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee was able to assist the U.S. 
House leadership in planning and authorizing a new Subcommittee 
on the Census, which will receive responsibility for census 
oversight from the Subcommittee on National Security, 
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice during the second 
session of the 105th Congress. The creation of this new 
subcommittee recognizes the large and important undertaking 
attendant to oversight of the Decennial Census; 1998 is likely 
to demand even greater emphasis by Congress on Census Oversight 
than did 1997. The new Subcommittee on the Census, free of 
demands other than census oversight, will have ample time and 
resources to explore all aspects of Census Bureau operations, 
including controversial statistical proposals, in the next 
session of Congress.
    c. Hearings.--Due to the staff and hearing requirements of 
other priorities in the first session of the 105th Congress, 
the subcommittee was able to hold just one comprehensive 
hearing on the census. This hearing was held in April, and 
explored the subject of successful outreach for the census in 
``hard to enumerate'' minority communities.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from expert witnesses from 
the city of Milwaukee and the city of Cincinnati, communities 
whose efforts to promote the census in 1990 among minority 
groups were widely recognized as superior. The subcommittee 
learned at this hearing that the key to the high levels of 
census participation in those communities was an aggressive 
effort to educate the public about the census and the necessity 
that all citizens in the community return their census forms 
for the benefit of the community. The subcommittee further 
learned that these communities began their own local promotion 
and outreach efforts far in advance of the Census Bureau's 
efforts. This early start was credited for their high level of 
response and broad success. The subcommittee was dismayed to 
learn that the Census Bureau has not shown any substantial 
interest in use of these successful local programs as models 
for promotion or outreach relating to the 2000 Decennial 
Census; instead the Bureau has focused efforts on statistical 
methodologies as a substitute for proper promotion and outreach 
efforts.

                   Subcommittee on the Postal Service

1. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The Inspector General 
        of the Postal Service and the Board of Governors.
    a. Summary.--Legislation passed in the 104th Congress 
created an independent Office of the Inspector General [OIG] of 
the Postal Service. Prior to enactment of Public Law 104-208, 
the Inspector General [IG] of the Postal Service concurrently 
held the position of the Chief Postal Inspector. In order to 
assure organizational independence of the Office of Inspector 
General of the Postal Service, the IG has the authority and 
responsibilities set out in the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
as amended. The duties of this office are separated from the 
duties of the office of the Inspection Service, thereby 
insuring the mission of the Office of the Inspector General is 
not compromised by apparent or actual conflicts of interest. 
The newly created office provides for oversight responsibility 
for all postal activities, including those of the Postal 
Inspection Service. The Postal IG may initiate, conduct and 
supervise U.S. Postal Service [USPS] audits and Postal 
Inspection Service investigations, however, the IG is directed 
to avoid duplication of work undertaken by the Postal 
Inspection Service. The Chief Postal Inspector is required to 
report to the IG any significant investigations being carried 
out by the Inspection Service. The new Inspector General, Karla 
W. Corcoran, was appointed on December 23, 1996, within 90 days 
of enactment of the law, by the Governors of the U.S. Postal 
Service and sworn in on January 6, 1997. The act requires that 
all measures necessary for establishing an Office of Inspector 
occur no later than 60 days after the Inspector General's 
appointment. The Inspector General serves for a period of 7 
years in this nonpolitical appointment and may be removed by 
written concurrence of at least seven members of the Board of 
Governors, and only for cause.
    The IG testified that a transition team of 12 officials 
with diverse professional experience from the Postal Service 
and other Federal agencies was building a foundation for the 
OIG. The first priority while developing the staffing and 
operational plans of the office was to ensure continuity of the 
operations of Inspector General. Additionally, the team 
assembled a pay and benefits package comparable to other 
offices of Inspectors General, assembled the framework for a 
budget to fund the office, and created a memorandum of 
understanding with the Chief Inspector. The decision was made 
to let the OIG conduct all financial statement audit activities 
above the district level. The office would also conduct postal-
wide performance audits, developmental audits, contract 
administration audits, and new facilities construction audits 
for acquisitions in excess of $10 million. In carrying out 
investigations, the OIG will have primary responsibility for 
bribery, kickback, conflict of interest and systemic 
investigations including issues regarding worker's 
compensation. The OIG will provide oversight for embezzlement 
cases of more than $100,000 but will conduct investigation or 
partner with the Inspection Service on cases involving 
executives. In the program area, the OIG will oversee the 
Postal Service's rate making programs, revenue generation 
activities and labor-management issues. The transfer of 
functions between the Office of the Inspector General and the 
Inspection Service is envisioned to take place within a 5-year 
strategic plan projection. The plan was approved by the 
Governors. The Inspector General assured the subcommittee that 
nothing in the designation of functions would limit her 
authority. In their March 1997 meeting, the Governors approved 
a resolution authorizing the Office of Inspector General, in 
accordance with the Inspector General Act, to carry firearms, 
serve subpoenas and warrants and to make arrests, subject to 
the necessary approval of the Attorney General. The Inspector 
General said that the Governors had approved a 60-day interim 
budget of $5 million.
    During questioning by Members, and in response to written 
questions, the IG answered that the OIG will review what 
whistle blower protections are available for postal employees 
who disclose waste, fraud or abuse and that she would support 
an effective approach that will enable the OIG to better 
protect whistle blowers and enhance reporting of wrongdoing to 
the OIG. The chairman of the Board of Governors, Tirso del 
Junco, M.D., testified on behalf of the 11-member Board. Nine 
of the members are appointed by the President and confirmed by 
the Senate. The other two members are the Postmaster General 
and the Deputy Postmaster General. The Governors are chosen 
generally to represent the public interest and not as 
representatives of specific interests. The Governors oversee 
the activities of executive and operating management within the 
Postal Service. It reviews business practices, directs and 
controls expenditures, conducts long-range planning and sets 
major policy on all postal matters. The Governors of the Postal 
Service guide the operations of an entity with revenues in 
excess of $56 billion and more than 760,000 full-time 
employees. The Board functions with four key committees: 
audits, compensation, strategic planning and capital projects. 
The Board chairman reported that the Board has continually 
improved its by-laws to sharpen the focus of the standing 
committees.
    Dr. del Junco reported that the Postal Service had 
completed its two best financial years in postal history, with 
about $3.4 billion in net income, or more than the total net 
income of all previous years of Postal Service operations. Much 
of this income is designated for the restoration of equity and 
recovery of prior year's losses. In the previous year, the 
Postal Service reduced its negative equity by 37.4 percent, 
down to $2.6 billion. The chairman emphasized that the Postal 
Service has reduced its negative equity by more than half in 2 
years.
    The Governors have directed the Postal Service to proceed 
with its most ambitious capital investment program, $12 billion 
over the next 5 years, in facilities, technology and equipment. 
The Governors also instructed the Postal Service to sustain 
efforts to control labor and transportation costs and to enter 
the next century as a productive and stable entity, enabling 
the Service to keep postal rates steady and affordable. Dr. del 
Junco emphasized that the basic mission of the Postal Service 
was to provide a fundamental, universal public service.
    Dr. del Junco reported that the overnight delivery scores 
are close to meeting the year's goal of 92 percent on-time 
performance. The Postal Service's workload is 603 million 
pieces of mail per day (or 182 billion pieces a year) delivered 
to 128 million addresses, 6 days per week. This represents 43 
percent of the world's total mail volume. Areas for improvement 
include meeting 2- and 3-day service standards and better 
controlling postal costs--80 percent which are attributed to 
labor.
    Dr. del Junco testified that the Governors will scrutinize 
the strategic and performance plans prepared under the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to help direct 
the course of postal management.
    The Governors acknowledged the importance of the office of 
the new Inspector General and the need for cooperation between 
the staffs of the Inspector General and the Inspection Service. 
They reported progress in setting up the new OIG and showed 
confidence and support in the matter.
    b. Benefits.--The appointment of an independent Inspector 
General of the Postal Service provides for an autonomous and 
strong oversight entity that can conduct and supervise audits 
and investigations separate from the control of postal 
management. The OIG will be instrumental in providing 
leadership and coordination and will be able to recommend 
policies to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness 
within the Postal Service. Furthermore, an independent OIG of 
the Postal Service, as OIGs of other Federal agencies, can 
detect waste, fraud and abuse within the Service. Prior to the 
establishment of this separate office, these functions were 
under the authority of the Inspector General/Chief Postal 
Inspector who was responsible to the Postmaster General. It is 
apparent that an IG independent from the agency management 
hierarchy can more effectively perform oversight duties of the 
Postal Service. An indication of support and confidence from 
the Board of Governors in establishing the Office of the 
Inspector General is essential to its proper functioning.
2. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The General Accounting 
        Office and the Postmaster General.
    a. Summary.--During the past 3 fiscal years the Postal 
Service reported a surplus of nearly $4.6 billion--$1.770 
billion in Representatives 1995, $1.567 billion in fiscal year 
1996, and $1.264 billion in fiscal year 1997. Though the bottom 
line appears positive, the Postal Service has been plagued with 
other problems. The accounting period prior to the hearing 
showed volumes and revenues were lower than expected and the 
yearly surplus was several million short of the previous year's 
total. During fiscal year 1996, five of the Postal Service's 
six product lines lost market share and it was expected that 
there would be a general rate increase. Additionally, the 
Postal Service activities garnered unintended publicity; 
specifically, evidence of the marketing department's budget 
overruns, questionable ethics of postal officials, and large 
compensation and retirement packages for senior management. 
Some expressed concerns about the forthcoming changes in 
uniform procurement for Postal Service personnel.
    Mr. Motley of the General Accounting Office emphasized the 
need for improving internal controls and performance of the 
Postal Service. He reported that the Postal Service met or 
exceeded its on-time delivery goals for Overnight Mail. 
However, delivery of 2 and 3-day mail did not score well. Mail 
volume grew at half the projected rate and labor costs 
continued to account for about 80 percent of the operating 
costs, with a projected increase of 6 percent in 1997 for 
compensation and benefits.
    The GAO opined that the Postal Service's success would 
depend on its ability to control operating costs, strengthen 
internal controls, and ensure the integrity of its services. It 
found weaknesses in the internal controls that contributed 
unnecessarily to increased costs. Lack of verification in the 
Express Mail corporate accounts caused the Service to lose 
about $800,000 from the Express Mail service alone. Similarly, 
verifications by supervisors of clerks acceptance of bulk mail 
were not performed in about 50 percent of the cases--this 
service accounted for almost half of the Postal Service's total 
revenue.
    The Postal Service has been lax in following required 
procedures for acquisitions of real estate and equipment 
purchases. The USPS spent about $89 million on penalties and 
unusable or marginally usable property.
    There were ethical violations in some purchases because the 
contracting officer failed to correct situations in which 
individuals had financial relationships with the Postal Service 
and offerors. The Office of Government Ethics, in reviewing the 
Postal Service ethics program, reported that all areas required 
improvement and made a number of recommendations and conducted 
three reviews to follow up on its recommendations.
    GAO studied the process of post office closures and 
reported that 3,900 post offices have been closed since 1970; 
470 post offices were reported in emergency suspension status.
    In addressing the issue of postal reform, GAO emphasized 
the importance of recognizing the significance of the Private 
Express Statutes. The potential consequences of relaxing them 
could result in affecting postal revenues and the ability of 
the Postal Service to offer its public service mandates. Though 
the public would benefit from improved service through 
competition, the Postal Service is facing severe competition in 
the communications market. The Postal Service is now competing 
in the international mail market and has more flexibility in 
setting those rates than rates in the domestic market. However, 
it is still losing business because rates are not competitive 
and delivery service is not reliable.
    Mr. Motley stressed that congressional oversight remains 
key to improving the organizational performance of the Postal 
Service, particularly in labor-management relations where 
unresolved disputes hinder productivity. Grievances which 
require formal arbitration have increased 76 percent from 
fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1996. Difficulties ensue 
because the Postal Service, the unions and management 
associations do not agree on how to address the problems. GAO 
identified the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] as 
a mechanism that could outline common objectives, strategies 
and development of a framework of agreement. Since successful 
labor-management relations are critical in achieving success, 
the GPRA could be instrumental to the Postal Service and its 
employees in understanding its mission and developing 
strategies to be used in attaining result-oriented goals. 
Oversight of the Postal Service's automation program will need 
to be continued as billions of dollars have been spent in this 
endeavor. The Postal Service has an ambitious, $21 billion, 5-
year capital investment plan for 1997-2001. This will be spent 
for technological investments, infrastructure improvements, 
upgrading the vehicle fleet and improving customer service.
    In his prepared remarks, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon 
acknowledged the assistance given by the GAO and for their 
advice and recommendations. He reported that the Office of 
Government Ethics, after its third follow-up review, wrote to 
the Postal Service that all the recommendations contained in 
the OGE's report in reference to the Postal Service ethics 
program have been implemented. The PMG testified that the 
Inspector General had made progress in establishing the office 
with the support of the Inspection Service and the Postal 
Service and pledged continuing support. He also praised postal 
employees responsible for the delivery of mail. He reported the 
success of overnight First-Class mail delivery, even during 
peak holiday delivery periods and that the Postal Service is 
doing financially well even without a rate increase, which 
other delivery entities have imposed on their customers. Though 
the Postal Service has maintained the same rates for 3 years, 
mail volumes, however, are not as great as anticipated.
    The Postal Service is modernizing its mail system, 
continuing classification reform, expanding process management 
and accelerating investments in automation and robotics. He 
reported a 5 year plan for investing $14 billion in automation 
and ensuring equipment and facilities for consistent service. 
He expected bar coding on all mail by the end of 1998 and 
adding value to products, such as redesigning the Priority Mail 
network to ensure speed, reliability and reasonable price. The 
Global Priority Mail Network is expanding to give American 
businesses a cost-effective vehicle to deliver goods overseas.
    Mr. Runyon ensured commitment to the precept of universal 
delivery and an obligation to grow and to sustain the postal 
network, as it has done for the past 221 years. Each generation 
of communication innovation, such as the telephone, telegraph, 
fax and e-mail has challenged the postal system. However, the 
challenges are greater today than ever before. Computers, 
telephones, electronic funds transfers are cutting directly 
into First-Class Mail, the core of postal business and the 
basis for universal delivery. Electronic data transactions in 
the business-to-business arena is expected to triple. There is 
also diversion to electronic banking, payments and 
communication of the household to business mail. Additionally, 
Federal and State governments are encouraging electronic 
transfers in paying taxes by business and individuals and in 
the payment of Government funds to individuals.
    Mr. Runyon testified that the Postal Service is prepared to 
work with the subcommittee on H.R. 22 and shaping final 
legislation. The consensus for change would include 
preservation of universal service, provide a practical 
incentive to control costs, support progressive products that 
meet the customer's and marketplace needs and a modernized 
ratemaking system that replaces the present complex, costly, 
inflexible and time-consuming process. The Postal Service would 
support pricing freedom with the appropriate index controls 
which reflects the industry it serves, in this case the mix of 
labor and technology.
    The Postmaster General commented on the ongoing, 8 month, 
Department of Justice investigation on the Coca-Cola matter 
explaining that he had invested $13,000 in Coca-Cola stock in 
1977. When he went to the Tennessee Valley Authority he put the 
stock into a blind trust where it remained until 1992 when he 
left TVA. His financial advisor encouraged him to get out of 
the blind trust because it was not meeting market value. In 
1994, the PMG spoke with his general counsel and ethics advisor 
to inquire whether it was necessary for a PMG to have a blind 
trust. He was advised that it was not customary nor necessary. 
The counsel, financial advisor and the Office of Government 
Ethics helped to remove the blind trust. The concept of an 
alliance between the Postal Service and Coca-Cola originated in 
the marketing department, not by the PMG, though he had 
attended some meetings. The PMG was advised that he should 
recuse himself from the discussions because of ownership of 
stocks. He divested himself of the stock and recused himself 
from discussions. Ultimately, the project was never instituted.
    b. Benefits.--The hearing documented continuing problems 
with labor-management policies and its effect on the Postal 
Service to function in a competitive communication world. The 
hearing emphasized need for the Government Performance and 
Results Act, which provides a mechanism to focus on the Postal 
Service's mission and to establish its goals for its current 
and future role. The hearing put on record the need, and the 
Postal Service's support, for change in the 27 year structure 
which is proving to be outdated in the current electronic age 
and which may restrict the Postal Service from fulfilling its 
mandate because of mail volume declines and financial concerns. 
The testimony will be useful in refining the language of H.R. 
22, the Postal Reform Act of 1997.
    c. Hearings.--The General Accounting Office and the 
Postmaster General appeared before the subcommittee on April 
24, 1997, in a hearing entitled, ``General Oversight of the 
U.S. Postal Services.''
3. U.S. Postal Service: Little Progress Made in Addressing Persistent 
        Labor-Management Problems.
    a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office in its 1994 
report, U.S. Postal Service: Labor-Management Problems Persist 
on the Workroom Floor, reported that the major postal unions, 
management associations and the Postal Service agreed that 
improvements in labor-management were necessary, however, were 
unable to agree on a mutual approach to remedy the problem. In 
its September 1997, report, U.S. Postal Service: Little 
Progress Made in Addressing Persistent Labor-Management 
Problems, GAO discussed the challenges which remain and the 
progress which has been made to improve labor-management 
relations, and the implementation of some GAO initiatives which 
had been suggested. GAO testified that since the 1994 report, 
the Postal Service had improved its financial performance and 
its First-Class Mail delivery but little had been done in 
improving labor-management problems, much of which exists 
because of an autocratic management style and an inappropriate 
and inadequate performance management system. Service 
performance, affecting efficiency and competitiveness, are 
adversely affected because of these ongoing relationships.
    Many of the problems are acerbated because of the continued 
reliance on interest arbitration, a significant rise in the 
number of grievances which have been appealed and many awaiting 
arbitration, and because the parties cannot agree on common 
approaches to rectify the issues. Recurrent issues arising 
under interest arbitration include the union's concerns 
regarding wage and benefit increases and job security, and 
management's concerns regarding cost cutting and flexibility in 
hiring. In the interest of efficiency and lower costs, 
grievances should be settled at the lowest possible levels. 
However, in 1994, 65,062 grievances were at the area office 
level, and in 1996, the number increased to 89,931, a 38 
percent increase. The number of backlogged grievances awaiting 
arbitration by a third-party arbitrator increased from 36,669 
cases in 1994 to 69,555 cases in 1996, an increase of almost 90 
percent. Management and employee unions blamed each other for 
the backlogged cases.
    One of the initiatives proposed by the GAO was to establish 
a framework of common goals that could help labor and 
management improve their relations and working conditions. The 
PMG proposed a labor-management relations summit 2 years ago, 
however, the identified parties were unable or unwilling to 
convene a meeting because of contract negotiations. Because of 
difficulties in convening the summit, the Postal Service 
contacted the director of the Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service. Subcommittee Chairman McHugh also 
encouraged the director to assist the USPS in bringing the 
parties together. The summit ultimately met on October 29, 
1997. The GAO stated that such meetings would be helpful to 
smoothing labor-management relationships.
    The Postal Service, unions and associations implemented, or 
attempted to implement, 32 improvement initiatives suggested by 
GAO. However, they approved the goals of 10 these initiatives. 
GAO reported that it was difficult to determine the results of 
the implementations because some had just been implemented, 
some were only partially put in place because of disagreements 
on how to implement them and some were discontinued because the 
participants could not agree on how to use the initiatives to 
better the postal work environment. The key, GAO believes, is 
for the parties to agree on common approaches for addressing 
labor-management problems though continued adversarial 
relations could escalate difficulties and hinder efforts for 
progress. Presently, there was no clear solution, but the GAO 
identified some strategies for dealing with the entrenched 
issues: use of a third-party facilitator, the requirement of 
the Government Performance and Results Act and the H.R. 22 
proposed Postal Employee-Management Commission.
    The director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
Service submitted testimony presented by Eileen B. Hoffman, 
director, Office of Special Projects. The FMCS became involved 
in the labor-management issues because the GAO suggested a role 
for the entity in helping postal management, unions and 
associations make changes in adversarial labor-management 
relationships and enhancing the quality of work life for postal 
employees. Subcommittee Chairman McHugh wrote to the director 
encouraging assistance in the matter to the extent the agency's 
resources would permit. Careful staff work, extensive 
interviews of major participants, briefing sessions, off-the-
record informal meetings and organization of working 
committees--requiring extensive preparatory work and time--were 
necessary prior to the summit which convened on October 29, 
1997. Presidents of each of the four major labor organization, 
three management associations, the Postmaster General, chief 
operating officer and vice president for labor relations 
participated. FMCS reported that tangible results were evident 
in dealing with issues of contract administration, grievance 
and arbitration backlogs and root causes of labor-management 
discord; however, much more needs to be done.
    The National Association of Letter Carriers, the American 
Postal Workers Union and the Postal Service signed an agreement 
to address grievance and arbitration backlogs. The APWU and the 
Postal Service agreed to a plan for the previously negotiated 
``co-mediation'' process. Training by FMCS of specially trained 
labor and management co-mediators started in June 1997. An 
evaluation system and a code of conduct for co-mediators will 
be established. The APWU and the Postal Service agreed to 
experimenting with having some grievances resolved by an 
outside party. Following 7 months of discussion, the NALC and 
the Postal Service reported successful efforts in testing a 
revised dispute resolution process which has fewer steps and 
uses specially trained labor-management representatives. The 
results will be evaluated after the end of the first test year 
to determine if the revised process should replace the system 
negotiated in their National Agreement.
    FMCS proposed that participants of the summit jointly 
engage in strategic planning based on the premise that labor 
and management must collectively answer how the Postal Service 
wants to compete and succeed to the benefit of the agency, 
unions, employees and customers in an era when the information 
industry is experiencing unprecedented changes driven by 
competitive pressures, new technology and customer demands. 
FMCS encouraged Postal Service management and postal union 
leaders to be familiar with other industries that have 
negotiated and developed changes with their unions to respond 
to competitive pressures to ensure the industry's survival. 
High performance companies and their unions make an effort to 
assure that each employee understands the need for change and 
the consequences of inaction. The following companies were 
mentioned for their significant roles in meeting challenges: 
Saturn and Ford Motor Co.s and the United Auto Workers; Nabisco 
Biscuit Co. and the Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers 
Union; Harley-Davidson Motor Corp. and the International 
Association of Machinists; Kaiser Permanente Corp. and the 
Service Employees International Union and other unions 
affiliated with the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO. 
For cooperative efforts to succeed, management should regularly 
share business information with labor and unions should remain 
committed to improve relationships.
    Postmaster General Runyon agreed with the GAO that little 
progress had been made in labor-management relations but was 
encouraged by positive changes that are being made and 
commitments from postal stakeholders. When he became PMG in 
1993, Mr. Runyon instituted the application of the Baldrige 
criteria for business excellence and, by 1995, the USPS 
instituted its own version, CustomerPerfect!, focusing on 
raising service levels and improving finances. This model 
provides employees with skills for understanding the Postal 
Service goals, creating a safer environment, developing skills 
necessary for responsiveness and service, and satisfying 
customers. The Postal Service has invested more than $600 
million in providing training to employees. Service and 
customer satisfaction are up and serious injuries are down.
    The PMG has made employee relationships a top priority. He 
mentioned that a better method for measuring the workplace 
environment needs to be implemented. He reported innovative 
approaches to reduce grievances such as: Accelerated 
Arbitration, Mediation, and ``Redress''--an Alternative Dispute 
Resolution method used in Equal Employment Opportunity 
complaints. Through training and systems improvements, the PMG 
is working to resolve conflicts before they generate 
grievances. In an effort to find solutions to labor-management 
problems, Postal management approves the concept of an 
independent labor commission as proposed in H.R. 22. The PMG 
suggested that the members should come from the private sector, 
outside of the postal community, and that the duration should 
be limited to 1 year. He concluded that the Postal Service 
management was committed to immediate action as everyone in the 
Service has a stake in success.
    Moe Biller, president of the American Postal Workers Union, 
AFL-CIO testified that there were substantial problems with the 
analysis and conclusions of the GAO report. He said that the 
current, persistent labor-management problems are a result of 
top management decisions. He pointed to the number of 
unresolved grievances, Merit Systems Protection Board filings, 
EEO complaints and the observation that there has been no 
negotiated contract with any of the labor unions in the past 10 
years. Mr. Biller took exception to GAO's report because it did 
not mention Postal management's efforts to persuade postal 
employees, Congress and the public that Postal employees are 
overpaid and under productive. This has been a source of 
diminishing morale. Other sources of antagonism and loss of 
morale are the outsourcing of postal work and legislative 
proposals for privatization of the Postal Service.
    Mr. Biller reported that the Joint Labor-Management 
Cooperation Memorandum did not live up to its expectations but, 
where there was cooperation, the results could have far 
reaching effects. He reported that the Postal Service had its 
own agenda in the mediation of grievances instead of joint 
understanding as required by the memorandum. APWU agrees that a 
better-trained, less-autocratic management team would be more 
desirable in ending current Postal Service labor-management 
problems. Another identified problem is the ratio of managers 
to employees which is 1 to 23 in mail-processing operations. In 
this managerial hierarchy, it appears that there is no 
mechanism for an improper decision by a supervisor to be 
overruled, causing further employee frustration because of 
abuse of employee rights. He also alleged union-busting and 
harassment and intimidation of union officers by local 
management. Mr. Biller said that labor-management relations are 
at an all-point low and getting worse because the Postal 
Service has rules which are different for employees and 
different for supervisors, postmasters and managers.
    William H. Young, vice president for the National 
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, testified that GAO's 
methodology was fundamentally flawed because labor relations 
does not lend itself to numerical methodology; it is 
extraordinarily complex. He also objected to government 
monitoring and intrusion into collective bargaining. Labor-
management issues should be settled by the parties involved. He 
reported that there are strong indications that the parties 
have a strong understanding of joint interest stemming from 
joint concerns. There is an effort to reduce current backlog of 
cases by instituting a 1-year test aimed at reducing the number 
of arbitrations and expediting action on grievances. The Postal 
Service and NALC will conduct joint testing of how letter 
carrier work can be modified to meet future needs by becoming 
more efficient, highly productive and more competitive. There 
is mutual recognition that management and the union work 
cooperatively. Furthermore, the union and the Service have 
agreed on procedures to mollify the ``fourth bundle'' dispute 
which has been a major cause for dissent.
    William H. Quinn, president of the National Postal Mail 
Handlers Union testified that the GAO in its 1994 report had 
correctly identified the autocratic corporate culture as the 
cause of labor-management disputes. In the 1997 report, GAO was 
correct in concluding that little progress had been made but 
faulted GAO for not elaborating on the underlying reasons for 
the autocratic management style. Postal management has 
systematically told its employees that they are overpaid, under 
productive and that their jobs can be contracted out; they are, 
therefore, a disposable part of postal operations. 
Simultaneously, the Postal Service has had record delivery 
scores and the largest surpluses in its history, and the 
managers benefit from bonuses. This leads to managers not 
treating the employees with dignity and the rise of labor-
management tensions and grievances. He said that some managers 
believe that there is an advantage of having a backlog of cases 
because nothing is done, except an occasional GAO report.
    Prior to postal reorganization in 1992, grievances were 
heard by the first level of appeal beyond the employee's 
immediate supervisor; now the manager of distribution 
operations hears the grievances. This is generally the same 
manager who made the decision or took the action about which 
the employee is complaining. Mr. Quinn suggested that the way 
to eliminate this would be to provide an early independent 
review of each grievance. Managers are not held responsible nor 
penalized for deteriorating employee relations in their 
organization.
    Mr. Quinn said that the programs cited in the GAO report as 
helpful in improving labor-management relations and were 
initiated unilaterally by the Postal Service without feedback 
from the employee organizations. The GAO reported that the 
``pay for performance'' programs would improve labor relations. 
Mr. Quinn disagreed and stated that his union had no interest 
in a pay plan which would be based on piece-work. He stated 
that the NPMHU is opposed to an independent commission to 
review the state of labor relations. This must be resolved by 
the parties involved.
    Mr. Smith, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' 
Association [NRLCA] stated that the rural letter carriers have 
an evaluated pay system that is made up of three basic 
measurements and assigns a time value to each component in the 
job: mileage, boxes and mail count--each type of mail has a 
different time value. Salaries are set on a time basis. Rural 
letter carriers, of all postal employees, have the highest 
customer satisfaction index and the highest employee 
satisfaction index. They are generally self-supervised and 
disagreements do not occur on a daily basis, only at the time 
of route evaluation or adjustment, and automation changes.
    The union encourages local stewards to be accessible to 
members and management to correct problems before they become 
grievances and carriers are encouraged to be proactive in 
solving problems. Because the union retains ownership of 
grievances beyond step 1, when it observes several grievances 
regarding the same issue, it encourages them to become a single 
class action grievance. The association modified the grievance 
process in the 1995 negotiations in an effort to reduce the 
number of grievances appealed to step 3. Step 2 grievances are 
at the district level thereby taking the grievance out of the 
local office. Since 1982, the Postal Service and the NRLCA have 
a strong quality of work life/employee involvement process 
which has also reduced grievances. Mr. Smith said that although 
the association had supported the Economic Value Added program 
it is seeing evidence that the EVA is causing pressure on 
Postmasters to meet External First-Class [EXFC] scores which 
may lead to increased grievances.
    The National Association of Postal Supervisors [NAPS], 
represented by Vince Palladino, president, reported that there 
was some improvement in lower-level labor-management relations 
but more work is necessary. In an effort to deal with labor-
management difficulties at the Postal Service, the association 
would support, with qualifications, the provision in H.R. 22 
which would establish a Presidential Postal Management 
Commission. The Commission should be established only if other 
methods to rectify the situation from within fail. If that 
should happen, Mr. Pallidino recommended that all affected 
parties should come to an agreement regarding the extent and 
seriousness of outside competition. The legislation states that 
the members of the Commission should be from outside the Postal 
Service. He suggested that Commission members should have a 
historical perspective of and have familiarity with the Postal 
Service. The Commission should report its findings within a 
year.
    Though pre-summit meetings were held, there was no 
consensus of the direction in which the Postal Service should 
move it was to remain a viable entity. Mr. Smith was doubtful 
that there could be a resolution to labor-management problems 
from within the Postal Service. However, he was encouraged 
after the just-concluded summit that this dialog would be 
conducted on a regular basis under the expertise of the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service. Two task forces were formed 
aimed at promoting better understanding of the collective 
bargaining process and to providing strategic planning 
initiatives aimed at identifying problems confronting the 
Postal Service. The Service will now be holding managers 
accountable for labor-management relations through improved 
treatment of people on the workroom floor and contract 
compliance.
    Hugh Bates, president of the National Association of 
Postmasters of the United States [NAPUS] reported that 
postmasters report mistrust in all regions. Intimidating action 
from top management causes unrest among employees. He lauded 
congressional oversight and the GAO report, without which 
progress would not have occurred. The GAO reported on 10 
initiatives, 4 of which affect NAPUS, Associate Supervisor 
Program [ASP], Performance-Based Compensation, CustomerPerfect! 
and Summit Meetings.
    NAPUS agrees with the concept of ASP but is concerned with 
the inconsistency as to eligibility and intent of the program. 
NAPUS does not subscribe to the Economic Value Added variable 
pay program because it excludes all non-exempt employees. Sixty 
percent of postmasters are non-exempt. NAPUS is currently 
monitory CustomerPerfect! and is generally supportive of the 
program as long as the common goals are to provide quality 
service. Mr. Bates reported that NAPUS would fully participate 
to improve labor-management relationships. He suggested a 
management style which permits employees to learn from their 
mistakes, which can be corrected through mentoring and 
assistance, not punishment.
    Joe Cinadr, national executive vice president of the 
National League of Postmasters (the League) agreed that labor-
management problems arose from a lack of trust. He was 
encouraged by the Memorandum of Understandings signed between 
the Postal Service and some unions which are hopeful signs but 
too recently signed to evaluate. The League did not endorse the 
Economic Value Added [EVA] program because it excluded 60 
percent (mostly women and minorities) of the Postmasters who 
are considered non-exempt employees. The inequities of the pay 
and benefits package create friction between Postmasters and 
their superiors. Mr. Cinadr said that traditional levels of 
cooperation could be retained by including all Postmasters in 
the bonus program. In reference to the labor-management Summit, 
the League saw more area of agreement than disagreement. He 
explained that the commission as proposed in H.R. 22 should 
include the ``voice of the employee'' instead of all 
commissioners coming from outside the Postal Service.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee has long monitored labor-
management relations and has great concern about the lack of 
morale among employees, the lack of trust between management 
and labor, the dehumanization of employees on the workroom 
floor and the cost of grievances to the bottom line of Postal 
Service revenues. The GAO study leading to a report has 
encouraged the Postal Service and its stakeholders to convene a 
summit whence the dialog has begun toward a common goal. The 
subcommittee hearing was not only informative but created an 
additional dialog among the parties and again alerted the 
parties that if progress in resolving the problems among 
themselves is not possible, legislative action may be the only 
corrective action available.
    c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Improving Labor 
Management Relations in the Postal Service'' was held on 
November 4, 1997.
4. International Mail Market.
    a. Summary.--The Postal Service is promoting its 
international mail service and competing with foreign and 
domestic shipping companies. The rate structure for domestic 
mail is highly regulated and the process is time consuming. 
However, the international rate structure is more flexible and 
the Service is able to compete more aggressively. The Postal 
Service has become quite successful in this new venture and a 
worthy competitor. Complaints from its rivals suggest that the 
Postal Service competition for the international market is 
strong. Global Package Link is a new electronic system utilized 
by catalog companies that ship more than 10,000 parcels a year. 
The Postal Service offers a discount to the shippers, 
guarantees delivery within a week and helps the shippers to 
clear overseas customs requirements. USPS rivals claim that the 
Postal Service is using government privileges in fulfilling its 
international business. This matter was addressed by amendment 
in the 1998 Treasury, Postal, General Government appropriations 
bill but defeated on the House floor because of the nature of 
the amendment and the fact that the subcommittee and the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight had requested the 
General Accounting Office to report on the Global Package Link 
Service to determine whether the Postal Service receives 
special treatment from foreign customs offices in countries to 
which the Postal Service offers this product. The subcommittee 
is also awaiting written answers to inquiries directed to the 
Postmaster General. The chairman has requested the General 
Accounting Office to evaluate the issue of international mail. 
This study is in progress. It will examine the requirements 
that foreign customs' administrations place on the Postal 
Service's Global Package Link service and will compare those 
requirements to those that private carriers face for similar 
international package delivery services.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee is intent in ensuring that 
the Postal Service competes effectively and fairly in the 
international mail market; therefore, it is imperative to know 
whether, and to what extent, customs treatment by major trading 
partners of items sent via Global Package Link differ from 
customs treatment afforded equivalent shipments by private 
companies.
    c. Hearings.--None.
5. Electronic Commerce.
    a. Summary.--The Postal Service is entering into a highly 
technological and competitive age that is challenging it for 
its products and its delivery mechanisms. In order to survive 
the competition, the Postal Service must become more innovative 
and efficient. Products which the Postal Service has developed 
or anticipates developing were not envisioned when 
reorganization took place in 1970. This challenge has brought 
forth questions of statutory and regulatory constraints for the 
Postal Service which need to be discussed and understood. The 
recurring question is what effect the answers may have on the 
Postal Service's ability to develop, test and market electronic 
products and how it can provide and price these products. The 
Postal Service may need to participate in joint ventures or 
strategic alliances. These partnerships should be known as 
should the costs associated with non-postal activities. 
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh has requested the General 
Accounting Office to assist in evaluating the issues.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee is refining a major reform 
bill which will give the Postal Service greater flexibility and 
the ability to become competitive and keep its profits, rather 
than breaking even as has been its mandate over the past 27 
years. The subcommittee must know what the Postal Service 
considers its core products and those it considers its 
competitive products and if this will change over the next 5 
years. The subcommittee would also like to know how the change 
will affect the Postal Service's ability to finance its 
universal service obligations.
    c. Hearings.--None.
6. Outsourcing.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee is interested in the range of 
outsourcing of postal contracts. The General Accounting Office 
has been asked to provide an evaluation as to how much 
outsourcing of work will reduce costs for the Postal Service 
and what areas outside contracts may be utilized.
    b. Benefits.--The subcommittee recognizes that a Postal 
Service which is efficient and can make cost savings will be in 
a better position to fulfill its mandates. To this end, it is 
important that the Postal Service be able to institute its 
goals in the most efficient manner and build in efficiencies. 
The information gathered in this investigation will enable the 
Postal Service is serve its stakeholders and customers in the 
most cost-effective manner.
    c. Hearings.--None.
7. Investigation of the Postmaster General: for knowingly participating 
        as a Government officer or employee in which he had a financial 
        interest.
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee learned that the Postal 
Service was proposing to form an alliance between the U.S. 
Postal Service and the Coca-Cola Co. At the same time, it 
became known that the Postmaster General had acquired about 
1,000 shares in the company in 1977. Therefore, there was an 
impression of conflict of interest in the PMG participating in 
any discussions and action in this venture.
    The subcommittee initiated its own investigation into the 
matter but the Department of Justice had commenced a civil 
action against the Postmaster General. The Department of 
Justice had requested that the Postal Inspection Service carry 
out the investigations in this case. One of the issues which 
the subcommittee became concerned with was the potential for 
inaccurate investigations if they were conducted by a 
department of an agency over the head of the agency. Pursuant 
to the oversight responsibilities of the subcommittee, the 
chairman sent several letters to the Department of Justice, to 
the Attorney General and to the Office of the Assistant 
Attorney General for Legislative Affairs for a report on the 
matter. The Department of Justice, however, was extremely slow 
on its investigations and, in tardy responses indicated that it 
was unable to provide the information in light of the 
Department's criminal investigations, but assuring the 
subcommittee that it was conducting its investigations 
diligently. The subcommittee had to curtail its inquiry and 
investigation in this matter until the case was resolved in a 
civil settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice after a 
14-month review. The civil settlement concluded that the 
Department of Justice found no evidence that the PMG acted with 
improper intent or to profit personally. However, to avoid the 
appearance of impropriety, Mr. Runyon agreed to a settlement of 
$27,550 which represents the gain on his Coca-Cola stock during 
the 11-week period in 1996 after he signed his Executive Branch 
Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report showing that he 
owned Coca-Cola stock and the date on which he formally recused 
himself from consideration of the potential marketing alliance.
    The Postal Service did not finalize the venture with the 
Coca-Cola Co.
    b. Benefits.--The American public benefits from the 
oversight process which implements a high standard of 
accountability for its elected and publicly appointed 
officials.
    c. Hearings.--None.
                            III. Legislation

                            A. NEW MEASURES

                   Subcommittee on the Civil Service

1. H.R. 240, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-40, March 
20, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 240, as amended, strengthens 
veterans' preference and increases employment opportunities for 
veterans. It permits preference eligibles and certain other 
veterans to overcome artificial restrictions on the scope of 
competition for announced vacancies, establishes an effective 
redress system for veterans who believe their rights have been 
violated, makes knowing violations of veterans' preference laws 
a prohibited personnel practice, provides preference eligibles 
with increased protections during reductions in force [RIF], 
requires agencies to establish priority placement programs for 
employees affected by a RIF and apply veterans' preference when 
rehiring from the list, extends veterans' preference to certain 
positions at the White House and in the legislative and 
judicial branches of Government, requires the Federal Aviation 
Administration to apply veterans' preference in reductions in 
force, and provides veterans' preference eligibility for 
service in Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 240 was introduced on 
January 7, 1997, by Subcommittee Chairman Mica and referred to 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in addition 
to the Committees on House Oversight, the Judiciary, and 
Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The subcommittee held 
a hearing and markup on February 26, 1997, and the subcommittee 
favorably forwarded the bill to the full committee for 
consideration. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
considered the legislation on March 12, 1997, and ordered 
reported, as amended, to the House for consideration. On April 
9, 1997, the House passed H.R. 240 as amended and on April 10, 
1997, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans 
Affairs.
    d. Hearings.--H.R. 240, ``Veterans' Employment 
Opportunities Act of 1997'' was held on February 26, 1997.
2. H.R. 1316, to amend chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, with 
        respect to the order of precedence to be applied in the payment 
        of life insurance benefits.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-134, June 
18, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1316, as amended by the 
committee, amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8705 and 8706. It directs 
the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to obey certain 
domestic relations orders when paying the proceeds of life 
insurance policies under the Federal Employees Group Life 
Insurance program [FEGLI] and permits courts to direct the 
assignment of such policies to individuals specified in 
domestic relations orders.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1316 was introduced by 
Representative Collins (GA), on April 14, 1997. It was referred 
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and 
subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on the Civil Service 
on April 15, 1997. The subcommittee approved the legislation 
and forwarded to the full committee on voice vote on June 10, 
1997. The bill was approved and ordered reported, as amended, 
by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on June 18, 
1997. H.R. 1316 passed the House on June 24, 1997, by voice 
vote under the Corrections Calendar. The bill was received in 
the Senate on June 25, 1997, and referred to the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. On November 6, 1997, the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs reported the legislation to 
the Senate without amendments or written report.
    d. Hearings.--There were no hearings on H.R. 1316.
3. H.R. 1836, Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-374, 
November 4, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1836 amends several provisions 
in title 5, United States Code. It provides the Office of 
Personnel Management [OPM] additional tools to fight waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program [FEHBP]. With these tools, OPM will be able to deal 
swiftly with health care providers who try to defraud the 
FEHBP. OPM will be better equipped to bar health care providers 
who engage in misconduct from participating in the FEHBP or to 
impose monetary penalties on them. The bill also provides that 
an association of organizations may underwrite health care 
plans in the FEHBP, and it broadens the current statutory 
language preempting State insurance laws.
    In addition, the bill permits certain employees of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] and the Federal 
Reserve Board (Fed) to participate in the FEHBP, and it 
requires OPM to encourage carriers who contract with third 
parties to obtain discounts from health care providers to seek 
assurances that the conditions for the discounts are fully 
disclosed to such providers. It also establishes statutory 
requirements for readmitting health care plans sponsored by 
employee organizations that have previously discontinued 
participation in the FEHBP. Under current law, when a health 
care plan discontinues participation in the FEHBP, OPM must 
distribute the remaining contingency reserves to those plans 
that remained in the FEHBP in the contract year after the 
discontinuance. This bill requires OPM to complete the 
distribution by the end of the second contract year after the 
plan is discontinued.
    The maximum amount of the physicians comparability 
allowance under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5948 is increased from $20,000 to 
$30,000.
    The bill also amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8902(k) to explicitly 
permit carriers to provide for direct access and direct 
payments to licensed health care providers who are not 
currently enumerated in the statute.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--Chairman Burton introduced 
H.R. 1836 on June 10, 1997. It was referred to the Subcommittee 
on the Civil Service on June 11, 1997. The subcommittee 
favorably forwarded H.R. 1836, as amended, to the full 
committee on October 22, 1997. The full committee ordered 
reported, as amended, H.R. 1836 to the House on November 4, 
1997. The bill passed the House, as amended, on November 4, 
1997, under suspension of the rules and was referred to the 
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
    d. Hearings.--There were no hearings held on H.R. 1836. 
However, aspects of the bill were examined during the hearing 
on FEHBP rate hikes described in part Section II. B. 9. 
(Subcommittee on the Civil Service).
4. H.R. 2675, the Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement Act.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-373, 
November 4, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2675, as amended, improves the 
life insurance benefits available to Federal employees under 
the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program [FEGLI]. It 
directs the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to submit a 
legislative proposal for offering Federal employees group 
universal life insurance, group variable universal life 
insurance, and additional voluntary accidental death and 
dismemberment policies. In addition, it permits employees to 
continue unreduced additional optional life insurance coverage 
beyond their 65th birthday at their own expense and to purchase 
larger amounts of optional life insurance on family members.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2675 was introduced by 
Subcommittee Chairman Mica on October 21, 1997. It was referred 
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and 
subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on the Civil Service. 
On October 22, 1997, the subcommittee amended H.R. 2675, and 
forwarded it to the full committee for consideration. The full 
committee approved H.R. 2675 and ordered reported as amended by 
voice vote to the House for consideration on October 31, 1997. 
It passed the House on November 4, 1997, under suspension of 
the rules, and was referred to the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
    d. Hearings.--There were no hearings held on H.R. 2675. 
However, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program was 
examined in the hearing described in part Section II. A. 4. 
(Subcommittee on the Civil Service).
5. H.J. Res. 56, celebrating the end of slavery in the United States.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--Resolves that the celebration of 
the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of our 
country's history and heritage and provides an opportunity for 
all Americans to learn more about our common past and to better 
understand the experiences that have shaped our Nation and 
directs that a copy of this joint resolution be transmitted to 
the National Association of Juneteenth Lineage as an expression 
of appreciation for its role in promoting the observance of the 
end of slavery.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.J. Res. 56 was introduced 
by Representative Watts (OK) on February 26, 1997, and was 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 
The committee approved and ordered reported to the House, H.J. 
Res. 56, on June 11, 1997. The House passed the measure on June 
17, 1997, by the Yeas and Nays of 419--0 (Roll Call Vote No. 
207). The Senate received the bill on June 18, 1997.
    d. Hearings.--None were held.
6. H. Con. Res. 95, recognizing and commending American airmen held as 
        political prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp during 
        World War II for their service, bravery, and fortitude.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--Recognizes and commends the 82 
American airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald 
concentration camp during World War II for their faithful 
service, personal bravery, and exceptional fortitude; and 
requests that the President issue a proclamation recognizing 
and commending, by name, the service, bravery, and fortitude of 
those airmen.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--Representative Weldon (FL) 
introduced H. Con. Res. 95 on June 10, 1997. It was referred to 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the 
committee discharged the bill on September 5, 1997. H. Con. 
Res. 95 was passed by the House, under suspension of the rules, 
on September 16, 1997, by voice vote and was received in the 
Senate on September 17, 1997.
    d. Hearings.--None were held.
7. H. Con. Res. 109, recognizing the many talents of the actor Jimmy 
        Stewart and honoring the contributions he made to the Nation.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--Congress recognizes the many 
talents of the late James M. ``Jimmy'' Stewart and honors the 
artistic, military, and political contributions he made to the 
Nation.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--The legislation was 
introduced by Mr. King (NY) on July 8, 1997. The Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight waived jurisdiction on July 10, 
1997, and the bill was passed by the House on September 16, 
1997, under suspension of the rules. It was referred to the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
    d. Hearings.--None were held.

                Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

1. H.R. 514, District of Columbia Inspector General Improvement Act of 
        1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-29, March 
18, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 514, the District of Columbia 
Inspector General Improvement Act of 1997, amends the District 
of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 
1978 to allow, at the request of the Inspector General of the 
District of Columbia, the director of personnel to waive the 
residency requirement for employees of the Office of the 
Inspector General.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--The bill was introduced by 
Representative Thomas M. Davis (VA) on February 4, 1997. It was 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on the District 
of Columbia on February 10, 1997. The subcommittee forwarded 
the bill, amended, to the full committee on February 11, 1997. 
On March 12, 1997, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight ordered the bill, as amended, reported to the House, 
by voice vote. The House passed the legislation on March 18, 
1997, as amended under suspension of the rules, on March 18, 
1997. The measure was passed by the Senate on March 20, 1997, 
and the President signed the bill on March 25, 1997, becoming 
Public Law 105-7.
    d. Hearings.--None were held.
2. H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Bill.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-149, June 
24, 1997; Conference House Report 105-217, July 30, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--A portion of this bill contained 
the entire final version of H.R. 1963, which was named Title 
XI--District of Columbia Revitalization, cited as the, 
``National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997''.
    This section of the bill contained changes made in the 
District of Columbia in the following major areas: District of 
Columbia Retirement Funds, Management Reform Plans, Criminal 
Justice, Privatization of Tax Collection and Administration, 
Financing of District of Columbia Accumulated Deficit, District 
of Columbia Bond Financing Improvements, and a Miscellaneous 
Chapter. Section by section highlights are as follows:
Subtitle A--Unfunded Pension Liability
    Subtitle A lifts the burden of the $4.8 billion unfunded 
pension liability for police and firefighters, teachers, and 
judges of the District of Columbia created when the Federal 
Government transferred those pensions plans to the District of 
Columbia in 1979. The bill has the Secretary of Treasury assume 
the payment of benefits to currently retired DC teachers, 
police and firefighters. The judges become a separate Federal 
plan under the Federal takeover of the District courts (Chapter 
4). There is a ``freeze date'' (June 30, 1997) mandating that 
no further benefits may be earned under the existing plan. 
Because of the freeze date there can be no ``gaming'' of the 
system where people retire normally or on disability and 
receive more benefits from the Federal Government than they 
would have otherwise.
    The Secretary will transfer from the DC Retirement Board 
approximately $3.2 billion in assets and deposit them in a new 
DC Retirement Fund in the Treasury. Six months after enactment 
of this legislation the Treasury will set up another account, 
the DC Supplemental Fund, and begin to deposit Treasury bills 
in an amount amortized to pay off the liability in 30 years 
(Secretary determines exact timing).
    The Secretary hires an agent to manage the assets and make 
the payments. The retirement benefits are paid out of the 
transferred assets until they are used up (approximately 8 
years). After the assets are used up, benefits will be paid out 
of the Supplemental Fund which will have accumulated more than 
$3 billion in Treasury bills by that time.
    Within 1 year of enactment, the DC government must adopt a 
replacement plan for currently active police and firefighters, 
and teachers. The legislation requires this new plan to meet 
ERISA standards and be fully funded. Current police and 
firefighters and teachers will then have retirement benefits 
under 2 pension plans--benefits earned up to the freeze date 
under the current plans; and benefits after the freeze date 
earned under the replacement plan.
    The Secretary is instructed to contract with a consultant 
to study alternative methods of financing the Federal 
obligation assumed in this chapter. The study must be completed 
within 1 year of enactment.
Subtitle B--Management Reform Plans
    The Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
Authority (Control Board) and the District of Columbia 
government shall develop management reform plans for nine 
listed District agencies and for four citywide functions. The 
Control Board is to contract with consultants to develop the 
management reform plans and the plans will have to be finished 
within 90 days. The department heads will be responsible for 
implementing the reform plans within their departments and will 
report to the Control Board and to no one else. The Control 
Board will direct the implementation of the citywide reform 
plans. The heads of the nine named departments may only be 
dismissed by the control board. Upon enactment there is deemed 
to exist a vacancy at the head of each of the agencies. The 
mayor may reappoint current department heads or nominate new 
persons, but the Control Board must confirm those positions and 
if the mayor does not make a nomination within 30 days, the 
Control Board shall appoint the head of the nine agencies. The 
heads of the nine named agencies will have control and 
discretion on personnel matters within their agencies.
Subtitle C--Criminal Justice
    Sentenced Felons.--The legislation takes over funding and 
operation of the District of Columbia sentenced felon 
population. A Trustee is set up to oversee the operation of the 
District Department of Corrections operations at the Lorton 
Corrections Complex until all inmates are removed from the 
District facilities at Lorton and then Lorton is closed (no 
later than 2001). The Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible 
for housing all DC sentenced felons and is authorized to 
contract with other governments or private companies or to 
place them in Federal facilities. The Bureau of Prisons is 
ordered to privatize at least 2,000 DC inmates by 1999 and at 
least 50 percent of the DC inmate population by 2003. The 
Federal Government will pay for the sentenced felon portion of 
the DC Department of Corrections, but DC will be responsible 
for the rest of the corrections system (juveniles, 
misdemeanant, et cetera) both during the Trusteeship and after 
BOP assumes responsibility for sentenced felons.
    The ``Truth-in-Sentencing'' requirements of the 1994 crime 
bill must be met by the District for the takeover to occur. A 
Truth in Sentencing Commission, chaired by the Attorney 
General, is established and has 6 months to recommend 
amendments to the District of Columbia Code for sentencing 
certain felony crimes. If the District government has not 
enacted any recommended amendments or if the Commission fails 
to make any recommendation, the Attorney General is directed to 
promulgate amendments to the District Code as necessary under 
the provisions of this Subtitle.
    Courts.--The Federal Government will assume funding 
responsibility for the DC court system, including probation, 
public defender service, and pre-trial services, which will 
become a Federal agency. The courts will continue to be self-
managed. The District of Columbia parole, probation, and pre-
trial services will be operated by a Federal Trustee until 
those agencies meet Federal standards and then will become a 
Federal agency.
Subtitle D--Tax Administration
    The District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer is 
authorized to contract up to the entire processing and 
collection of the DC tax system. Such contracting must be done 
with the approval of the Control Board.
Subtitle E--Financing Accumulated Operating Deficit
    The District of Columbia will have accumulated an operating 
deficit of approximately $520 million between 1991 and 
September 30, 1997. Carrying this debt is severely impacting 
the District's cash position and holding down the ability of 
the District to access the private finance market. In other 
cities in financial crisis one of the first actions is to 
finance the operating deficit to get the city back on an even 
cash basis.
    This legislation authorizes the District to finance its 
accumulated operating deficit (it does not have the authority 
to sell bonds for deficit financing otherwise). The legislation 
also provides that if no other source is available, the 
Treasury is authorized to lend to the District for this purpose 
up $300 million on terms up to 10 years. Additionally, Treasury 
is authorized to continue to make cash advances to the District 
for seasonal cash flow purposes on a term of not more than 11 
months.
    All moneys borrowed from the Treasury have to be repaid at 
the relevant Treasury rate plus one-eighth of a percent 
interest. Treasury borrowing is more expensive that private 
market borrowing so it is anticipated that this authority would 
only be utilized as a last resort.
Subtitle F--District Government Borrowing Authority
    The District of Columbia's borrowing authority, including 
the use of revenue bonds for economic development purposes, was 
written in the 1973 Home Rule Act and has not been 
substantially revised or modernized since. The District 
authority was also severely restricted because of its 
inexperience with the public borrowing. Since 1973 the whole 
world has changed regarding the use and structure of municipal 
bonds, including revenue bonds. Because of the District's 
restricted authority, the District has never been able to 
utilize all of its annual allocation of revenue bonds and has 
suffered reduced economic development and a competitive 
disadvantage to States and other cities. In addition, the 
District government has been less able than other jurisdictions 
to borrow funds for public purposes and this has contributed to 
the serious deterioration of its capital assets.
    The legislation modernizes the District of Columbia's 
authority to issue both General Obligation and Revenue bonds 
and brings it into conformity with other jurisdictions. There 
is no effort to give the District more authority than other 
jurisdictions nor to continue to restrict or hinder the 
District in its ability to use this valuable economic 
development tool.
Subtitle G--District of Columbia Budget
    The legislation eliminates the existing Federal payment to 
the District of Columbia government. The District is required 
to balance its budget in fiscal year 1998 as opposed to the 
current requirement that this be done by 1999. The debt service 
limitation in the Home Rule Act is modified to account for the 
loss of the Federal payment. The legislation provides for a 
Federal contribution to the operation of the government of the 
Nation's Capital with a 1998 level of $190 million.
Subtitle H--Miscellaneous
    A number of miscellaneous provisions dealing with diverse 
aspects of the District of Columbia are contained in subtitle 
H. The Control Board is directed to implement 2 levels of 
regulatory reform in DC within 1 year: 1) Gives the Control 
Board 6 months to review and use its power to change 
regulations it finds to be anti-competitive, anti-business, or 
unnecessarily complicated. 2) Gives the Control Board 1 year to 
determine why DC's application, permit, and inspection programs 
are dysfunctional and take whatever action is needed 
(regulatory, personnel, privatization) for DC's processes to be 
performed at or above the national average with a further goal 
of making DC's permit and application processes the best in the 
Nation.
    Actions are taken concerning several Federal and DC 
statutes and Federal law enforcement agencies are allowed and 
encouraged to make agreements with the Metropolitan Police 
Department detailing how these Federal agencies will assist MPD 
in increasing public safety in the Nation's Capital.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2015 was introduced by 
Representative John Kasich on June 24, 1997. It was reported 
out of the Committee on Budget on June 24, 1997, House Report 
105-149. The House amended and passed the bill on June 25, 
1997, and was received and passed the Senate with an amendment 
on June 25, 1997. A conference was agreed to and Conference 
Report (105-217) filed in the House on July 30, 1997, and 
passed the same day. The Senate agreed to the report on July 
31, 1997, and the President signed the measure on August 1, 
1997, to become Public Law 105-33.
    d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held the following hearings 
relating to this measure: on February 20, 1997, hearing on 
``White House Proposal for the District of Columbia;'' on March 
11, 1997, a joint hearing held with the Senate Subcommittee on 
Government, Management, Restructuring and the District of 
Columbia of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the 
Senate Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the 
Committee on Appropriations on ``Successes in Urban Problem 
Solving, Mayoral Perspectives;'' on March 13, 1997, joint 
hearing held with the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
Subcommittee on Government, Management, Restructuring, and 
District of Columbia on the ``White House Proposal for the 
District of Columbia;'' on March 25, 1997, hearing held on the 
``White House Proposal for the District of Columbia--Business 
and Community Leaders' Perspectives;''on April 25, 1997, 
hearing on the ``White House Proposal for the District of 
Columbia--Medicaid and Treasury Borrowing;'' on May 1, 1997, a 
hearing on ``Education At a Crossroads: What Works and What's 
Wasted in the D.C. School System?;'' and on May 22, 1997, 
hearing on the ``White House Proposal for the District of 
Columbia--Economic Development of the President's National 
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Plan.''
3. H.R. 3025, To amend the Federal Charter for Group Hospitalization 
        and Medical Services, Inc., and for other purposes.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 3025, amends the Federal 
charter of Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., 
to: (1) permit the corporation to have one class of members 
consisting of at least one member and not more than 30; and (2) 
prohibit dissolution of the corporation without congressional 
approval.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--This legislation was 
introduced by Representative Thomas Davis (VA) on November 12, 
1997. It was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight and the bill was considered by the House on November 
13, 1997, under suspension of the rules. The legislation was 
agreed to and passed the House by voice vote. The Senate passed 
this measure on November 13, 1997, and it was signed by the 
President on December 16, 1997, Public Law 105-149.
    d. Hearings.--None.

   Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

1. H.R. 173, Authorization To Donate Surplus Law Enforcement Canines to 
        Their Handlers.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 173 is a non-controversial 
measure designed to make Federal property disposal operations 
more efficient by allowing surplus Federal canines to be 
donated to their handlers. This promotes humane treatment of 
surplus canines by shortening the period of time a canine is 
away from its handler. It also avoids the lengthy screening 
period normally required, thereby reducing Federal costs.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 173 was introduced on 
January 7, 1997, and referred to the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology on January 16, 1997. 
The subcommittee held a markup on March 11 and voted 
unanimously to forward the bill to the full committee. On March 
12, 1997, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee held 
its markup of H.R. 173, and ordered the bill to be reported to 
the House of Representatives. H.R. 173 was approved by the 
House under suspension of the rules on April 16, 1997, and sent 
to the Senate for consideration. The Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee reported the bill favorably, without 
amendments, on June 17, 1997. H.R. 173 passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent on June 27, 1997, and was signed by the 
President on July 18, 1997; Public Law 105-27.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 680, Transfer of Surplus Personal Property For Donation To 
        Providers Of Necessaries To Impoverished Families and 
        Individuals.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 680 is a bill for ``the 
Transfer of Surplus Personal Property For Donation To Providers 
Of Necessaries To Impoverished Families and Individuals.'' This 
bill authorizes the transfer of surplus personal property to 
organizations that provide assistance to impoverished 
individuals. Currently, Federal agencies declare about $6 
billion per year in excess Federal personal property. The 
property is screened by other Federal agencies to determine 
whether the property is needed by another Federal user. The 
remaining property is declared surplus and donated to State 
governments, law enforcement agencies, and other eligible 
groups. Agencies then sell the remaining property--generally 
the oldest and most obsolete property--generating very little 
in proceeds (about $8 million annually).
    H.R. 680 authorizes the donation of surplus property to 
charities that provide services to poor families. Under this 
measure, these groups are eligible for the property on the same 
basis as State government agencies. Private charities such as 
food banks and Habitat for Humanity are a major source of 
support for the poor. H.R. 680 allows these organizations to 
receive surplus Federal personal property in support of their 
mission.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 680 was introduced on 
February 11, 1997 and referred to the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology on February 
13, 1997. The subcommittee marked up the bill and forwarded it 
to the full committee by voice vote on March 11, 1997. On March 
12, 1997, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
considered the measure and ordered it to be reported. H.R. 680 
was called up under suspension of the rules and passed by the 
House as amended by a roll call vote of 418-0 on April 29, 1997 
(Roll No. 93). The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
favorably reported the bill without amendment on May 22, 1997. 
The measure was amended on the floor of the Senate on July 9, 
1997. On September 18, 1997, on a motion that the House agree 
to the Senate amendments, the amended bill was cleared for the 
White House. It was signed by the President on October 6, 1997; 
Public Law No. 105-50.
    d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 930, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 930, the Travel and 
Transportation Reform Act of 1997, is designed to remedy poor 
management of the Federal Government's massive travel 
expenditures. H.R. 930 would clear away obstacles to better 
management and encourage a concerted effort by Federal managers 
to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of Federal 
travel.
    In fiscal year 1994 (the last year for which precise 
figures are available), the Government spent more than $7.6 
billion on travel, including transportation, lodging, rental 
cars and other related expenses. There are ample opportunities 
to save money from this sum without restricting necessary 
travel. Administrative costs, for example, should be 
significantly reduced. The cost of completing a travel voucher 
is about $15 in the private sector while it can run as high as 
$123 in the Federal Government. H.R. 930 would help the 
Government adopt successful techniques from the private sector. 
It has four major provisions.
    The first provision provides for universal use of the 
Federal travel charge card throughout the Government. 
Relatedly, H.R. 930 seeks to ensure that agencies are able to 
verify that charges on the travel card are business related. 
The Government's ability to access this information has been in 
question because the Right to Financial Privacy Act restricts 
the release of an individual's financial records, including 
accounts maintained by the credit card issuer. H.R. 930 
clarifies that the Government has the authority it needs to 
gather this information. This provision would make the Federal 
Government a better customer and simplify administration for 
Federal agencies. The result would be an increase in the size 
of the Federal Government's rebate.
    The second major provision concerns prepayment audits of 
travel charges. Currently, GSA's Office of Transportation 
Audits spends $11 million to recover $6 million in overpayments 
using post-payment audits. A GSA pilot program that uses audit 
contractors to perform prepayment audits on some transportation 
vouchers has identified overpayments worth four times the 
amount of the payments to contractors, proving that this is a 
cost-effective tool. All other invoices submitted to the 
Federal Government are reviewed by the procuring agency for 
accuracy prior to payment. The bill authorizes prepayment 
audits by contractors to verify that charges are correct prior 
to disbursement of transportation expenses. According to the 
General Services Administration, this change would save $50 
million per year in reduced transportation expenses.
    The third major provision corrects an unjust tax liability. 
The bill authorizes reimbursement to employees who were 
subjected to a tax liability in tax years 1993 and 1994 due to 
their service with the Federal Government. This tax liability 
was established by the 1992 Energy Act. The Energy Act limited 
the income tax deduction for business related travel to 
expenses incurred on trips of 1 year or less in duration. Most 
Federal agencies were unaware of this requirement because the 
IRS did not notify them until December 1993 and did not 
withhold tax payments from the employees' salaries. Many of the 
affected Federal employees were liable for a lump-sum payment 
plus penalty and interest charges.
    The fourth major provision encourages innovation in Federal 
travel. The sections of the U.S. Code relating to travel are 
extremely proscriptive and limit agency flexibility in 
developing improved benefit systems. H.R. 930 would allow 
Federal agencies to participate in travel pilot tests that 
would, it is hoped, save taxpayer dollars.
    The Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1997 should 
save the taxpayers at least $80 million per year by reducing 
expenditures by $50 million or more each year while also 
increasing receipts (through the travel card rebate program) by 
$30 million annually.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 930 was introduced on 
March 5, 1997. The bill was marked up by the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology on March 11, 
1997, and by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
on March 12, 1997. It was then considered by the House under 
suspension of the rules and passed by voice vote on April 16, 
1997. It has been referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
    d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 404, Authorizing the transfer to State and local governments of 
        certain surplus property for use for law enforcement or public 
        safety purposes.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 404 is a bill that would make 
it easier for State and local governments to receive excess 
Federal property to benefit law enforcement, fire and rescue 
purposes. Under current law, surplus Federal property can be 
donated to State or local governments through a public benefit 
discount for public health, education, recreation, national 
service activities, historic monuments, correctional facilities 
and shipping ports. H.R. 404 would expand the public benefit 
discount for correctional facilities to cover other law 
enforcement and fire and rescue activities.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 404 was introduced on 
January 9, 1997, and referred to the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology on January 22, 1997. 
The subcommittee held a markup of the bill on June 3, 1997, and 
voted unanimously to forward the bill to the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. On September 30, 1997, the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight considered the 
measure and voted by voice vote to forward it to the House. 
H.R. 404 passed the House under suspension of the rules on 
November 4, 1997. On November 13, 1997, it was referred to the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
    d. Hearings.--On June 3, 1997, the subcommittee held a 
hearing on H.R. 404. Officials from Riverside County, CA, 
testified that they wanted to place a coroner's office and a 
law enforcement and fire training academy on surplus Federal 
property at the March Air Force Base. That surplus property 
became available through the actions of the Defense Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission. The county officials stated 
that they wanted the land and buildings for these functions to 
be made available through one, not two, Federal agencies. 
Witnesses at the June 3rd hearing included Senator Dianne 
Feinstein (D-CA), who has introduced a companion bill to H.R. 
404 in the Senate, Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA), who 
authored H.R. 404, and Representative Sonny Bono (R-CA).
    On June 26, 1997, the subcommittee marked up H.R. 404. The 
subcommittee considered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that made technical corrections to the bill as 
introduced. The subcommittee then voted unanimously to forward 
the substitute version to the full Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.
5. H.R. 52, The Fair Health Information Practices Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 52 addresses the challenge of 
protecting confidentiality and privacy between doctor and 
patient in a rapidly changing health care environment. Managed 
health care systems must be able to exchange information 
between doctors, insurers, and others. The increasing use of 
information technology and the increasing complexity in 
provider arrangements are inevitable. The exchange of patient 
health care information is an integral part of the existing 
health care system. Payments for claims require diagnostic 
information. Communications between primary care providers and 
other providers such as specialists or hospitals require 
patient information to be shared. Pharmacies maintain databases 
of past prescriptions.
    Despite this highly fluid environment for exchanging health 
care information, no uniform national standard currently exists 
to protect the confidentiality of this information. Moreover, 
there is little uniformity among State statutes regarding the 
confidentiality of health care information. Most of these State 
laws lack penalties for misuse or misappropriation. Protections 
vary according to both the holder and the type of information.
    Under the Kassebaum-Kennedy Act of 1996, the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services is required to recommend privacy 
standards for health care information to Congress by September 
1997. If Congress does not enact health care privacy 
legislation by August 1999, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services is required to promulgate such privacy regulations.
    Under H.R. 52, medical records created or used during the 
process of treatment become protected health information. 
Furthermore, health care providers are required to maintain 
appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards 
to protect the integrity and privacy of health care 
information. H.R. 52 would allow patients to review their 
medical records and correct inaccurate information. It would 
also place restrictions on the release of information relating 
to the treatment of patients and on the payment for health care 
services.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 52 was introduced on 
January 7, 1997. It was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology on February 
28, 1997, and the subcommittee held a hearing on the measure on 
June 5, 1997. H.R. 52 has also been referred to the Commerce 
Committee, Subcommittee on Health, and Environment and the 
Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime.
    d. Hearings.--On June 5, 1997, the subcommittee held a 
hearing on H.R. 52 and the medical privacy issue. Four Members 
of Congress who have taken the lead on medical records privacy 
issues testified: Representatives Condit, Slaughter, Stearns, 
and Green. The subcommittee also heard testimony from privacy 
advocates, health care providers, records management 
organizations, and medical researchers.
6. H.R. 1962, Presidential and Executive Office Financial 
        Accountability Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-331, 
October 21, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1962 brings the agencies of 
the Executive Office of the President [EOP] within the 
framework and under the requirements of the Chief Financial 
Officers [CFO] Act. H.R. 1962 authorizes the President to 
appoint a Chief Financial Officer in a unit or office within 
the Executive Office of the President and, to the fullest 
extent practicable, mandates adherence to most provisions of 
the CFO Act. In recognition of the decentralized structure of 
the EOP and the unique functions its agencies perform in 
support of the President, H.R. 1962 anticipates that some 
exemptions may be necessary. The bill provides considerable 
discretion for the President to exempt the new CFO from any of 
a number of responsibilities otherwise stipulated by the CFO 
Act as authority and functions to be performed by an agency's 
Chief Financial Officer.
    The intent of this legislation is to foster improved 
systems of accounting, financial management and internal 
controls throughout the component entities of the Executive 
Office of the President. This should facilitate prevention, or 
at least early detection, of waste, fraud and abuse within the 
Executive Office of the President, as well as in the other 
executive branch agencies already covered by the CFO Act. 
Implementation of these provisions will promote not only 
accountability and proper fiscal management but also efficiency 
and cost reductions.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--On June 19, 1997, 
Subcommittee Chairman Horn introduced H.R. 1962. The 
subcommittee marked up the bill on September 4, 1997. One 
amendment was offered and adopted at the subcommittee mark-up, 
and the bill as amended was approved by voice vote. The 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight marked up the bill 
on September 30, 1997, approving the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, and reporting the measure favorably, as amended, 
on a voice vote, for consideration by the House of 
Representatives. H.R. 1962 passed the House by a vote of 413 to 
3 on October 21, 1997. The bill has been referred to the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
    d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on the 
proposed measure on May 1, and marked up the bill on September 
4. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight held its 
markup of H.R. 1962 on September 30, 1997.
7. H.R. 716, Freedom from Government Competition Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 716 seeks to take the 
Government out of the business of doing things that the private 
sector can do better. It prohibits Federal agencies from 
producing goods or services available from the private sector 
unless there is either a national security reason or an 
inherently governmental reason for doing so. The bill allows 
for agencies to retain functions when the Federal agency is the 
best value provider of those functions. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, many government organizations 
report a savings of approximately 20 to 35 percent when a 
Federal Government function is subject to competition. At the 
same time, this efficiency may come at a cost, especially to 
Government employees.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 716 was introduced by 
Representative Duncan on February 12, 1997, and referred to the 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology on February 20, 1997. The subcommittee held a 
hearing on the measure on September 19, 1997. H.R. 716 was also 
referred to the House Budget Committee.
    d. Hearings.--The subcommittee hearing was held September 
29, 1997. Numerous issues were addressed, including whether the 
Federal Government should maintain expertise in critical areas 
and whether the Federal Government has the capacity to manage a 
number of new Federal contracts. Witnesses at the hearing 
included Senator Craig Thomas, (R-WY), who introduced the 
companion measure in the Senate; Representative James Duncan, 
(R-TN, who authored H.R. 716; Steve Goldsmith, mayor, city of 
Indianapolis; Ms. Shirley Ybarra, deputy secretary for 
transportation, State of Virginia; Ed DeSeve, Office of 
Management and Budget; Mr. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal 
Management and Workforce Issues, General Accounting Office; and 
Mr. Bobby L. Harnage, Sr., national secretary-treasurer, 
American Federation of Government Employees.

                    Subcommittee on Human Resources

1. H.R. 399, the Subsidy Termination for Overdue Payments [STOP] Act.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 399 prohibits the payment of 
Federal financial assistance to parents who are more than 60 
late or delinquent in meeting their child support obligations 
unless there is deemed to be ``good cause'' due to factors 
beyond their control.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 399 was introduced in 
the House on January 9, 1997, by Congressman Michael Bilirakis 
(R-FL).
    d. Hearings and Committee Actions.--On November 4, 1997, 
the Human Resources Subcommittee held a hearing on 
privatization of child support enforcement services and H.R. 
399. Testimony was received from: Congressman Michael Bilirakis 
(R-FL) and representatives from the GAO, Policy Studies Inc., 
Lockheed Martin IMS, Maximus Inc., G.C. Services, the Ventura 
County District Attorney's Office, and the Association for 
Children for Enforcement of Support.

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
                                Justice

1. H.R. 956, Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-105, May 
20, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 956, amends the National 
Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, to direct the Director of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy to establish a program 
to support communities in the development and implementation of 
comprehensive, long-term plans and programs to prevent and 
treat substance abuse among youth. The bill represents a major, 
new commitment to novel, well-coordinated anti-drug prevention 
coalitions on the local level. The bill is also designed to 
bring national and State leadership to local communities in a 
systematic manner throughout the United States.
    The bill requires the Director, in carrying out the 
program, to: (1) make and track grants to grant recipients; (2) 
provide for technical assistance and training, data collection 
and dissemination of information on state-of-the-art practices 
that the Director determines to be effective in reducing 
substance abuse; and (3) provide for the general administration 
of the program. The bill also allows the Director to enter into 
contracts with national drug control agencies, including 
interagency agreements to delegate authority for the execution 
of grants and to carry out this act. H.R. 956 authorizes 
appropriations for fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
    In addition, H.R. 956 sets forth specified criteria a 
coalition shall meet to be eligible to receive an initial or a 
renewal grant. It prescribes limitations concerning: (1) grant 
amounts; (2) coalition awards; and (3) rural coalition grants. 
The legislation grants the Program Administrator general 
auditing and data collection authority and requires the 
minimization of reporting requirements by grant recipients.
    The measure authorizes the Administrator, with respect to 
any grant recipient or other organization, to: (1) offer 
technical assistance and training and enter into contracts and 
cooperative agreements; and (2) facilitate the coordination of 
programs between a grant recipient and other organizations, and 
entities. Authorizes the Administrator to provide training to 
any representative designated by a grant recipient in: (1) 
coalition building; (2) task force development; (3) mediation 
and facilitation, direct service, assessment and evaluation; or 
(4) any other activity related to the purposes of the program.
    Finally, H.R. 956 establishes the Advisory Commission on 
Drug-Free Communities to advise, consult with, and make 
recommendations to the Director concerning activities carried 
out under the program. Within the legislation, the duties of 
the Advisory Commission are set forth and terminates the 
Advisory Commission at the end of fiscal year 2002.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 956 was introduced on 
March 5, 1997, by Congressman Rob Portman, and referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. On March 12, 
1997, H.R. 956 was referred to the Subcommittee on National 
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice and the 
subcommittee held a markup and favorably reported H.R. 956, as 
amended, to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 
On May 16, 1997, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight favorably reported H.R. 956, as amended, House Report 
No. 105-105, Part I. The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 
passed the House of Representatives under suspension of the 
rules by Roll Call vote of 420-1 on May 22, 1997. On June 2, 
1997, the bill was referred to the Senate. On June 18, 1997, 
the Senate passed H.R. 956 by unanimous consent. The Drug-Free 
Communities Act of 1997 was signed by the President on June 27, 
1997, Public Law 105-20.
    d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on March 12, 
1997, at which Congressmen Rob Portman and Sander Levin 
testified as sponsors of the bill. James E. Copple, president 
and CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America [CADCA], 
and Robert Francis, executive director of Regional Youth Adult 
Substance Abuse Project [RYASAP] based in Bridgeport, CT, also 
testified in support of the bill. Congressman Charles B. Rangel 
submitted a statement for the record.
    Subcommittee Chairman J. Dennis Hastert began the hearing 
with a statement on the problems facing communities as they 
address the crisis of rising drug abuse and expressed his 
support for H.R. 956, a bill on which he worked vigorously and 
of which he was, with Congressman Portman, original co-sponsor. 
Ranking minority member, Thomas M. Barrett, attributed the rise 
in teen drug use to the lack of a strong community position and 
expressed his support.
    Congressman Portman outlined the provisions in the bill. 
Essentially, H.R. 956 rechannels existing resources to 
effective community efforts aimed at stemming the increase in 
teen drug abuse, and reversing the drug tolerance. 
Representative Portman labeled the mounting teen drug epidemic 
``a call to action.'' At its core, H.R. 956 provides incentives 
for communities to address this problem cost-effectively.
    Congressman Sander Levin described the bills enormous 
potential contribution to anti-drug efforts and said it would 
give way to a renewed national commitment, helping communities 
learn from each others activities. Mr. Copple stressed that 
``anti-drug'' coalitions are necessary and noted that this bill 
would unify whole communities and provide essential resources. 
Through an emphasis on outcome evaluation and increased 
participation by elected officials and citizens, this 
legislation will significantly aid ONDCP in coordinating 
domestic anti-drug efforts. Mr. Francis added that young people 
must be offered meaningful alternatives, and encouraged to find 
long term solutions to their drug problem.
2. H.R. 1553, A bill to amend the President John F. Kennedy 
        Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend 
        authorization of the Assassination Records Review Board until 
        September 30, 1998.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-138, June 
19, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--The purpose of H.R. 1553 is to 
extend for 1 year the authorization of the Assassination 
Records Review Board, in order to allow the Board to finish 
reviewing and publicly releasing the Federal Government's 
records, relating to the 1963 assassination of President John 
F. Kennedy, and to issue its final report. H.R. 1553 extends 
the Review Board's September 30, 1997, termination date to 
September 30, 1998. This legislation authorizes $1.6 million in 
fiscal year 1998 for that purpose. The President's fiscal year 
1998 budget requested the 1-year authorization extension and 
additional funding.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1553 was introduced by 
Chairman Dan Burton on May 8, 1997, and referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. On May 13, 1997, 
H.R. 1553 was referred to the Subcommittee on National 
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice. The 
subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 1553 by voice vote on June 
4, 1997, to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 
On June 11, 1997, the committee favorably reported H.R. 1553 to 
the House of Representatives by voice vote. The bill passed the 
House under suspension of the rules on June 23, 1997. On June 
25, 1997 the Senate passed H.R. 1553 without amendment by 
unanimous consent. The bill was signed by the President on July 
3, 1997, becoming Public Law 105-25.
    d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1553 
on June 4, 1997. The following witnesses testified before the 
subcommittee: The Honorable Louis Stokes, U.S. House of 
Representatives; the Honorable John R. Tunheim, chair, 
Assassination Records Review Board, Washington, DC; Mr. Steven 
D. Tilley, chief of the Access and Freedom of Information 
Staff, chief of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records 
Collection, National Archives and Records Administration, 
College Park, MD; Mr. Max Holland, author and contributing 
editor of Wilson Quarterly, Washington, DC; and Mr. Bruce 
Hitchcock, Government and U.S. history teacher, Noblesville 
High School, Noblesville, IN.
    In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Dennis 
Hastert expressed his support for H.R. 1553, as did the ranking 
subcommittee minority member, Thomas Barrett. Congressman 
Stokes described his experiences as chairman of the House 
Select Committee on Assassinations (which investigated the 1968 
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as the 
1963 assassination of President Kennedy) in the late 1970's. He 
also discussed his sponsorship of the 1992 legislation which 
created the Assassination Records Review Board.
    John Tunheim, the chair of the Assassination Records Review 
Board, outlined the work of the Review Board to date and the 
Board's plans for completing its review of the CIA's and FBI's 
documents. As noted in House Report 105-138, the section 
entitled ``Background and Need for the Legislation,'' the 
Review Board has acted to transfer more than 14,000 documents 
to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records 
Collection (JFK Collections) at the National Archives and 
Records Administration. Mr. Tunheim stated that the Review 
Board needs additional time to review the CIA's sequestered 
collections and the FBI's assassination records, as well as to 
finish reviewing records from several Federal agencies. These 
agencies include the Secret Service, the National Security 
Agency, and selected congressional committees, including the 
Senate Intelligence Committee. One additional year will allow 
the Review Board sufficient time to continue searching for 
additional assassination records held by Federal agencies, 
local governments, and private citizens. Mr. Tunheim told the 
subcommittee that he was confident that the Review Board could 
finish its work and issue a final report by the end of fiscal 
year 1998, or on September 30, 1998. The Review Board provided 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with a time 
line outlining plans for review completion.
    Steven Tilley, chief of the JFK Collection at the National 
Archives, expressed his strong support for H.R. 1553. Mr. 
Tilley explained how the JFK Collection has grown from 
approximately 450 cubic feet in December 1992, to more than 
1,600 cubic feet today. He also described how the National 
Archives made documents in the JFK Collection available to the 
public on the Internet, as well as at the National Archives' 
College Park, MD facility.
    Max Holland and Bruce Hitchcock both strongly supported 
H.R. 1553. Mr. Holland is currently writing a book about the 
Warren Commission, and he has found the JFK Collection to be 
invaluable to his research. He believed that publicly releasing 
the Kennedy assassination documents would show Americans that 
the Federal Government has nothing to hide, and while 
prematurely ending the board's review would have the opposite 
effect. Hitchcock spoke about the enduring public interest in 
Kennedy's assassination, and Hitchcock expressed his view that 
the Federal Government had a responsibility to release all 
President documents about the assassination to the public.
    There was general agreement among the witnesses and 
subcommittee that the public release of the Kennedy 
assassination documents is important in reducing cynicism about 
the Government and restoring citizens trust. Additionally, 
subcommittee members and witnesses discussed how the Kennedy 
assassination and the Review Board's subsequent efforts to 
publicly release these documents could affect the Federal 
Government's handling of other highly sensitive matters, both 
now and in the future.
3. H.R. 2610, Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control 
        Policy.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--Office of National Drug Control 
Policy Reauthorization Act of 1997, amends the National 
Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) to add 
and revise definitions. The bill re-establishes the 
responsibilities of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
and revises its responsibilities to include the development of 
national drug control policy, coordination and oversight of the 
implementation of such policy, assessment and certification of 
the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget 
for those programs, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of 
such programs. H.R. 2610 revises the provisions concerning the 
Deputy Director offices and responsibilities.
    H.R. 2610 sets forth or modifies provisions regarding the 
responsibilities and coordination of national drug control 
program agencies and the drug control budget request 
certification process. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture 
to annually submit an assessment of the acreage of illegal drug 
cultivation in the United States. In addition, the bill revises 
provisions regarding the National Drug Control Strategy to 
require: (1) the President to submit to the Congress by 
February 1, 1997, a strategy which sets forth a comprehensive 
plan, covering a period of not more than 10 years, for reducing 
drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the United 
States, by limiting the availability of and reducing the demand 
for illegal drugs; and (2) the Director of Office of National 
Drug Control Policy will submit annual reports on progress in 
implementing the Strategy. The bill permits the President to 
submit a revised Strategy that meets the requirements of this 
act under specified conditions.
    The measure requires the Director of the National Drug 
Control Policy to submit a description of the national drug 
control performance measurement system. This will require the 
inclusion of a description of any modifications made during the 
preceding year to the performance measurement system to be 
included in each annual report.
    In addition, H.R. 2610 establishes the President's Council 
on Counter-Narcotics to advise and assist the President in: (1) 
providing direction and oversight for the national drug control 
strategy, including relating drug control policy to other 
national security interests and establishing priorities; and 
(2) ensuring coordination among Federal agencies concerning the 
implementation of the President's national drug control 
strategy. It also requires the Director to serve as the 
executive director of the Council, the senior drug control 
policy official in the executive branch, and the chief drug 
control policy spokesman for the President.
    (Sec. 3) Sets forth drug interdiction reporting 
requirements relating to the budget process.
    The first of the six additional reporting requirements is a 
one-time requirement that ONDCP submit a plan to Congress to 
return the United States to what would be considered a 1960's 
level of drug use--namely, a return to use by no more than 3 
percent of the population, approximately half the rate we are 
experiencing today--by December 31, 2001. The second is a semi-
annual evaluation of each National Drug Control Program 
agencies progress toward reaching the aforementioned goal, 
submitted to Congress by the Director of ONDCP. Third, H.R. 
2610 requires that each National Drug Control Program agency 
submit annually to ONDCP a detailed accounting of all money 
scored as drug money. To ensure the validity of these numbers, 
this provision mandates that the report be authenticated by the 
Inspector General of each agency. Fourth, this bill requires 
the Director of ONDCP to submit annually to Congress a summary 
of the pre-OMB budget request of each National Drug Control 
Program agency. Fifth, this bill requires the Director to 
submit to Congress an annual evaluation of each High Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Area [HIDTA] including a justification for 
continuing resource allocations. Finally, H.R. 2610 requires 
the Director of ONDCP to report to Congress any need for future 
inter-agency reprogramming, and any which occurred in the 
previous quarter.
    Additional Positions.--H.R. 2610 creates three additional 
positions within ONDCP and reorganizes the office to provide 
better leadership in the four areas of coordination: supply 
reduction, demand reduction, intelligence, and State and local 
affairs. The three additional positions are: Deputy Director 
for State and Local Affairs, Deputy Director of Intelligence, 
and Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy. All of the positions created shall be congressionally 
approved and nominations must be submitted to the Senate no 
later than 90 days after the enactment of this bill.
    Expansion of Powers and Responsibilities of the Director.--
This Congress has established a realistic end goal that has 
long been missing---specifically, ONDCP must achieve 3 percent 
drug use (or a lower figure) across the United States within 4 
years. In order to effectively coordinate this goal, this bill 
augments the Director's authority over the National Drug 
Control Program agencies and increases the responsibility he 
holds as the Nations Drug Czar.
    One of the fundamental powers imbued in any Director is a 
degree of influence over the funding of all anti-drug agencies. 
With this in mind, H.R. 2610 allows the Director of ONDCP, with 
the consent of the authorizing and appropriating committees of 
Congress, to reprogram 5 percent of the effected National Drug 
Control Program agencies budgets. This allows the Director to 
increase funding for programs which prove to be affective and 
cut funding for those that do not.
    As coordinator of the U.S. national drug control effort, it 
is also imperative that the Director be apprised of all 
relevant appointments to anti-drug positions. This bill assures 
that the Director is consulted prior to any formal nomination 
relating to drug control.
    H.R. 2610 tasks the Director with establishing Federal 
policies, goals, and performance measures (including specific, 
precise, annual targets) for each of the National Drug Control 
Program agencies. These targets and goals must specify 
``milestone dates'' by which a portion of the ultimate goal is 
achieved, in order to track the progress (or lack of progress) 
of each agency. This bill lays the foundation for a system that 
will allow Congress to foresee and address any deviation from 
time frame.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2610 was introduced by 
Congressman J. Dennis Hastert on October 6, 1997, and referred 
to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight the 
same day. On October 7, 1997, the committee approved H.R. 2610, 
as amended, favorably by voice vote and forwarded it to the 
House. On October 21, 1997, H.R. 2610 was called up by the 
House and passed by voice vote under the suspension of the 
rules.
    The Senate received the bill and referred it to the 
Committee on the Judiciary on October 22, 1997. On November 6, 
1997, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill to be 
favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. Also on November 6, 1997, the bill was placed on 
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar 
No. 273.
    d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held two hearings relating 
to the ONDCP Reauthorization bill. The first hearing was held 
on May 1, 1997, entitled, ``Reauthorization of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy.'' Testimony was received from 
General Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy, and Norman J. Rabkin, Director of 
Administration of Justice Issues of the General Accounting 
Office [GAO]. General McCaffrey outlined his responsibility to 
coordinate the National Drug Control Program agencies and their 
involvement in the war on drugs. He discussed the 32 objectives 
and 5 goals of ONDCP in 1997, and progress made toward them 
since his ascension to office in February 1996. ONDCP stated 
goals are: to reduce the availability of drugs; reduce drug-
related crime; reduce health and social problems associated 
with drug use; shield U.S. borders from drug transshipment; and 
focus on educating young people about the dangers of drug 
abuse. Mr. Rabkin briefed Members on the numerous reports that 
the GAO had completed over the recent years on the Nation's 
drug control efforts. He reiterated the need for centralized 
coordination and accountability for the Nation's efforts.
    On June 25, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 
``Effectiveness of Counterdrug Technology Coordination at 
ONDCP.'' Testimony was received from Mr. Albert Brandenstein, 
chief scientist, Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center 
[CTAC] at the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Mr. Ray 
Mintz, Director, Applied Technology Division, U.S. Customs 
Service; Mr. Leonard Wolfson, Director, Demand Reduction 
Systems, Department of Defense Drug Enforcement Policy and 
Support, Office of the Secretary of Defense; and Mr. David 
Cooper, Associate Director, National Security and International 
Affairs Division, General Accounting Office. Mr. Brandenstein 
reiterated the mission of CTAC, which is to ``. . . identify, 
define, and prioritize short-, medium-, and long-term 
scientific and technological needs of Federal, State, and local 
drug enforcement agencies to oversee and coordinate drug 
technology initiatives with Federal, civilian, and military 
departments . . .'' Both Mr. Mintz and Mr. Wolfson testified of 
their cooperation with CTAC and the successful and unsuccessful 
missions that they have embarked upon to assist in the 
counterdrug effort. Mr. Cooper discussed the differing views 
that ONDCP and Customs have had on the direction of long-range 
technology. Mr. Cooper noted the need for ONDCP to be able to 
exert authority as a coordinating agency over the Nation's 
counterdrug efforts.

                   Subcommittee on the Postal Service

1. H.R. 22, The Postal Reform Act of 1997.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--The subcommittee held extensive 
hearings on Postal Reform during the 104th Congress and a broad 
range of postal stakeholders testified at that time. 
(Activities of the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, Report 104-874, January 1997.) The current bill, 
H.R. 22, was introduced at the beginning of this session and 
reflected the previous legislation which had been enacted in 
the 104th Congress, including increased salaries for the 
Governors of the Postal Service and the establishment of the 
Office of the Inspector General. A major focus of the 
legislation is reform of the current ratemaking process. The 
current structure as enacted by the Postal Reorganization Act 
of 1970, removed Congress from the ratemaking process by 
implementing a cost-based ratemaking system whereby rates are 
based on the cost of providing a specific service. The 
legislation divides postal products into competitive and 
noncompetitive categories. For noncompetitive postal products, 
H.R. 22 updates this rate cap pricing system.
    The purpose of this hearing was to determine what, if any, 
inflation index should be used as the benchmark and whether a 
factor representing productivity gains in the economy should be 
applied against this inflation marker. The legislation gives 
new authorities to the Postal Rate Commission for ensuring 
against service and delivery degradation. It is imperative to 
achieve a rate-setting procedure which protects captive 
customers from undue bias in rates while recognizing demand 
factor in pricing postal products. Expectations for postal 
service have changed over the past 27 years and conflicting 
demands have been placed on the Postal Service due to 
technological and competitive changes. H.R. 22 addresses these 
concerns. Six nationally renowned economists testified and 
responded to oral and written questions for the record. John 
Kwoka of George Washington University testified that over the 
past 10 to 15 years price caps have rapidly replaced cost-based 
ratemaking as the plan for monopolies and companies. Most State 
public utility commissions have adopted price caps or similar 
performance-based plans. The example of AT&T's success with 
price caps was touted. However, not all price cap regimes work 
equally well, depending on the circumstances of the company 
utilizing the method. A good price cap plan should work to the 
benefit of both the consumer and the provider. The consumer 
looks for lower prices which the company must provide by 
instituting efficiencies without eroding service quality, while 
motivating managers and employees to attain these efficiencies 
through compensation and rewards.
    Kenneth Rose, senior economist at the National Regulatory 
Research Institute, testified that price caps are seen as a 
superior way to regulate as opposed to traditional cost of 
service methods. In the field of electricity regulation, price 
caps have held down costs and prices and increased 
productivity; though possibility for degradation of service 
quality exists it is not regarded as an insurmountable problem.
    There are differences between electric utilities and the 
Postal Service which may cause different results in utilizing 
price caps. However, generally, price caps create better 
incentives for cost reduction and control by severing the link 
between the rate which can be charged and the costs. Price caps 
are simple to administer compared with cost-based regulation; 
it allows for more price flexibility to arrange terms with 
customers and protects customers with few or no practical 
alternatives; and price caps can be used as a transition tool 
to a competitive market. Price caps work best in a competitive 
market. However, if there was significant competition, price 
caps would not be necessary and the market could be deregulated 
but, depending on the product, it may not be feasible to have a 
completely deregulated market. An additional impediment in 
implementing a price cap regime to the Postal Service is the 
fact that the Service has no stockholders to whom dividends are 
paid when the company gains profit and are penalized when 
profits are lower.
    Joel Popkin, president of Joel Popkin and Co. testified 
that the performance of the Postal Service since its 
reorganization in 1971 has been a bit better than the U.S. 
private business. The wage earnings of a typical postal worker 
(at level 5) lags behind private sector wages. He said that 
postal market shares have been growing, labor productivity has 
risen, postal rates have risen below the Consumer Price Index, 
but less than CPI for services. Mr. Popkin suggested that since 
the Postal Service is a service industry, should a price cap 
regime be instituted, the index selected should be CPI for 
consumer services. However, he concluded that price caps in an 
industry which is labor intensive is equivalent to wage caps 
and there is no need to alter the regulatory environment since 
the Postal Service is doing well.
    Gregory Sidak, resident scholar, American Enterprise 
Institute for Public Policy Research, stated that because the 
Postal Service is a not-for-profit enterprise, it is difficult 
to relate how a for-profit, shareholder price-cap experience 
would work for a not-for-profit business. Though H.R. 22 
replicates some private-sector incentives, it does not go far 
enough to maximize profits and minimize costs. He asked why not 
privatize the Postal Service. Mr. Sidak discussed the two 
monopolies enjoyed by the Postal Service: Private Express 
Statutes (enacted in the 1840's) and the mailbox monopoly 
(enacted in 1934). In defining ``letters'' and ``packets'' the 
Postal Service has the power to define the scope of its own 
monopoly. He raised the issue that both these monopolies appear 
in the U.S. Criminal Code because they are criminal 
prohibitions. Because the definitions are vague, as a matter of 
due process the statute may be void and unenforceable. 
Furthermore, he asserted, the mailbox monopoly makes it 
possible for the Postal Service to raise the costs of its 
rivals in making deliveries to their customers. He testified in 
favor of repealing the Private Express Statutes, the mailbox 
monopoly and other statutory privileges. He also recommended 
that the burden of universal service be removed and all 
services of the Postal Service be subject to antitrust 
oversight, pointing to commercialization of the Postal Service. 
However, if that was not expedient he recommended that there 
should be an increase of regulatory oversight of the Service, 
including enhancing the powers of the Postal Rate Commission, 
and the ability for the Service to initiate and offer postal 
products.
    Professor Michael Crew of Rutgers University and Professor 
Paul Kleindorfer of the University of Pennsylvania presented 
joint testimony. Changes to the Postal Service are due because 
of exogenous factors such as technological change which are 
revolutionizing traditional communications systems. To remain 
viable, postal administrations worldwide are undergoing reform 
and becoming more businesslike. Mr. Crew suggested 
privatization of the Postal Service with a labor force subject 
to the right to strike and lock out provisions--not binding 
arbitration. He reported that price cap regulations have worked 
in Great Britain because the industries are now privatized. For 
price cap regulations to succeed, there must be residual 
claimants. Absent these residual claimants, management lacks 
proper incentives to make profits and increase the value of 
shareholders' investments. Therefore, price caps for a publicly 
held enterprise whose employees are subject to binding 
arbitration may prove to be problematic.
    Mr. Kleindorfer referred to concerns he had with the 
product baskets and the uniform applicability of adjustment 
factors within these baskets. He proposed a more flexible 
definition which would be used only for monopoly products and 
price regulation would be applicable only to monopoly services. 
The more flexible definition and the use of indexing within the 
regulated basket would give the Postal Service an opportunity 
to compete and innovate. Products would be divided into 
regulated and nonregulated groups.
    c. Benefits.--Improvements in ratemaking, with assurance of 
nondiscrimination in rates to users of monopoly products of the 
Postal Service, will enhance mail service to all users. 
Instituting a flexible ratemaking structure should make postal 
products more competitive, which benefits all Americans. 
Witnesses further testified that a properly constructed price 
cap regime initiates incentives to control costs, thereby 
helping attract and retain postal customers. It is important 
that all stakeholders come together to preserve the one 
institution charged with providing universal mail service to 
all 50 States and territories.
    d. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 22, was introduced by 
Subcommittee Chairman John M. McHugh, (R-NY), on January 7, 
1997. The legislation was referred to the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight on January 22, 1997, and 
referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. A 
legislative hearing was held on April 16, 1997.
    e. Hearings.--Hearing entitled, ``H.R. 22, The Postal 
Reform Act of 1997'' was held on April 16, 1997.
2. H.R. 282, To Designate the United States Post Office building 
        located at 153 East 110th Street, New York, New York, as the 
        ``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office Building''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--The bill designates the U.S. Post 
Office building located at 153 East 110th Street, New York, NY, 
as the ``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office Building.'' This 
legislation honors the first Puerto Rican elected to public 
office in the continental United States. After graduating from 
high school, Mr. Rivera came to New York and worked at the post 
office in City Hall while attending college. He was 
instrumental in organizing and establishing the Association of 
Puerto Rican and Hispanic Employees within the Post Office 
Department. He was elected assemblyman in the State of New York 
in 1937, and served until 1940. Mr. Rivera returned to Puerto 
Rico where he continued to be known for his commitment to 
protect the rights of manual laborers and remained a role model 
and a community leader.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--The legislation was 
introduced January 7, 1997, by Representative Serrano of New 
York and was cosponsored by the entire New York House 
Delegation, as required by the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight. The subcommittee forwarded the measure to the 
committee. On October 7, 1997, H.R. 282 was considered by the 
committee and ordered reported by voice vote. On October 21, 
1997, the bill was called up by the House under suspension of 
the rules and it passed by voice vote. The Senate received the 
bill on October 22, 1997, and the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs ordered the bill to be reported favorably on November 
5. H.R. 282 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 
9, 1997, and became Public Law No. 105-87.
    d. Hearings.--None were held on this legislation.
3. H.R. 499, To designate the facility of the United States Postal 
        Service under construction at 7411 Barlite Boulevard in San 
        Antonio, Texas, as the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office 
        Building''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 499 designates the facility of 
the U.S. Postal Service under construction at 7411 Barlite 
Boulevard in San Antonio, TX, as the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post 
Office Building''. The measure honors the late Representative 
Frank Tejeda who died in office while serving his 2nd term as 
the first elected Representative from the 28th District of 
Texas. Representative Tejeda was awarded the Purple Heart, the 
Bronze Star, the Commandant's Trophy, the Marine Corps 
Association Award, among others, for his service with the 
Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict. Although he was a 
high school drop out, Representative Tejeda earned the highest 
academic average in Marine Corps history when he attended 
officer candidate school. He later received a J.D. from the 
University of California, Berkeley, a master's degree in public 
administration from Harvard and a master of law from Yale. He 
served in the Texas' State Legislature in both the House and 
Senate from 1977 until 1992, when he came to Congress.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 499 was introduced by 
Representative Bonilla on February 4, 1997, and supported by 
all members of the House delegation of the State of Texas. The 
bill was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight on February 4, 1997, and then referred to the 
Subcommittee on the Postal Service on February 5, 1997. The 
House called up the legislation under suspension of the rules 
on February 5th, and the measure was passed by a recorded vote 
of 400-0 (Roll No. 9). The Senate received the bill on February 
6, 1997, and was referred to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs. The committee discharged the bill, and the Senate 
passed H.R. 499 by unanimous consent and the bill was cleared 
for the White House. The President signed the measure on March 
3, 1997, to become Public Law No. 105-4.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
4. H.R. 681, To designate the United States Post Office building 
        located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale, California, as the 
        ``Carlos J. Moorhead Post Office Building''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 681 designates the U.S. Post 
Office building located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale, CA as 
the ``Carlos J. Moorhead Post Office Building''. The 
legislation honors Representative Moorhead who served in the 
U.S. House of Representatives from 1972 until he retired in 
1997. While a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. 
Moorhead became chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property. He is a veteran of World War II and a 
retired Judge Advocate Lieutenant Colonel.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--This legislation was 
introduced by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois on February 
11, 1997, and was cosponsored by all Members of the California 
House delegation, (the State in which the post office will be 
located). H.R. 681 was referred to the House Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and subsequently referred to 
the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. On October 7, 1997, the 
committee considered and favorably order the bill to be 
reported to the House by voice vote. The measure was called up 
by the House on October 21, 1997, under suspension of the 
rules, and was passed on voice vote. H.R. 681 was received by 
the Senate on October 22, 1997, and referred to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs, which reported the bill favorably on 
November 5. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on 
November 9, and the President signed the legislation on 
November 19, 1997, to become Public Law No. 105-88.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this measure.
5. H.R. 1057, To designate the building in Indianapolis, Indiana, which 
        houses operations of the Indianapolis Main Post Office as the 
        ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1057 designates the building 
in Indianapolis, IN, which houses the operations of the Circle 
City Station Post Office as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post 
Office Building''. The legislation honors Representative Andrew 
Jacobs who served in the House for 30 years. After serving in 
the Marine Corps during the Korean conflict, he received his 
undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Indiana. 
He served in the Indiana State House and was elected to 
represent his district in the 89th Congress through the 104th 
Congress, with a break during the 93rd Congress. During his 
tenure in Congress, he chaired the Social Security Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1057 was introduced by 
Chairman Burton on March 13, 1997, and was cosponsored by the 
House delegation of the State of Indiana. It was referred to 
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and 
subsequently to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. The 
subcommittee considered and marked up the bill on April 8, 
1997. H.R. 1057 was amended by the subcommittee to reflect the 
name of the facility, from ``Circle City Station Post Office'' 
to ``Indianapolis Main Post Office''. The legislation, as 
amended, was passed favorably by voice vote by the subcommittee 
and ordered forwarded to the committee for consideration. The 
committee considered and marked up the bill on May 16, 1997, 
and ordered it reported to the House. H.R. 1057 was called up 
by the House under suspension of the rules, and the bill as 
amended was adopted by the House on a Yea-Nay Vote (413-0). The 
bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs. On October 9, the committee discharged 
the bill and was passed by the Senate on November 9, 1997, by 
unanimous consent. The President signed the legislation on 
November 19, 1997, and it became Public Law No. 105-90.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on the legislation.
6. H.R. 1058, To designate the facility of the United States Postal 
        Service under construction at 150 West Margaret Drive in Terre 
        Haute, Indiana, as the ``John T. Myers Post Office Building''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1058 designates the facility 
of the U.S. Postal Service under construction at 150 West 
Margaret Drive in Terre Haute, IN, as the ``John T. Myers Post 
Office Building''. The legislation honors Representative John 
T. Myers, who was elected by the 7th District of Indiana to 
serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 90th Congress 
and served until his retirement following the 104th Congress. 
He served on the Committee on Appropriations, and was chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for 2 
years. He was ranking member of the House Ethics Committee in 
the 1980's, and served as ranking member of the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service in 1993 and 1994.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--The bill was introduced by 
Chairman Burton on March 13, 1997. It was referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on March 13 and 
subsequential to the Subcommittee on Postal Service on March 
14, 1997. The subcommittee considered and marked-up the 
legislation on April 8, 1997, and forwarded it to the full 
committee by voice vote. On May 16, 1997, the committee 
considered and marked-up the legislation and ordered it 
favorably reported by voice vote to the House. The House called 
up the legislation under suspension of the rules on June 17, 
1997, and H.R. 1508 passed the House by Yea-Nay Vote: 416-0 
(Roll No. 205). The legislation was received by the Senate on 
June 18, 1997, and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs. On October 9, 1997, the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs discharged the bill and the Senate passed 
the bill by unanimous consent on November 9, 1997. The 
President signed the legislation on November 19, 1997, and it 
became Public Law No. 105-91.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were on the legislation.
7. H.R. 1231, the ``Post Office Relocation Act of 1997.''
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--This legislation amends title 39, 
United States Code, to establish guidelines for the renovation, 
relocation, closing, or consolidation of post offices, and for 
other purposes. Generally, this legislation addresses the issue 
of emergency closings of post offices. The GAO submitted 
comments on this issue on April 23, 1997.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1231 was introduced by 
Representative Blumenauer on April 8, 1997. The bill was 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
and subsequential referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal 
Service.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were conducted on this 
legislation.
8. H.R. 1254, A bill to designate the United States Post Office 
        building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in Springfield, 
        Missouri, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post Office Building''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1254 designated the U.S. Post 
Office building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in 
Springfield, MO, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post Office 
Building''. The measure honors John N. Griesemer, a native of 
Missouri who served as an engineering officer in the U.S. Air 
Force from 1954 until 1956. After his discharge from the Air 
Force, he joined his family's business where he served as 
president and as director until his death in 1993. Mr. 
Griesemer also founded and served as director and president of 
several companies in Missouri and was an active participant in 
his community. In 1984, President Reagan named John Griesemer 
to serve on the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors. He was 
elected chairman of the Board in 1987 and 1988, and served for 
3 years as the Board's vice chairman.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1254 was introduced by 
Representative Blunt on April 9, 1997, and was supported by all 
members of the House delegation of the State of Missouri. The 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service on 
April 14, 1997, of the committee. The subcommittee considered 
the legislation on June 5, 1997, and amended the legislation to 
reflect the accurate address of the facility, 1919 West Bennett 
Street, which was designated by the city after the legislation 
was introduced. The subcommittee voted on the legislation as 
amended by voice vote and forwarded it to the full committee. 
The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
discharged the bill and H.R. 1254 was called up by the House 
under suspension of the rules. It was considered by the House 
and the measure passed the House as amended by voice vote on 
September 16, 1997. H.R. 1254 was received in the Senate on 
September 17, 1997, and referred to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. On November 13, the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs discharged the bill and it passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent the same day and cleared for the 
White House. The President signed the bill on December 2, 1997, 
to become Public Law No. 105-131.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
9. H.R. 1585, A bill to allow postal patrons to contribute to funding 
        for breast cancer research through the voluntary purchase of 
        certain specially issued United States postage stamps.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1585, the Stamp Out Breast 
Cancer Act, as amended permits postal patrons to contribute to 
funding for breast cancer research through the voluntary 
purchase of specially issued U.S. postal stamps. The rate will 
be determined by the Governors of the Postal Service and 
offered as an alternative to the regular First-Class rate of 
postage. Such rates will be equal to regular First-Class rate 
of postage, plus a differential not to exceed 26 percent of the 
First Class rate. After the sale of specially designated 
stamps, 70 percent of the funds are designated to be available 
for breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health 
and the remainder to the Department of Defense, payments to be 
made at least twice a year. The Postmaster General is required 
to include information regarding the operation of the act in 
each annual report to the Board of Governors. The act is 
terminated at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the 
date on which the postage stamps are first made available to 
the public. The Comptroller General is required to report to 
Congress regarding the act, no later than 3 months, but not 
earlier than 6 months, before the end of the period covered by 
the act.
    b. Legislative History/Status.--This legislation was 
introduced by Representative Susan Molinari (R-NY) on May 13, 
1997. It was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, in addition to the Committees on Commerce, and 
National Security, for a period to be determined by the Speaker 
for consideration of the provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the respective committees. On May 19, 1997, the 
legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal 
Service and on May 21, it was referred to the Committee on 
Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment. H.R. 1585 was 
also referred to the Committee on National Security, 
Subcommittee on Military Readiness on June 5, 1997. The House 
called up the bill under suspension of the rules on July 22, 
1997, and passed the Houses as amended by Subcommittee Chairman 
McHugh by a record vote of 422-3 (Roll No. 299). The Senate 
received the legislation on July 23, 1997, and the measure 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent and it was cleared for 
the White House. The President signed the legislature on August 
13, 1997, to become Public Law No. 105-41.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on the measure.
10. H.R. 2013, To designate the facility of the United States Postal 
        Service located at 551 Kingstown Road in South Kingstown, Rhode 
        Island, as the ``David B. Champagne Post Office Building''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2013 designates the facility 
of the U.S. Postal Service located at 551 Kingstown Road in 
South Kingstown, RI, as the ``David B. Champagne Post Office 
Building''. The bill recognizes the valiant efforts of David B. 
Champagne, a 19 year old Marine, born in Wakefield, RI, and 
after completing high school, joined the Marine Corps and lost 
his life in the Korean conflict after saving the lives of his 
fellow Marines. Corporal Champagne was posthumously awarded the 
Medal of Honor by President Eisenhower for his gallantry above 
the call of duty in action against the enemy.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2013 was introduced by 
Representative Weygand on June 23, 1997, and cosponsored by the 
House delegation from the State of Rhode Island. The bill was 
referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on June 23, 1997, and referred to the Subcommittee on 
the Postal Service on June 26, 1997. The committee considered 
the bill on October 7, 1997, and was favorably ordered reported 
to the House by voice vote. The House called up the bill under 
suspension of the rules on October 21, 1997, and it passed by 
voice vote. H.R. 2013 was received in the Senate on October 22, 
1997, and was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on 
October 24, 1997. The President signed the bill on November 10, 
1997, becoming Public Law No. 105-70.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
11. H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (also known as the Budget 
        Reconciliation bill).
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-149, June 
24, 1997.
    b. Summary of Measure.--This bill provides for 
reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of 
section 105 of the House Concurrent Resolution 84 on the budget 
for fiscal year 1998. The Subcommittee on the Postal Service 
considered legislation repealing the authorization of 
appropriations for transitional expenses to the U.S. Postal 
Service pursuant to 39 U.S.C. Sec. 2004. This section provides 
reimbursement for payments to the employee compensation fund 
based on obligations incurred when the U.S. Postal Service was 
the Post Office Department. Until enactment of H.R. 2015, the 
Postal Service received an annual appropriation of 
approximately $35 million to cover expenses associated with 
workers' compensation liabilities incurred prior to Postal 
Reorganization in 1970.
    This portion of the Budget Reconciliation bill, Section 
6001, does not relieve the Postal Service from having to 
reimburse the Employee Compensation Fund. Under this measure, 
the financial obligations of the former Post Office Department 
pertaining to the Employee Compensation Fund becomes those of 
the U.S. Postal Service and the Postal Service Fund. This 
provision mandates that the Postal Service be required to make 
payments for employees of the former Post Office Department to 
the Department of Labor from its own revenues, without Federal 
reimbursement. Enactment of the legislation will not affect the 
payment made to individuals receiving benefits from the 
Employee Compensation Fund. The measure stipulated that if the 
appropriation for funding the transitional appropriations is 
enacted prior to the enactment of this measure, then the Postal 
Service Fund will reimburse the U.S. Treasury an amount equal 
to the appropriation it has received. In addition, technical 
changes were made in this legislation.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--The subcommittee considered 
the proposal and held a markup of the legislation on June 5, 
1997, and favorably ordering it reported to the House Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight, where the measure was 
approved the same day. The committee forwarded the provision to 
the House Committee on the Budget and it was included as 
Section 6001 of H.R. 2015. The Committee on the Budget reported 
the legislation to the House, as report No. 105-149, on June 
24, 1997, and it was called up by special rule and considered 
by the House on June 25, 1997. The measure passed the House as 
amended by a vote of 270-162 (Roll Call Vote No. 240). After 
passing the Senate, the House and Senate agreed to the 
Conference Report and the measure was presented to the 
President who signed H.R. 2015. The legislation became Public 
Law 105-33 on August 5, 1997.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this provision.
12. H.R. 2129, To designate the United States Post Office located at 
        150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, Ohio, as the ``Douglas 
        Applegate Post Office''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2129 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, OH as 
the ``Douglas Applegate Post Office''. Mr. Applegate was 
elected to the 95th Congress by Ohio's 18th Congressional 
District and re-elected each term until his retirement after 
the 103d Congress. Representative Applegate was known as an 
advocate of America's veterans and was the chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Compensation, Pensions, and 
Insurance.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2129 was introduced by 
Representative Traficant on July 9, 1997, and the bill was 
referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. On July 15, the legislation was referred to the 
subcommittee on the Postal Service. The committee considered 
the legislation on October 7, 1997, and was ordered to be 
reported by voice vote to the House. The House considered the 
legislation under suspension of the rules on October 21, 1997, 
and it was passed by voice vote. The Senate received the bill 
on October 22, 1997, and referred to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. The committee ordered the legislation to 
be reported favorably to the Senate on November 5, 1997. On 
November 9, 1997, H.R. 2129 was passed by the Senate by 
unanimous consent and was cleared for the White House. The 
President signed the legislation on November 19, 1997, and it 
became Public Law No. 105-97.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
13. H.R. 2378, Making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the 
        United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the 
        President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
    a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-240, 
August 5, 1997. Supplemental report filed September 3, 1997; 
Pt. II. Supplemental report filed September 11, 1997; Pt. III. 
Conference Report filed September 29, 1997; 105-284.
    b. Summary of Measure.--Title II of H.R. 2378, the 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations 
bill relates to payments to the Postal Service Fund for revenue 
foregone on free and reduced rate mail for non-funded 
liabilities. The Postal Service operates on funds generated 
through the sale of its goods and services and has not received 
an appropriation for operating expenses since 1982. The current 
appropriation is directed for specific programs and not 
intended for general postal operation and programs.
    Section 519 of the bill provided that no funds appropriated 
for the U.S. Postal Service under this or any other act may be 
expended by the Postal Service to expand the Global Package 
Link Service [GPL]. This language applied to the current 
appropriations and incorporated by reference the permanent 
appropriation authority contained in title 39 of the United 
States Code section 2401(a), thus violating the Rules of the 
House of Representatives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits 
reporting a provision which changes existing law. Subcommittee 
Chairman McHugh raised a point of order on the House floor, 
which was conceded by Mr. Kolbe, chairman, Subcommittee on 
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, Committee on 
Appropriations.
    The subject of the amendment, Global Package Link Service, 
is a specialized bulk shipping service for mail order goods 
which provides international air export parcel delivery service 
for postal customers. These companies rely on the U.S. Postal 
Service to provide timely services to worldwide customers. The 
program is funded solely through ratepayer revenues. GPL's 
enhanced technology is utilized by American companies in 
conducting their business in international markets. These 
companies rely on the U.S. Postal Service to provide timely 
services to worldwide customers. Affected companies, and those 
who do not as yet utilize the service, claim that curtailing 
the program would adversely impact their ability to compete and 
expand in lucrative international markets.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2378 was introduced by 
Mr. Kolbe, chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, 
and General Government, Committee on Appropriations on August 
5, 1997. The measure was called up as a privileged matter in 
the House on September 17, 1997, and was passed as amended by 
Roll Call Vote No. 403 of 231-192. The measure was passed the 
same day in the Senate, as amended, in lieu of S. 1023. 
Conferences were held and both the Senate and House agreed to 
the conference report and signed the enrolled measure. The 
measure was presented to the President, and became Public Law 
105-61.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were conducted by the 
subcommittee on this legislation.
14. H.R. 2564, To designate the United States Post Office located at 
        450 North Centre Street in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, as the 
        ``Peter J. McCloskey Postal Facility''.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2564 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 450 North Centre Street in Pottsville, PA, as 
the ``Peter J. McCloskey Postal Facility''. The naming of the 
Post Office honors Peter McCloskey, a Pennsylvania native who 
joined the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. In 1967, he 
was selected to join the Post Office Department as Acting 
Postmaster of the city of Pottsville and then was appointed 
Postmaster. Mr. McCloskey has been active in the Pottsville 
community for more than 60 years.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2564 was introduced on 
September 26, 1997, by Representative Holden and cosponsored by 
the entire Pennsylvania House delegation. It was referred to 
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and then 
referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service on September 
30, 1997. On October 7, 1997, the legislation considered and 
favorably reported to the House by voice vote. The measure was 
called up by the House under suspension of the rules on October 
21, 1997, and it passed the House by voice vote. The Senate 
received the bill on October 22, 1997, and referred it to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. The bill was ordered 
reported favorably to the Senate without a report. The 
legislation was passed by the Senate on November 9, 1997, by 
unanimous consent and presented to the President who signed the 
measure into law on November 19, 1997, to become Public Law 
105-99.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this measure.
15. S. 1378, A bill to extend the authorization of use of official mail 
        in the location and recovery of missing children, and for other 
        purposes.
    a. Report Number and Date.--None.
    b. Summary of Measure.--S. 1378 extends the authorization 
for use of official mail in the location and recovery of 
missing children through December 31, 2002. Authorization was 
initially approved on August 9, 1985, and extended in October 
1992. The present authorization is due to expire at the end of 
1997. The legislation enables Members of Congress to mail a 
photo and description of missing children, as provided by the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in their 
franked mail in efforts to raise public awareness to locate 
these children. Currently, 20 Members use this authority.
    c. Legislative History/Status.--S. 1378 was introduced by 
Senator Warner in the Senate on November 5, 1997, and passed 
the Senate by unanimous consent. On November 6, the House 
received the measure and referred same to the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, and to the Committee on House 
Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The 
House called up the legislation under suspension of the rules 
on November 12, 1997, and it passed the House by voice vote. 
The measure was presented to the President on November 19, 
1997, and signed by the President on December 1, 1997, to 
become Public Law 105-126.
    d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.

           B. REVIEW OF LAWS WITHIN COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION


                           Standing Committee


1. Review of the Implementation of the Government Performance and 
        Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62

    During the first session of the 105th Congress, the 
committee continued its review of the implementation of the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act). 
The first phase of the Results Act requires Federal agencies to 
submit 5 year strategic plans to Congress by September 30, 
1997. The strategic plan is to articulate the agency's 
missions, goals, and strategies and serve as the benchmark for 
evaluating its future success or failure. Agencies were 
required by the Results Act to consult with Congress in 
developing their strategic plans.
    Congress meant for the Results Act to be a tool for: (1) 
measuring the success or failure of government programs; (2) 
identifying waste and duplication; and (3) better allocating 
resources to get the best return for taxpayers. Lawmakers hoped 
the Results Act would fundamentally improve the accountability 
and management of Federal programs.
    The Republican leadership of the 105th Congress has 
encouraged all congressional committees to make Results Act 
implementation a priority in their day to day oversight, 
authorizing, and appropriating activities, and has taken 
additional steps throughout the year to educate and coordinate 
Congress in overseeing effective implementation of the Results 
Act by executive agencies. The Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee has played a crucial role in this process, helping 
develop and coordinate the House-wide effort to ensure 
congressional consultations with agencies, review draft 
strategic plans, and communicate congressional feedback to the 
agencies.
    As a member of the Results Act coordinating team, the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee also helped author 
two bi-cameral congressional reports on the Results Act. The 
first was issued in September after congressional teams 
conducted a comprehensive examination of draft agency strategic 
plans. Congressional staff teams from all congressional 
committee jurisdictions were established to consult with and 
review the draft strategic plans of the 24 so-called Chief 
Financial Officers [CFO] Act agencies, whose combined 
expenditures total 98 percent of all Federal outlays. The 
September report (``The Results Act: It Matters Now, an Interim 
Report'') details the findings of that review and makes 
recommendations regarding future Results Act implementation.
    A second congressional report was issued in November after 
congressional staff teams reviewed agencies' final strategic 
plans. That report (``Results Act: It's the Law'') revealed 
that, in general, agencies final plans had improved somewhat 
over their draft efforts. However, Chairman Dan Burton has 
since introduced legislation (H.R. 2883) that would require 
agencies to re-submit more compliant plans by the end of 
September 1998.
    In addition to the coordinating efforts with the 
leadership, during the year, the committee held two full 
committee hearings on the Results Act in 1997, one on February 
12 and the other on October 30. These are described in more 
detail in the section entitled I. Matters of Interest, Full 
Committee, A. General, 2. Investigations, a.

2. President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992, Public 
        Law 105-25

    This law amends the President John F. Kennedy Assassination 
Records Collection Act of 1992 to: (1) extend the termination 
date of the Assassination Records Review Board until September 
30, 1998; and (2) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
1998.

3. Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as 
        amended--June 30, 1949, 63 Stat. 377 (the Act) (40 U.S.C. 
        Section 471 et seq.; Public Law 152, 81st Congress)

    This law provides the Federal Government with a system for 
procurement of personal property and non-personal services, for 
storage and issues of such property, for transportation and 
traffic management; for further utilization and disposal of 
surplus property, and for management authority was modified in 
1985. GSA's original responsibilities were enacted as part of 
title 44, U.S. Code. The committee has amended certain sections 
of the 1949 Act.
    With respect to Title III (Procurement Procedure), H.R. 
1670, reported by the committee on August 1, 1995, as House 
Report 104-222, Part I, would amend contract solicitation 
provisions, provide for preaward debriefings, amend preaward 
qualification requirements and replace these provisions with a 
contractor performance system; amend all commercial items from 
the Truth in Negotiations Act; and apply simplified acquisition 
procedures to all commercial items regardless of their dollar 
value.
    Division D of Public Law 104-106, the Federal Acquisition 
Reform Act of 1996, retains the provisions regarding commercial 
item purchasing in modified form. The law also maintains the 
original language authorizing preaward debriefings for excluded 
offerors where appropriate.
    Division E of Public Law 104-106, the Information 
Technology and Reform Act of 1996, includes a Senate provision 
that would require agencies to inventory all agency computer 
equipment and to identify excess or surplus property in 
accordance with title II of the act. The statement of the 
committee of conference on S. 1124, which became Public Law 
104-106, contains a direction of the conferees that GSA, 
exercising current authority under title II of the act, should 
issue regulations that would provide for donation of such 
equipment under title II on the basis of this priority: (1) 
elementary and secondary schools and schools funded by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs; (2) public libraries; (3) public 
colleges and universities; and (4) other entities eligible for 
donation under the act.

4. Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act (40 U.S.C. 759)

    This provision of law is found at section 111 of the 
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (the Act). It 
provides the authority to coordinate and provide for the 
purchase, lease, and maintenance of automatic data processing 
equipment for all Federal agencies through the Administrator of 
General Services. It also provides authority for the General 
Services Board of Contract Appeals to review any decision by a 
contracting officer that is alleged to violate a statute, a 
regulation, or the conditions of a delegation of procurement 
authority.
    Division E of Public Law 104-106 repeals section 111 of the 
Act. It provides authority for the acquisition of information 
technology within each of the Federal agencies and gives the 
Office of Management and Budget the responsibility for 
coordinating government-wide information technology management 
and purchasing. It also establishes the General Accounting 
Office as the sole independent administrative forum for bid 
protests.

5. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. Section 401 et 
        seq., 88 Stat. 796, Public Law 93-400)

    The Office of Federal Procurement Policy [OFPP] Act 
established OFPP within the Office of Management and Budget to 
promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the 
procurement of property and services by and for the executive 
branch of the Federal Government and to provide government-wide 
procurement policies, regulations, procedures, and forms.
    H.R. 1760, reported by the committee on August 1, 1995, as 
House Report 104-222, Part I, would revise the current OFPP Act 
to provide for improved definitions of competition 
requirements; to establish an alternative quality-based pre-
qualification system for meeting the Government's recurring 
needs; to exempt commercial items from the Truth in 
Negotiations Act and the Cost Accounting Standards; to add a 
new section to encourage the Government's reliance on the 
private sector sources for goods and services; to revise and 
simplify Procurement Integrity provisions; to remove certain 
certification requirements currently in statute and other 
regulatory certifications (unless justified); to add a new 
section providing that each executive agency establish and 
maintain effective value engineering processes and procedures; 
and to establish a series of policies and procedures for the 
management of the acquisition workforce in civilian agencies.
    Division D of Public Law 104-106 contains many of the 
provisions of House Report 104-222 in addition to other changes 
to the OFPP Act. The provisions of Public Law 104-106 include: 
exempting commercial item purchases from the Truth in 
Negotiations Act and cost accounting standards; removing 
certain unnecessary certification requirements; providing for 
the inapplicability of certain procurement laws to commercially 
available off-the-shelf items; extending authority for 
executive agencies to establish and maintain cost-effective, 
value engineering procedures and processes; establishing a 
series of policies and procedures for the management of the 
acquisition workforce in the civilian agencies. It also repeals 
the current procurement integrity provisions and their 
certification requirements. New language provides for the 
protection of confidential procurement information by 
prohibiting both the disclosure and receipt of such information 
and imposing criminal and civil penalties for violations. There 
also is a limited ban on contacts between Government officials 
and industry contractors, as well as government-wide 
``revolving door'' restrictions.

6. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (41 U.S.C. 253, 98 Stat. 
        1175, Public Law 98-369, July 18, 1984)

    The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 amended title 
III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949 to establish a statutory preference for the use of 
competitive procedures in awarding Federal contracts for 
property or services; to require the use of competitive 
procedures by Federal agencies when purchasing goods or 
services--sealed or competitive bids; and to direct the head of 
each agency to appoint an advocate for competition who will 
challenge barriers to competition in the procurement of 
property and services by the agency and who will review the 
procurement activities of the agency.
    Division D of Public Law 104-106 contains language which 
retains the current statutory competition standard, but adds a 
requirement that the standard is to be implemented in a manner 
which is consistent with the government's need to 
``efficiently'' fulfill its requirements. Further provisions 
are added to allow contracting officials more discretion in 
determining the number of proposals in the ``competitive 
range,'' to provide for preaward debriefings of unsuccessful 
offerors, and to authorize the use of special two-phase 
procedures for design and construction of public buildings.

7. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
        355, October 13, 1994

    The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act [FASA] of 1994 was 
developed to provide the foundation for establishing 
``commercial-like'' procedures within the Federal procurement 
system. FASA established a preference for commercial items and 
simplified procedures for contracts under $100,000 as well as 
addressing a wide spectrum of issues regarding the 
administrative burden--on all sides--associated with the 
Government's specialized requirements.
    H.R. 1670, reported by the committee on August 1, 1995, as 
House Report 104-222, Part I, would amend section 5061 of FASA 
(41 U.S.C. 413 note) to permit the OFPP Administrator to 
exercise the authority granted in FASA to test ``innovative'' 
procurement procedures without having to wait for the 
implementation of other FASA provisions.
    Public Law 104-106 authorizes OFPP to test alternative 
procurement procedures and removes a requirement that the 
testing of these procedures be contingent upon the full 
implementation of the Federal Acquisition Computer Network 
Electronic Commerce [FACNET] procedures. It also would limit 
the linkage between the use of the simplified acquisition 
procedures and the full implementation of FACNET.

                   Subcommittee on the Civil Service


1. The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 387)

    This law provides preferences for veterans in obtaining and 
retaining Federal employment. In connection with its 
legislative actions regarding H.R. 240 (see section III. A. 1. 
of the Subcommittee on the Civil Service), the subcommittee 
continued the review of this law that it began in the previous 
Congress. The subcommittee concluded that veterans' rights in 
reductions in force are often circumvented and, most 
importantly, that veterans do not have access to an effective 
redress system when their rights have been violated. In 
addition, the subcommittee also concluded that veterans 
entitled to preference and others who have served honorably in 
the armed forces are frequently shut out of competition for 
Federal jobs by artificial restrictions on competition. H.R. 
240, which Subcommittee Chairman Mica introduced, remedies 
these deficiencies.

2. Chapter 87 of Title 5, United States Code

    This chapter establishes the Federal Employees Group Life 
Insurance program. The subcommittee reviewed these laws in 
connection with its examination of FEGLI (see section II. B. 4. 
of the Subcommittee on the Civil Service) and its consideration 
of H.R. 1316 (see section III. A. 2. of the Subcommittee on the 
Civil Service). As a result of its review of this review, the 
subcommittee concluded employees should have additional choices 
and improved benefits, including the option to choose life 
products other than term insurance. Subcommittee Chairman Mica 
introduced H.R. 2675 (see section III. A. 4. of the 
Subcommittee on the Civil Service) in order to provide those 
choices and improvements. In addition, the subcommittee 
determined that sections 8705 and 8706 should be amended to 
cure an inequity in the FEGLI program by directing OPM to pay 
the proceeds of FEGLI life insurance policies in accordance 
with certain domestic relations orders and permitting courts to 
direct the assignment of such policies to individuals specified 
in domestic relations orders.

3. Chapter 89 of Title 5, United States Code

    This chapter establishes the FEHBP. The subcommittee 
reviewed various provisions in this chapter in connection with 
its consideration of H.R. 1836 (see section III. A. 3. of the 
Subcommittee on the Civil Service). The subcommittee concluded 
that several provisions should be amended to protect the 
integrity of the FEHBP, permit certain plans to reenter the 
FEHBP after terminating their participation, expedite the 
distribution of the reserves of terminated plans, and broaden 
the scope of the preemption of State laws in order to 
strengthen the ability of national plans to offer uniform 
benefits and rates nationwide. In addition, the subcommittee 
provided statutory authority to permit certain current and 
former employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to 
receive health care benefits through the FEHBP.

4. Statutes reviewed in connection with Labor, Health and Human 
        Services, and Education appropriations, H.R. 2264, Public Law 
        105-78

    The subcommittee reviewed several title 5 provisions in 
connection with its examination of the personnel provisions of 
section 211(e) of the ``Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and Related Appropriations Act, 
1998,'' relating to the transfer of the Gillis W. Long Hansen's 
Disease Center to the State of Louisiana. These provisions 
included subchapter III of chapter 83, chapter 84, and 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 5545. In addition, the subcommittee also reviewed Public 
Law 104-208 Sec. 101(f) (section 663 of the Treasury, Postal 
Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997) in 
connection with this transfer. The subcommittee agreed to 
special rules for certain employees at the center to facilitate 
the transfer.

5. Statutes reviewed in connection with the Internal Revenue Service 
        Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 2676

    a. Chapters 23, 33, 35, 43, 45. 51, 53, 55, 71, 73, and 75 
of title 5, United States Code.--The subcommittee reviewed 
these statutes in connection with proposed personnel 
flexibilities that purport to reform the Internal Revenue 
Service in light of abuses revealed during Senate hearings.

6. Statutes reviewed in connection with the Defense Authorization Act 
        of 1997, H.R. 1119, Public Law 105-85

    a. 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2108, 3309(2).--These statutes, which 
deal with veterans' preference, were amended to provide 
veterans' preference to veterans who served during the Desert 
Shield/Desert Storm period (August 2, 1990 to January 2, 1992) 
and to authorize veterans' preference for Vietnam Era veterans 
by statute.
    b. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3329(b).--This statute was amended to 
remove the 6-month deadline for the Department of Defense to 
provide priority employment consideration for certain former 
military reserve technicians.
    c. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5334(d).--This statute was amended to 
increase management flexibility and avoid excessive costs when 
an overseas educator moves from a teaching position to a 
position covered by the General Schedule by permitting the 
Secretary of Defense to authorize pay increases of up to 20 
percent.
    d. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5520a.--This statute was amended to permit 
agencies to collect the administrative cost of garnishment from 
the employee whose wages are garnished.
    e. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5597 and the Federal Workforce 
Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226).--These statutes 
were amended to extend the Department of Defense's authority to 
offer buyouts through September 30, 2001 (or, for certain 
positions under the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and 
Transition Assistance Act of 1992, through January 1, 2002) and 
to require the Department to pay the Civil Service Retirement 
and Disability Fund 15 percent of the final basic pay of each 
employee receiving a buyout.
    f. Chapter 71 of title 5 and various provisions of title 
22, United States Code relating to personnel of the Panama 
Canal Commission.--The subcommittee approved special personnel 
and labor relations rules for the Commission in order to 
facilitate the transfer of the Panama Canal to the Government 
of Panama in accordance with the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977.

7. Statutes reviewed in connection with the civil service provisions of 
        the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33

    a. Chapters 83 & 84 of title 5, United States Code.--The 
civil service provisions amended these statutes to increase the 
retirement contributions of all agencies other than the Postal 
Service and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority by 
1.51 percent for each employee covered by the Civil Service 
Retirement System [CSRS], beginning on October 1, 1997, and 
continuing through September 30, 2002. These provisions also 
gradually raise individual contributions to the CSRS and the 
Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS] by 0.25 percent 
beginning January 3,1999, an additional 0.15 percent in 2000, 
and another 0.10 percent in 2001; the full 0.5 percent 
increased contribution remains throughout 2002. The 
subcommittee examined the impact of such increases in the 
hearing described in part II. B. 1. of the Subcommittee on the 
Civil Service.
    b. 50 U.S.C. Sec. 2021, 22 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4045 and 
4071.--These statutes were amended to impose corresponding 
increases in the agency and employee contributions to the 
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, 
the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System, and the 
Foreign Service Pension System.
    c. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8906.--This statute was amended to 
establish a permanent formula for computing the Government's 
share of health insurance premiums under the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program [FEHBP]. Under this formula, the 
Government's contribution will be based upon 72 percent of the 
weighted average of the subscription charges for enrollments 
for all options of all plans participating in the FEHBP. 
Separate calculations will be performed for self alone and self 
and family enrollments. Current law regarding part-time 
employees and the prohibition against the Government share 
exceeding 75 percent of any premium are retained.

8. Statutes reviewed in connection with the ``Treasury and General 
        Government Appropriations Act, 1998,'' Public Law 105-61

    a. 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8334, 8337, 8339, 8343a, 8344, 8415, 
8422, and 8468.--These statutes were amended to permit former 
Members of Congress who served in an executive branch position 
at reduced pay in order to remove the impediment to the 
appointment of the Member imposed by article I, section 6, 
clause 2 of the Constitution to be computed as if he had not 
served at reduced pay. The former Member must make an 
appropriate deposit with interest to the Civil Service 
Retirement and Disability Fund.
    b. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5948 and the Federal Physicians 
Comparability Allowance Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 5948 note).--
These statutes were amended to extend agencies' authority to 
pay physicians comparability allowances until September 30, 
2002.
    c. 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8341, 8339, 8442, and 8445.--These 
statutes were amended to provide that a survivor annuity of a 
former spouse who was married to a Federal employee for at 
least 30 years will not be terminated if, on or after January 
1, 1995, the former spouse remarries before age 55.
    d. Chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code.--
These statutes were reviewed in connection with the ``Federal 
Employees' Retirement System Open Enrollment Act of 1997,'' 
which established an open season during which individuals 
covered by the CSRS may elect coverage under FERS.
    e. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5545.--The subcommittee reviewed this 
statute in connection with a provision in the appropriations 
act prohibiting the payment of Sunday premium pay unless an 
employee actually performed work on Sunday. The previous year's 
appropriation act prohibited the payment of both Sunday premium 
pay and night differential pay to an employee who did not 
perform work during the appropriate period. This year's House 
bill proposed to relax the prohibition on night differentials 
for individuals who have been performing night work for a 
period of 26 weeks or more. However, the conference agreement 
permits the payment of night differentials in the absence of 
work.

9. Statutes reviewed in connection with the ``Departments of Commerce, 
        Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
        Appropriations Act, 1998,'' Public Law 105-119

    a. Chapters 43, 47, 51, and 53 of title 5, United States 
Code.--These statutes were reviewed in connection with the 
limited authority provided by section 122 of the act to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Secret 
Service to adopt alternative personnel management systems 
covering certain positions. The FBI may exercise its authority 
to establish for 3 years an alternative system to cover not 
more than 3,000 non-Special Agent employees to fill critical 
scientific, technical, engineering, intelligence analyst, 
language translator, and medical positions. The Secretary of 
the Treasury may establish a 3-year demonstration project, 
covering not more than 950 employees, who fill the same 
positions in the other agencies.

                Subcommittee on the District of Columbia


1. District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization 
        Act, Public Law 93-198.

    An act to reorganize the government structure of the 
District of Columbia, to provide a charter for local government 
in the District of Columbia, to provide a charter for local 
government in the District of Columbia subject to acceptance of 
the majority of the registered qualified electors in the 
District of Columbia, to delegate certain legislative powers to 
the local government, to implement certain recommendations of 
the commission on the organization of the government of the 
District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

2. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
        Assistance Act, Public Law 104-8.

    To eliminate budget deficits and management inefficiencies 
in the government of the District of Columbia through the 
establishment of the District of Columbia Financial 
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and for 
other purposes. (See II., Investigations, B.)

3. Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, Title XI.

    ``National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997.'' (See part III., Legislation, A.)

        COUNCIL ACTS TRANSMITTED IN 1997 AND BECAME LAW IN 1997

    1. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-310, ``Rhema Christian Center 
Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide equitable real 
property tax relief to the Rhema Christian Center, a tax-exempt 
religious organization. Act 11-310 was published in the August 
16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4357) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-164, effective April 9, 1997.
    2. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-311, ``Simpson-Hemline United 
Methodist Church Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide 
equitable real property tax relief to the Simpson-Hemline 
United Methodist Church. Act 11-311 was published in the August 
16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4359) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-165, effective April 9, 1997.
    3. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-312, ``Holy Comforter Episcopal 
Church, Saint Andrew Parish Equitable Real Property Tax Relief 
Act of 1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax relief to 
the Holy Comforter Episcopal Church, Saint Andrew Parish. To 
provide equitable real property tax relief to Holy Comforter 
Episcopal Church, a tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-
312 was published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4361) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-166, effective April 
9, 1997.
    4. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-314, ``St. Matthew's Evangelical 
Lutheran Church Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 
1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax relief to St. 
Matthew's Evangelical Lutheran, a tax-exempt religious 
organization. Act 11-314 was published in the August 16, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4365) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-167, effective April 9, 1997.
    5. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-315, ``Upper Room Baptist Church 
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide 
equitable real property tax relief to Upper Room Baptist 
Church, a tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-315 was 
published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4367) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-168, effective April 9, 1997.
    6. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-316, ``Commission on Mental Health 
Services Psychologists Protection Amendment Act of 1996.'' To 
amend the District of Columbia Employee Non-Liability Act to 
provide for the indemnification of psychologists in certain 
circumstances. Act 11-316 was published in the August 23, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4478) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-169, effective April 9, 1997.
    7. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-317, ``Child Support Enforcement 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia 
Child Support Enforcement Amendment Act of 1985 to require the 
court to base findings of good cause not to impose immediate 
withholding of earnings or income for child support on a 
written determination that immediate withholding is not in the 
best interest of the child, and, in cases where support orders 
are being modified, to also require proof of timely payment of 
previously ordered child support; to require child support 
court orders to include a provision that directs absent parents 
to keep the IV-D Program informed of the parent's health 
insurance coverage and policy information; to require the court 
to issue to the absent parent advance notice of intent to 
impose wage withholding in cases where wages are not subject to 
immediate withholding; to require the court to issue to 
employers a notice to withhold within 15 calendar days of the 
date of the support order in the case of immediate withholding; 
and to establish notice requirements consistent with Federal 
law in interstate withholding cases where the District of 
Columbia is the initiating or responding state. Act 11-317 was 
published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4480) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-170, effective April 9, 1997.
    8. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-318, ``Community Development 
Corporation Money Lender License Tax Exemption Amendment Act of 
1996.'' To amend an act to regulate the business of loaning 
money on security of any kind by person, firms, and 
corporations other than national banks, licensed banker, trust 
companies, savings banks, building and loan associations, and 
real estate brokers in the District of Columbia to authorize 
the Mayor to waive certain bonding requirements and to exempt 
certain community development corporations acting as money 
lenders from the money lender license tax. Retransmitted. Act 
11-318 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4484) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-171, effective April 
9, 1997.
    9. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-320, ``Early Intervention Services 
Sliding Fee Scale Establishment Act of 1996.'' To establish a 
program to provide early intervention services designed to meet 
the developmental needs of infants and toddlers, from birth 
through 2 years of age and their families, and to require the 
Mayor to establish a sliding fee scale for early intervention 
services based on the income of eligible families. Act 11-320 
was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4491) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-172, effective April 
9, 1997.
    10. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-321, ``Anti-Loitering/Drug Free 
Zone Act of 1996.'' To authorize the Chief of the Metropolitan 
Police Department to determine and declare a drug enforcement 
zone and to prohibit the congregation of two or more persons on 
public space on public property, for the purpose of 
participating in the use, purchase, or sale of illegal drugs, 
within the perimeter of the drug enforcement zone. Act 11-321 
was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4493) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 10, 1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-270, effective June 3, 
1997.
    11. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-322, ``Expulsion of Students Who 
Bring Weapons Into Public Schools Temporary Act of 1996.'' To 
require, on a temporary basis, the expulsion, for not less than 
1 year, of any student who brings a weapon into a District of 
Columbia public school, absent extenuating circumstances as 
determined on a case-by-case basis by the Superintendent of 
Schools, and consistent with the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act. Act 11-322 was published in the August 23, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4497) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-173, effective April 9, 1997.
    12. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-323, ``Expulsion of Students Who 
Bring Weapons Into Public Schools Act of 1996.'' To require the 
expulsion, for not less than 1 year, of any student who brings 
a weapon into a District of Columbia public school, absent 
extenuating circumstances, as determined on a case-by-case 
basis by the Superintendent of Schools, and consistent with the 
Individuals With disabilities Education Act. Act 11-323 was 
published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4500) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-174, effective April 9, 1997.
    13. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-325, ``Free Clinic Assistance 
Program Extension Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Free 
Clinic Assistance Program Act of 1986 to extend the life of the 
Program until September 23, 2001. Act 11-325 was published in 
the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 
4371) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-175, effective April 9, 1997.
    14. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-326, ``Abatement of Controlled 
Dangerous Substances Nuisance Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend 
the Residential Drug-Related Evictions Amendment Act of 1990 to 
authorize the Corporation Counsel, civic association, or 
community association within whose boundary the nuisance is 
located to bring a civil action to abate a nuisance of 
controlled dangerous substances located on privately owned 
residential property. Act 11-326 was published in the August 9, 
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4234) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-176, effective April 9, 1997.
    15. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-327, ``Vending Site Lottery 
Assignment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia 
Municipal Regulations to authorize the Metropolitan Police 
Department to designate vending sites and assign them by 
lottery, and to require the Mayor to attempt to designate 
additional vending spaces to replace vending spaces that have 
been eliminated as a result of recent Federal measure to 
increase the security of the White House Complex and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters. Act 11-327 was 
published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4238) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-177, effective April 9, 1997.
    16. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-328, ``Bicyclist Responsibility 
Regulation Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend chapter 12 of 
title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations to 
clarify the rights and duties of bicyclists. Act 11-328 was 
published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4240) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-178, effective April 9, 1997.
    17. Jan. 10. 1997--Act 11-329, ``Juvenile Detention and 
Speedy Trial Act of 1996.'' To amend title 16 of the District 
of Columbia Code to limit the length of time a juvenile remains 
in secure detention. Act 11-329 was published in the August 9, 
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4243) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-179, effective April 9, 1997.
    18. Jan 10, 1997--Act 11-331, ``Establishment of the John 
A. Wilson Building Foundation Act of 1996.'' To establish the 
John A. Wilson Building foundation, a nonprofit corporation, 
for the purpose of developing long-term plans for the use of 
the Wilson Building and to develop long-range fundraising plans 
to pay for the renovation of the Wilson Building. Act 11-331 
was published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4246) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-180, effective April 
9, 1997.
    19. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-332, ``Nonprofit Corporation Two-
Year Report Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of 
Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act to provide for the filing of 
a 2-year report instead of a 5-year report, to change the 
normal filing date from April 15th to January 15th effective 
January 15, 1998, and to add certain fees. Act 11-332 was 
published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4503) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-181, effective April 9, 1997.
    20. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-333, ``District of Columbia 
Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947 Conformity Amendment Act 
of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Income and 
Franchise Tax Act of 1947 to provide for greater conformity 
with Federal income tax law. Act 11-333 was published in the 
August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 
4251) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-182, effective April 9, 1997.
    21. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-334, ``Comprehensive Merit 
Personnel Act Health And Life Insurance Clarification Amendment 
Temporary Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the 
District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
Act of 1978 to clarify eligibility for continuation of health 
and life benefits for certain employees of the District 
government first employed after September 30, 1987. Act 11-334 
was published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4253) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-183, effective April 
9, 1997.
    22. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-337, ``Highway Trust Fund 
Establishment Act and the Water and Sewer Authority Amendment 
Act of 1996.'' To establish the District of Columbia Highway 
Trust Fund to comply with the requirement for the creation of a 
dedicated highway fund mandated by the District of Columbia 
Emergency Highway Relief Act, to require the Mayor to deposit 
into the fund an amount equivalent to revenue received from the 
motor vehicle fuel tax and associated fees and fines; to amend 
the Water and Sewer Authority Establishment and Department of 
Public Works Reorganization Act of 1996 to add one additional 
board member, to improve the Authority's bond rating, and to 
clarify the Authority's relationship to the District 
government. Act 11-337 was published in the August 9, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4265) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-184, effective April 9, 1997.
    23. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-338, ``Business Corporation Two-
Year Report Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of 
Columbia Business Corporation Act of 1954 to provide for the 
filing of a 2-year report instead of a 5-year report, and to 
make conforming amendments to the sections governing a 
proclamation of revocation. Act 11-338 was published in the 
August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 
4510) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-185, effective April 9, 1997.
    24. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-339, ``Fire Code Amendment Act of 
1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Fire Prevention Code 
and the District of Columbia Building Code to permit District 
of Columbia public schools to permanently close certain exit 
doors. Act 11-339 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition 
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4513) and transmitted to 
Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-186, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    25. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-340, ``Alcoholic Beverage 
Underage Penalties Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the 
District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act to provide 
for criminal and civil penalties for misrepresentation of age 
or purchase, possession, or consumption of alcoholic beverage 
by persons under 21 years of age. Act 11-340 was published in 
the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 
4515) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-187, effective April 9, 1997.
    26. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-341, ``District of Columbia 
Employee Vatical Settlement Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' 
To amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia 
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to provide 
authority for the offering of Vatical settlements to terminally 
ill employees and former employees enrolled in the District of 
Columbia Group Life Insurance Program. Act 11-341 was published 
in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 
page 4273) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its 
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-188, effective April 9, 1997.
    27. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-342, ``International Registration 
Plan Agreement Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To provide, 
on an temporary basis, for membership in the International 
Registration Plan pursuant to the Federally mandated reciprocal 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 31704. Act 11-342 was published 
in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 
page 4275) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its 
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-189, effective April 9, 1997.
    28. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-343, ``Council Contract Approval 
Modification Temporary Amendment Act of 1995 Temporary 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the 
District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to 
establish additional criteria for Council review and approval 
of contracts for expenditures in excess of $1 million during a 
12-month period, and to further expedite the review and 
approval of Federal-aid highway contracts. Act 11-343 was 
published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4279) and transmitted to Congress on January 31, 
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-190, effective April 
9, 1997.
    29. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-347, ``Health Services Planning 
Program Re-establishment Act of 1996.'' To re-establish a 
health services planning and certificate of need regulatory 
program in the District of Columbia. Act 11-347 was published 
in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 
page 4535) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-191, effective April 9, 1997.
    30. Jan. 23 1997--Act 11-348, ``Emergency Assistance 
Clarification Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of 
Columbia Right to Overnight Shelter Act of 1984 and the 
District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982 to clarify 
the circumstances under which the District of Columbia 
government claims Federal financial participation. Act 11-348 
was published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4285) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-192, effective April 
9, 1997.
    31. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-349, ``Oak Hill Youth Center 
Educational Contracting Temporary Act of 1996.'' To provide, on 
an temporary basis, that the Mayor may contract for services to 
operate an education program at the Oak Hill Youth Center 
without adhering to the District's procurement laws and to 
establish procedures for the contracting of such services. Act 
11-349 was published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4373) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire 
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-193, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    32. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-354, ``Board of Real Property 
Assessments and Appeals Membership Qualification Act of 1996.'' 
To amend the District of Columbia Real Property Tax Act 
Revision Act of 1974 to require numerical diversity in the 
requirements for membership on the Board of Real Property 
Assessments and Appeals. Act 11-354 was published in the August 
23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4557) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-194, effective April 9, 1997.
    33. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-355, ``Holy Comforter-Saint 
Cyprian Roman Catholic Church Equitable Real Property Tax 
Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax 
relief to Holy Comforter-Saint Cyprian Roman Catholic Church, a 
tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-355 was published in 
the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 
4559) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-195, effective April 9, 1997.
    34. Jan. 13 1997--Act 11-358, ``Extension of the Moratorium 
on Retail Service Station Conversions and the Gas Station 
Advisory Board Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Retail 
Service Station Act of 1976 to extend the moratorium on the 
conversion of full service retail service stations to limited 
service retail stations until October 1, 1999, to extend the 
life of the Gas Station Advisory Board, and to modify the 
petition for exemption process. Act 11-358 was published in the 
August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 
4564) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-196, effective April 9, 1997.
    35. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-359, ``Housing Finance Agency 
Loan Forgiveness Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District 
of Columbia Housing Finance Agency Act to provide that the 
District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency's loan, advanced 
from the General Fund to cover the operating and program 
expense of the Agency from 1980 to 1992, be forgiven. Act 11-
359 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4567) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-197, effective April 
9, 1997.
    36. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-360, ``Fiscal Year 1997 Budget 
Support Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Real 
Estate Deed Recordation Tax Act to require that the amount of 
recordation tax be based on the higher of the assessed value or 
the sales price of the deed and other amendments. Act 11-360 
was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4569) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-198, effective April 
9, 1997.
    37. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-361, ``Adjustment Process for 
Nonviolent Juvenile Offenders and Parent Participation in 
Court-Ordered Act of 1996.'' To amend title 16 of the District 
of Columbia Code to provide for an alternative to adjudication 
for juveniles charged with certain nonviolent offenses and to 
authorize the court to hold parents and guardians in contempt 
for not participating in a court-ordered proceeding or program. 
Act 11-361 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4385) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-199, effective April 
9, 1997.
    38. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-362, ``Commercial Counterfeiting 
Criminalization Act of 1996.'' To prohibit counterfeiting of 
trademarks, service marks, or other intellectual property, 
permit the seizure of counterfeit intellectual property and 
personal property used in the manufacture of counterfeit 
property, and prohibit the knowing possession of material for 
the reproduction of counterfeit intellectual property. Act 11-
362 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4585) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-271, effective June 3, 
1997.
    39. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-363, ``Modified Reduction-in-
Force Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend on a 
temporary basis, the District of Columbia Government 
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to modify the 
reduction-in-force procedures to allow only one round of 
lateral bumping within a competitive level, to set a deadline 
of February 1, 1997, for personnel authorities to make final 
decisions on the identification of positions to be abolished 
through a reduction-in-force to add 5 years to creditable 
service for District residency for purposes of a reduction-in-
force, and to require the Mayor to submit to the Council by 
March 1, 1997, a list of positions to be abolished through a 
reduction-in-force. Act 11-363 was published in the August 23, 
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 5427) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-200, effective April 9, 1997.
    40. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-364, ``Boating While Intoxicated 
Temporary Act of 1996.'' To prohibit, on a temporary basis, the 
operation of any watercraft while under the influence of, or 
intoxicated by, alcohol or any controlled substance. Act 11-364 
was published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4390) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-201, effective April 
9, 1997.
    41. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-367, ``Medicare Supplement 
Insurance Minimum Standards Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend 
the Medicare Supplement Insurance Minimum Standards Act of 1992 
in order to implement requirements of the Medicare supplement 
minimum standards as mandated by the Social Security Act 
Amendments of 1994. These changes to the regulatory programs 
will ensure that the District of Columbia maintains approval as 
meeting minimum Federal standards. Act 11-367 was published in 
the November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 
page 6054) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-202, effective April 9, 1997.
    42. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-370, ``Closing of Public Alleys 
and Abandonment and Establishment of Easements in Square 878, 
S.O. 95-38, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing of public 
alleys and abandonment and establishment of easements in Square 
878, bounded by I Street, SE, 6th Street, SE, and 7th Street, 
SE, in ward 6. Act 11-370 was published in the August 30, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4670) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-203, effective April 9, 1997.
    43. March 27, 1997--Act 11-371, ``Lottery Games Amendment 
Act of 1996.'' To amend the law to legalize lotteries, daily 
numbers games, and bingo and raffles for charitable purposes in 
the District of Columbia to permit Maryland lottery advertising 
in the District on a reciprocal basis and to clarify that 
lottery ticket receipts are held in trust by lottery sales 
agents until transferred to the Lottery Board. Act 11-371 was 
published in the January 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 43 page 4672) and transmitted to Congress on March 27, 
1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-272, effective June 3, 1997.
    44. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-372, ``Testing of District 
Government Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles for Alcohol and 
Controlled Substances Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To 
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia 
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to 
authorize and require that District employees and candidates 
for employment with the District government who need to have a 
commercial driver's license, as a condition of employment, be 
tested for the use of alcohol and controlled substances. Act 
11-372 was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4674) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire 
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-204, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    45. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-374, ``Public Assistance Fair 
Hearing Procedures Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, 
on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Public 
Assistance Act of 1982 to change the requirement that a 
verbatim written transcript be prepared for every fair hearing 
and to require recorded testimony instead, and to authorize 
transcripts when requested by a claimant, if ordered by the 
hearing officer or for purposes of judicial review, with costs 
of transcription to be borne by the Mayor. Act 11-374 was 
published in the September 13, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4935) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-205, effective April 
9, 1997.
    46. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-378, ``Paternity Acknowledgment 
and Gas Station Advisory Board Re-establishment Temporary Act 
of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, chapter 9 of title 
16 of the District of Columbia Code to require each public and 
private birthing hospital in the District of Columbia to 
operate a hospital-based program that provides services to 
facilitate the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity 
immediately before and after the birth of a child to an 
unmarried woman, to require each birthing hospital to transmit 
completed voluntary acknowledgment of paternity forms to the 
Mayor, and to require the Mayor to provide to the staff of each 
birthing hospital the forms, materials, and training required 
to operate the program; and to amend the Retail Service Station 
Act of 1976 to re-establish the Gas Station Advisory Board. Act 
11-378 was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4684) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire 
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-206, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    47. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-380, ``Real Property Tax 
Reassessment Temporary Act of 1996.'' To extend, on a temporary 
basis, time deadlines in the District of Columbia Real Property 
tax revision Act of 1974 for the assessment of class 1 and 
class 2 real property for the tax year 1997, to extend the time 
for the appeal of a real property tax assessment for the tax 
year 1997, to provide that the latest assessment shall be 
considered the final assessment for purposes of appeal, and to 
increase the limit on the compensation of the members of the 
Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals for the District 
of Columbia. Act 11-380 was published in the August 30, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4691) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-207, effective April 9, 1997.
    48. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-381, ``District of Columbia 
Housing Authority Police Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To 
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Housing 
Authority Act of 1994 to create a public housing police force. 
Act 11-381 was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4695) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire 
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-208, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    49. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-384, ``Preservation of 
Residential Neighborhoods Against Nuisances Temporary Act of 
1996.'' To deem, on a temporary basis, that new restaurants in 
any residentially zoned area within the boundaries of the 
Georgetown Historic District that engage in carry out or 
delivery services that comprise more than 5 percent of their 
business operations constitute a public nuisance. Act 11-384 
was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4700) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-209, effective April 
9, 1997.
    50. Jan 15. 1997--Act 11-386, ``Cable Television Franchise 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Cable Television 
Communications Act of 1981 to establish a procedure to award 
additional cable service franchises. Act 11-386 was published 
in the August 30, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 
page 4700) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-210, effective April 9, 1997.
    51. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-387, ``Closing of a Public Alley 
in Square 375, S.O. 95-54, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing 
of a public alley in Square 375, bounded by H Street, NW, 9th 
Street, NW, G Place, NW, and 10th Street, NW, in ward 2.
    52. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-389, ``Health and Hospitals 
Public Benefit Corporation Act of 1996.'' To establish a public 
benefit corporation to be known as the District of Columbia 
Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corp. to provide 
comprehensive community centered health care to residents of 
the district and assume the functions and personnel 
responsibilities of the D.C. General Hospital and the 
Commission on Public Health community clinics. Act 11-392 was 
published in the September 13, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4992) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-214, effective April 
9, 1997.
    53. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-391, ``Drug Paraphernalia 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Drug Paraphernalia Act of 
1982 by including glassy bags and zip-lock bags of certain 
sizes within the definition of ``drug paraphernalia'', creating 
an inference that glassy bags and zip lock bags of certain 
sizes sold by a commercial establishment are drug 
paraphernalia, and requiring the license and certification of 
occupancy for the commercial establishment be suspended upon 
conviction. Act 11-391 was published in the September 13, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4990) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-213, effective April 9, 1997.
    54. Jan 15, 1997--Act 11-392, ``Reorganization Plan No. 5 
for the Department of Human Services and Department of 
Corrections Temporary Act of 1996.'' To reorganize on a 
temporary basis, the Department of Human Services to transfer 
the Bureau of Correctional Services from the Department of 
Human Services to the Department of Corrections. Act 11-392 was 
published in the September 13, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 4992) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-214, effective April 
9, 1997.
    55. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-413, ``Oyster Elementary School 
Modernization and Development Project Temporary Act of 1996.'' 
To provide, on a temporary basis, authorization to modernize 
the James F. Oyster Elementary School, to privately develop a 
portion of the Oyster School site, and to fund the improvements 
to Oyster School and other public school facilities through 
payments in lieu of taxes on the privately developed portion of 
the Oyster School site. Act 11-413 was published in the 
November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 
6070) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-
day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its 
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-215, effective April 9, 1997.
    56. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-414, ``Economic Recovery 
Conformity Temporary Act of 1996.'' To prohibit, on a temporary 
basis, the increase in the individual income tax, the sales and 
use tax, and real property tax rates contingent on the 
enactment of an act of Congress which would reduce the 
percentage of Federal income tax applicable solely to residents 
of the District of Columbia under the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986. Act 11-414 was published in the November 15, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6074) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-216, effective April 9, 1997.
    57. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-415, ``Real Property Tax Rates 
for Tax Year 1997 Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-415 
was published in the November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 43 page 6076) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-217, effective April 
9, 1997.
    58. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-431, ``Zero Tolerance for Guns 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Firearms Control 
Regulations Act of 1975 to provide for civil forfeiture for 
weapons offenses; title 23 of the District of Columbia Code to 
permit pretrial detention for individuals charged with weapons 
offenses and individuals who pose a risk of flight or other 
serious risk; and the District of Columbia Work Release Act to 
permit the director of the Department of Corrections to grant 
work release and to increase the fine and days of incarceration 
for violations of work release plans. Act 11-431 was published 
in the November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 
page 6168) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for 
a 60-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-273, effective June 3, 1997.
    59. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-432, ``New Hires Police Officers, 
Fire Fighter, and Teachers Pension Modification Amendment Act 
of 1996.'' Act 11-414 was published in the November 15, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6172) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-218, effective April 9, 1997.
    60. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-433, ``BNA Washington Inc., Real 
Property Tax Deferral Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To 
amend, on an temporary basis, the real property tax deferral 
procedure to provide for the deferral of real property taxes on 
certain real property. Act 11-433 was published in the November 
15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6176) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-219, effective April 9, 1997.
    61. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-434, ``District of Columbia 
Moratorium on the 1997 Real Property Assessments for Real 
Property Tax year 1998 Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act 
11-434 was published in the November 15, 1996, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6181) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire 
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-220, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    62. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-438, ``Lead-Based Paint Abatement 
and Control Act of 1996.'' To establish a program to reduce, 
eliminate, and abate lead-based paint hazards in the District 
of Columbia Act 11-438 was published in the December 27, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6854) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-221, effective April 9, 1997.
    63. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-441, ``Real Property Tax Rates 
for Tax Year 1997 Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the 
District of Columbia Real Property Tax Revision Act of 1974 to 
establish real property tax rates and the real property special 
tax rates for real property tax year 1997 and to update reports 
adopted by the Council. Act 11-441 was published in the January 
10, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 108) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-222, effective April 9, 1997.
    64. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-442, ``District of Columbia 
Moratorium on the 1997 Real Property Assessments for Real 
Property Tax Year 1998 Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the 
District of Columbia Real Property Tax Revision Act of 1974 to 
provide that the Mayor shall publish in the District of 
Columbia Register the proposed 1997 real property tax rate son 
the third Friday following the date 1997 real property 
assessment roll is certified and to provide that the assessed 
value of all real property located in the District of Columbia 
for real property tax year 1998 shall be the assessed value for 
real property tax year 1997 and the valuation date for real 
property tax year 1998 real property assessments shall be 
January 1, 1997. Act 11-442 was published in the January 10, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 111) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-223, effective April 9, 1997.
    65. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-443, ``Tax Revision Commission 
Establishment Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a 
temporary basis, the Tax Revision Commission Establishment Act 
of 1996 to increase the number of members of the Commission. 
Act 11-443 was published in the January 10, 1997, edition of 
the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 114) and transmitted to 
Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act 
shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken effect. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-
224, effective April 9, 1997.
    66. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-452, ``Insurers' Records Access 
and Control Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Law on 
Examinations Act of 1993 to clarify that an insurer may use 
reliable electronically stored data or other process which 
accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for storing 
records and under what circumstances the original may be 
destroyed. Act 11-452 was published in the January 10, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 122) and transmitted 
to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress 
not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-225, 
effective April 9, 1997.
    67. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-453, ``Fiscal Year 1997 Budget 
Temporary Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the 
District of Columbia Real Property Tax Revision Act of 1974 to 
provide that real property assessments shall be made on a 
biennial basis. Act 11-453 was published in the January 10, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 124) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-226, effective April 9, 1997.
    68. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-455, ``Insurance Agents and 
Brokers Licensing Revision Act of 1996.'' To specify the 
qualifications and procedures for the licensing of insurance 
agents and insurance brokers in all lines of insurance. Act 11-
455 was published in the January 10, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 140) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-227, effective April 
9, 1997.
    69. March 27, 1997--Act 11-458, ``Initiative 51 Real 
Property Assessment and Tax Initiative of 1996.'' To allow any 
taxpayer to challenge tax assessments on the public's behalf, 
or to intervene in assessment appeals before the Board of Real 
Property Assessments and Appeals; require that all proceedings 
of the Board be held in public and that all information 
presented to the Board be publicly available; and establish a 
``Public Advocate'' to represent the public interest before the 
Board and the courts on matters, including, but not limited to, 
property assessments; to conduct investigations; to appeal any 
assessments; and to advise the public of its rights under the 
tax laws. Act 11-458 was published in the December 27, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6868) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-269, effective April 9, 1997.
    70. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-460, ``Eldebrooke United 
Methodist Church Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 
1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax relief to 
Eldebrook Untied Methodist Church, a tax-exempt religious 
organization. Act 11-460 was published in the January 24, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 386) and transmitted 
to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress 
not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-228 
effective April 9, 1997.
    71. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-461, ``Chevy Chase Baptist Church 
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide 
equitable real property tax relief to Eldebrooke United 
Methodist Church, a tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-
461 was published in the January 24, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 388) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-229, effective April 
9, 1997.
    72. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-462, ``Department of Corrections 
Criminal Background Investigation Authorization Temporary Act 
of 1996.'' To authorize, on a temporary basis, the director of 
the Department of Corrections to conduct criminal background 
investigations on all employees, including non-probationary 
employees, of the Department of Corrections. Act 11-462 was 
published in the January 23, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 390) and transmitted to Congress on January 23, 
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-230, effective April 
9, 1997.
    73. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-463, ``Check Identification Fraud 
Prevention Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a 
temporary basis, the Use of Consumer Identification Information 
Act of 1991 to allow a person to request the display of a 
second form of identification such as a credit card or other 
form of identification. Act 11-463 was published in the January 
24, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 392) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-231, effective April 9, 1997.
    74. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-490, ``Closing of Portions of 3rd 
Street, NW, and L Street, NW, Adjacent to Squares 525, 526, 
556, and 558, SO 90-18, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing of 
portions of 3rd Street, NW, and L Street, NW, adjacent to 
Squares 525, 526, and 558, collectively bounded by New York 
Avenue, NW, New Jersey Avenue, NW, K Street, NW, and 4th 
Street, NW, in ward 2. Act 11-490 was published in the January 
10, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 217) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-232, effective April 9, 1997.
    75. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-493, ``Risk-Based Capital Act of 
1996.'' To enact a Model Risk-Based Capital Act for insurers 
and to protect the confidentiality of reports filed with the 
Insurance Administration by both property and casualty and life 
and health insurance companies. Act 11-493 was published in the 
February 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
765) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-233, effective April 9, 1997.
    76. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-494, ``Uniform Partnership Act of 
1996.'' To enact the Revised Uniform Partnership Act in the 
District of Columbia. Act 11-494 was published in the February 
14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 777) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-234, effective April 9, 1997.
    77. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-495, ``Health Maintenance 
Organization Act of 1996.'' To set forth standards for the 
formation, operation, and regulation of Health maintenance 
Organizations in the District of Columbia. Act 11-495 was 
published in the February 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 818) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-235, effective April 
9, 1997.
    78. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-496, ``Naming of Public Spaces 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Street and Alley Closing 
and Acquisition Procedures Act of 1982 to permit symbolic 
naming of public spaces, to establish additional standards for 
naming public spaces, and to require payment of fees for the 
naming of public spaces. Act 11-496 was published in the 
February 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
917) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-236, effective April 9, 1997.
    79. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-497, ``Uniform Commercial Code 
Negotiable Instruments Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend 
article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code by adding a provision 
concerning lost, destroyed, or stolen cashier's checks, 
teller's checks, or certified checks. Act 11-497 was published 
in the February 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 
page 920) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-237, effective April 9, 1997.
    80. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-498, ``Uniform Commercial Code--
Letters of Credit Act of 1996.'' Act 11-498 was published in 
the February 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 
page 923) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-238, effective April 9, 1997.
    81. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-499, ``Uniform Commercial Code--
Bulk Sales Act of 1996.'' To revise article 6 of the Uniform 
Commercial Code and to make conforming amendments to articles 1 
and 2. Act 11-499 was published in the February 21, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 936) and transmitted 
to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress 
not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-239, 
effective April 9, 1997.
    82. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-500, ``Uniform Commercial Code 
Investment Securities Revision Act of 1996.'' To enact revised 
Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial code in the District of 
Columbia and to make conforming amendments to articles 1, 4, 5, 
9, and 10. Act 11-500 was published in the February 28, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1087) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-240, effective April 9, 1997.
    83. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-501, ``Newborn Health Insurance 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To require that all individual and 
group health insurance policies provide coverage for a minimum 
stay in a hospital or other birthing facility for a mother and 
child following the birth of a child, and for other purposes. 
Act 11-501 was published in the February 28, 1997, edition of 
the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1125) and transmitted to 
Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-241, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    84. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-502, ``Real Estate Licensure 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Real 
Estate Licensure Act of 1982 relating to the duties of real 
estate brokers, salespersons, and property managers. Act 11-502 
was published in the February 28, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1128) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-242, effective April 
9, 1997.
    85. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-503, ``Victims of Violent Crime 
Compensation.'' To establish a Crime Victims Compensation 
Program in the District of Columbia and to designate the 
administration of the program to the Superior Court of the 
District of Columbia. Act 11-503 was published in the February 
28, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1142) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-243, effective April 9, 1997.
    86. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-504, ``Mandatory Use of Seat 
Belts Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Mandatory Use of 
Seat Belts Act of 1985 to require the driver and all passengers 
in a motor vehicle to wear a properly adjusted and fastened 
safety belt while the driver is in control of the vehicle, to 
provide an exemption for passengers in a vehicle if all seating 
positions with seat belts in the vehicle are occupied by other 
persons, provided that the driver shall insure that children 16 
years of age and under shall have preference to seating 
positions with seat belts, to provide for an enforcement date, 
to provide that efforts to educate the public about the 
requirements and purpose of this act shall be multi-lingual and 
in alternative formats, to increase the monetary fine for a 
violation, to provide for primary enforcement, to provide for 
the assessment of 2 points to the driving record of a driver 
found in violation, to make the driver of the vehicle, except 
the operator of a passenger vehicle for hire, responsible for 
ensuring that passengers comply with this act; to amend title 
31 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations to 
establish a mandatory seatbelt usage signage requirement for 
passenger vehicles for hire; and to provide for a $100 fine for 
drivers of public vehicles for hire who fail to comply with the 
signage requirement. Act 11-504 was published in the February 
28, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1155) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-244, effective April 9, 1997.
    87. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-505, ``Hospital and Medical 
Services Corporation Regulatory Act of 1996.'' Act 11-505 was 
published in the February 28, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1158) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-245, effective April 
9, 1997.
    88. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-506, ``Collateral Reform 
Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary 
basis, title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal 
Regulations to establish the amount of collateral to be paid by 
a person charged with failure to obey under 18 DCMR 2000.2 
based upon the number of times the person has committed the 
offense. Act 11-506 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition 
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1223) and transmitted to 
Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act 
shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken effect. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-
246, effective April 9, 1997.
    89. Jan. 30, 1997--Act 11-507, ``Mortgage Lender and Broker 
Act of 1996 Time Extension Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' 
To amend, on a temporary basis, the Mortgage Lender and Broker 
Act of 1996 to extend the time for mortgage lenders and brokers 
to obtain a license and to allow the superintendent of the 
Office of Banking and Financial Institutions the authority, if 
necessary, to issue provisional licenses. Act 11-507 was 
published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 1225) and transmitted to Congress on January 31, 
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-247, effective April 
9, 1997.
    90. Jan. 30, 1997--Act 11-510, ``Sex Offender Registration 
Act of 1996.'' To establish a sex offender registration program 
in the District of Columbia that will operate in accordance 
with the recommendations of a newly created advisory council, 
and to provide for selective community disclosure of 
registration information that is relevant and necessary to 
protect the public and to counteract the assessed dangerousness 
of convicted sex offenders who have returned to the community. 
Act 11-510 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1232) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 31, 1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-274, effective June 3, 
1997.
    91. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-511, ``Boating While Intoxicated 
Act of 1996.'' To prohibit the operation of any watercraft 
while under the influence of, or intoxicated by, alcohol or any 
controlled substance, to establish no-wake zones, and increase 
registration fees. Act 11-511 was published in the March 7, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1242) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-248, effective April 9, 1997.
    92. Feb. 6, 1997--Act 11-512, ``Recorder of Deeds 
Recordation Surcharge Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-512 was 
published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 1247) and transmitted to Congress on February 6, 
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this 
act became D.C. Law 11-257, effective April 15, 1997
    93. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-513, ``Closing of a Public Alley 
in Square 107, S.O. 95-56, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing 
of a public alley in Square 107, bounded by K Street, NW, 19th 
Street, NW, L Street, NW, and 18th Street, NW, in ward 2. Act 
11-513 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1251) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-249, effective April 
9, 1997.
    94. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-514, ``BNA Washington, Inc., Real 
Property Tax Deferral Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the 
real property tax deferral procedure to provide for the 
deferral of real property taxes on certain real property. Act 
11-514 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1253) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-250, effective April 
9, 1997.
    95. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-515, ``Joseph H. Cole Fitness 
Center Designation Act of 1996.'' To rename the recreation 
center located at 1200 Morse Street, NE, presently known as the 
Wheatley Recreation Center, as the Joseph H. Cole Fitness 
Center. Act 11-515 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition 
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1259) and transmitted to 
Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-251, effective 
April 9, 1997.
    96. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-516, ``Closing of a Portion of M 
Street, SW, Adjacent to Square 651, SO 95-239 Act of 1996.'' To 
order the closing of a portion of M Street, SW and 
establishment of an easement, at the intersection of M Street, 
SW, and South Capitol Street, adjacent to Square 651, in ward 
2. Act 11-516 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of 
the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1260) and transmitted to 
Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-252 effective 
April 9, 1997.
    97. Jan. 31, 1997-- Act 11-517, ``Closing of a Portion of 
Ingraham Street, NE, and Public Alleys Adjacent to Squares 3700 
and 3701, SO. 96-27, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing of a 
portion of Ingraham Street, NE, east of First Place, NE, and 
adjacent to Square 3700 and Square 3701, and the closing of a 
public alley between Ingraham Street, NE, and Lot 806 in Square 
3700, in ward 5. Act 11-517 was published in the March 7, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1262) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-253, effective April 9, 1997.
    98. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-518, ``Title 47, D.C. Code 
Enactment Act of 1996.'' To enact and amend title 47 of the 
District of Columbia Code and District of Columbia Enactment 
Act of 1996. Act 11-518 was published in the March 7, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1264) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-253, effective April 9, 1997.
    99. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-519, ``Second Technical 
Amendments Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia 
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative Act of 1979 to 
correct a grammatical error; to amend the District of Columbia 
Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 to correct a grammatical error. 
Act 11-519 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1271) and transmitted to Congress 
on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-255, effective April 
9, 1997.
    100. Jan. 30, 1997--Act 11-520, ``Second Criminal Code 
Technical Amendments Act of 1996.'' To amend an act to 
establish a code of law for the District of Columbia to correct 
a punctuation error and to delete extraneous language. Act 11-
520 was published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1464) and transmitted to Congress on 
January 30, 1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-275, effective June 3, 
1997.
    101. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-521, ``Air Pollution Control 
Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on at temporary 
basis, the District of Columbia Air Pollution Control Act of 
1984 to authorize the Mayor to issue or amend the air pollution 
control rules to implement the act. Act 11-521 was published in 
the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
1414) and transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Act 11-520 was published in the March 14, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1464) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 30, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-275, effective June 3, 1997.
    102. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11 523, ``Correctional Treatment 
Facility Act of 1996.'' Act 11-523 was published in the March 
14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1416) and 
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 60-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-276, effective June 3, 1997.
    103. March 21, 1997--Act 11-524, ``Department of Insurance 
and Securities Regulation Establishment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-
524 was published in the March 28, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1730) and transmitted to Congress on 
March 21, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-268, effective May 21, 
1997.
    104. Feb. 6, 1997--Act 11-525, ``Alcohol Beverage Control 
Act Private Club Exception Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-525 
was published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1421) and transmitted to Congress on 
February 6, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-258, effective April 
15, 1997.
    105. Feb. 6, 1997--Act 11-526, ``Procurement Reform 
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend an act to establish a code of 
law for the District of Columbia to establish a $5 surcharge to 
be collected at the time a document is submitted for 
recordation at the Recorder of Deeds: to amend an act providing 
for the expenses of the offices of the recorder of deeds and 
register of wills of the District of Columbia to provide that 
the funds generated by the surcharge shall be used exclusively 
to cover the costs of purchasing a state-of-the-art automated 
system at the Recorder of Deeds, maintaining the new computer 
system, training staff to implement and operate the new 
computer system and repairing an upgrading the infrastructure 
components at the Recorder of Deeds which are necessary and 
essential to meet its overall mission; to provide that the 
funds generated by the surcharge shall be deposited in a fund 
entitled the Recorder of Deeds Automation and Infrastructure 
Improvement Fund; to require the Mayor to make an annual budget 
request for the restricted use of the funds collected pursuant 
to this act; to amend the District of Columbia Income and 
Franchise Tax Act of 1947 to encourage the establishment of new 
business enterprises in the District of Columbia by enacting a 
deduction for dividends received by a corporation from a 
wholly-owned subsidiary after March 1, 1997; and to amend the 
District of Columbia Sales Tax Act to tax the sale of prepaid 
telephone calling card as the sale of tangible personal 
property, subject only to such taxes as are imposed on the sale 
or use of tangible personal property, even if no card has been 
issued. Act 11-526 was published in the March 14, 1997, edition 
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1423) and transmitted to 
Congress on February 6, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-259, effective 
April 15, 1997.
    106. Feb. 25, 1997--Act 11-527, ``Natural and Artificial 
Gas Gross Receipts Tax Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' Act 
11-524 was published in the March 28, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1452) and transmitted to Congress on 
February 25, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-260, effective April 
25, 1997.
    107. Feb. 25, 1997--Act 11-528, ``Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority Safety Regulation Temporary Act of 
1997.'' To regulate, on a temporary basis, the safety and 
security of the rail fixed guideway system operated by the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority by creating and 
operating a joint entity among the District of Columbia, 
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland to oversee 
this regulation and by authorizing the Mayor of the District of 
Columbia to enter into and implement an agreement with Virginia 
and Maryland to achieve these purposes. Act 11-528 was 
published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 1455) and transmitted to Congress on February 25, 
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-261, effective April 
25, 1997.
    108. Feb 25, 1997--Act 11-529, ``Washington Convention 
Center Authority Act of 1994 Time Extension Temporary Amendment 
Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the Washington 
Convention Center Authority Act of 1994 to change the time in 
which the Authority has to submit final financial requirements 
and a feasibility analysis to the Mayor and the Council. Act 
11-529 was published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 1460) and transmitted to Congress on 
February 25, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-262, effective April 
25, 1997.
    109. Feb. 25, 1997--Act 11-530, ``Designation of Excepted 
Services Positions Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, 
on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Government 
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, to increase, to a 
total of 200 the number of all positions under the Mayor's 
authority and the number of Excepted Service employees that the 
Mayor may appoint to subordinate agencies, to allocate up to 40 
of the positions subject to appointment by the Mayor to the 
Office of the Inspector General and, during a Control year up 
to 20 positions to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 
and to repeal the requirement that lists of Excepted Service 
positions and incumbents in those positions be published in the 
District of Columbia Register. Act 11-530 was published in the 
March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
1462) and transmitted to Congress on February 25, 1997 for a 
30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its 
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 11-263, effective April 25, 1997.
    110. Feb 25, 1997--Act 11-531, ``Supplemental Security 
Income Payment Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on 
a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Public Assistance 
Act of 1982 to eliminate the supplement to the Federal 
Supplemental Security Income payment for District residents who 
live independently and re-direct the supplemental payment to 
persons who receive the Supplemental Security Income benefits 
and who live in community residential facilities; and to codify 
the current special living arrangement rates that have been 
established by rule. Act 11-531 was published in the March 14, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1464) and 
transmitted to Congress on February 25, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 11-264, effective April 25, 1997.
    111. Feb 25, 1997--Act 11-532, ``Cooperative Association 
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary 
basis, the District of Columbia Cooperative Association Act to 
permit regular corporations to become members of an association 
formed under that act; to apply some sections of the District 
of Columbia Business Corporation Act to associations formed 
under the District of Columbia Cooperative Association Act; to 
permit a trade association representing cooperative 
organizations to use the word ``cooperative'' in its name; and 
to amend the D.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act to permit nonprofit 
cooperatives to be organized under the act. Act 11-532 was 
published in the March, 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 1467) and transmitted to Congress on February 25, 
1997 for 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day 
of its having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, 
this act became D.C. Law 11-265, effective April 25, 1997.
    112. March 6, 1997--Act 11-533, ``Unemployment Compensation 
Federal Conformity Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, 
on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Unemployment 
Compensation Act to conform with the Federal requirement to 
permit the withholding of Federal income taxes from 
unemployment compensation benefits at the request of the 
claimant. Act 11-533 was published in the March 21, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1576) and 
transmitted to Congress on March 6, 1997 for 30-day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 11-266, effective May 7, 1997.
    113. March 6, 1997--Act 11-534, ``Equal Opportunity for 
Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Temporary 
Act of 1997.'' To establish new size standards for small 
business enterprise categories, require an assessment every 3 
years of the continued need for the local, small, and 
disadvantage programs, establish a 2 tier set-aside program for 
small business enterprises, establish affiliated interest 
standards for small and disadvantaged business enterprises, and 
to amend the Minority Contracting Act of 1976 to authorize 
board members participation at Minority Business Opportunity 
Commission meetings by conference telephone. Act 11-534 was 
published in the March 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 1579) and transmitted to Congress on March 6, 
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-267, effective May 7, 
1997.
    114. March 6, 1997--Act 12-5, ``General Obligation Note Act 
of 1997.'' This act authorizes the issuance of general 
obligation notes of the District of Colombia for the purposes 
of financing certain appropriations for which unappropriated 
revenues are not available. Act 12-5 was published in the March 
14, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1469) and 
transmitted to Congress on March 6, 1997 for 30-day review. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-1, 
effective May 7, 1997.
    115. March 6, 1997--Act 12-15, ``District of Columbia 
Unemployment Compensation Tax Stabilization Temporary Amendment 
Act of 1997.'' The purpose of the act is to amend, on a 
temporary basis, the District of Colombia Unemployment 
Compensation Act to reduce the taxable wage base, lower the 
maximum weekly benefit amount, and eliminate the dependent's 
allowance. Act 12-15 was published in the March 28, 1996, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1751) and 
transmitted to Congress on March 6, 1997 for a 30-day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-2, effective May 7, 1997.
    116. April 8, 1997--Act 12-45, ``Mortgage Lender and Broker 
Act of 1996 Temporary Amendment of 1997.'' To amend, on a 
temporary basis, the Mortgage Lender and Broker Act of 1996 to 
clarify certain requirements of the act and to conform certain 
definitions to Federal law; the District of Columbia Real 
Estate Licensure Act of 1982 to exempt mortgage brokers and 
lenders from the requirements of the act; and an act to 
regulate the business of loaning money on security of any kind 
by persons, firms, or corporations other than national banks, 
licensed bankers, trust companies, savings banks, building and 
loan associations, and real estate brokers in the District of 
Columbia to add certain exemptions. Act 12-45 was published in 
the March 28, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
2098) and transmitted to Congress on April 8, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 12-3, effective May 23, 1997.
    117. April 8, 1997--Act 12-46, ``Fiscal Year 1997 Budget 
Support Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a 
temporary basis, the fiscal year 1997 budget support tax of 
1996 to repeal the requirement that deed recordation tax and 
transfer taxes be based on the higher of the assessed value of 
the sale price of the deed, to repeal the requirement the 
employees file returns for withholdings on a quarterly basis, 
to repeal the requirement that returns for gross receipt taxes 
and toll telecommunication service taxes be made on a quarterly 
basis, and to repeal the requirement that all requests for 
proposals for public schools include a clause giving the 
schools the option to accept contracted services or to receive 
funds representing their proportionate share of the costs for 
contracted services. Act 12-46 was published in the April 8, 
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 2101) and 
transmitted to Congress on April 8, 1997 for a 30-day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-4, effective June 5, 1997.
    118. April 17, 1997--Act 12-61, ``Tenant Representative 
Services Lease Negotiation and Review Temporary Amendment Act 
of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the District of 
Columbia Revenue Act of 1970 to expedite Council review of new 
leases or renewals as existing leases where the District is a 
tenant and the Mayor is obligated to expend funds for 
construction or alteration of tenant improvements in excess on 
$1 million or average annual gross rental in excess of $1 
million over the lease period, and to allow the direct 
negotiation of new leases or renewals of existing leases where 
the District represented by a duly licensed private sector 
commercial real estate broker. Act 12-61 was published in the 
April 25, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
2410) and transmitted to Congress on April 17, 1997 for a 30-
day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its 
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 12-5, effective June 5, 1997.
    119. April 17, 1997--Act 12-63, ``District of Columbia 
Taxicab Commission Establishment Act of 1985 Temporary 
Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend on a temporary basis, the 
District of Columbia Taxicab Commission Establishment Act of 
1985 to authorize hearing examiners to hear and decide 
complaints against taxicab owners, operators, companies, 
associations, fleets, and radio dispatch operations. Act 12-63 
was published in the April 25, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 2432) and transmitted to Congress on 
April 17, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-6, effective June 5, 
1997.
    120. June 11, 1997--Act 12-79, ``Public Assistance 
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend on a temporary 
basis, the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982 
to comply with provisions of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, by repealing 
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program, 
establishing the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families as a 
non entitlement program of assistance, and making the following 
conforming amendments: (1) imposing a time limit for receipt of 
benefits under TANF; (2) revising certain eligibility 
requirements related to children absent from the home; (3) 
revising the duty to assign child support rights while on 
assistance; (4) defining the duty to cooperate in pursuing 
child support; (5) defining the ``good cause'' exception to the 
cooperation requirement; (6) establishing alien eligibility for 
TANF and Medicaid; (7) extending the current payment level and 
amount of assistance; (8) revising the living at home 
requirements for pregnant and parenting teens; (9) broadening 
the application of the school attendance provisions of the 
Demonstration Project for pregnant and parenting teens; (10) 
denying assistance to recipients engaging in certain kinds of 
fraud, fugitive felons, and parole violators; (11) making 
technical amendments to reflect the termination of the pass-
through of the first $50 of child support; and, (12) 
establishing confidentiality provisions; and to amend an act to 
enable the District of Columbia to receive Federal financial 
assistance until title XIX of the Social Security Act for a 
medical assistance program, and for other purposes to make 
conforming changes to the Medicaid law. Act 12-79, was 
published in the June 13, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 3353) and transmitted to Congress on June 11, 
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-7, effective August 1, 
1997.
    121. June 11, 1997--Act 12-80, ``District of Columbia 
Regional Airports Authority Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend 
the District of Columbia Regional Airports Authority Act of 
1985 to increase the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 
from 11 to 13 members. Act 12-80 was published in the June 13, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3371) and 
transmitted to Congress on June 11, 1997 for a 30-day review. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-8, 
effective August 1, 1997.
    122. June 25, 1997--Act 12-83, ``Procurement Reform 
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary 
basis, the Procurement Reform Amendment Act of 1996 to increase 
the penalties of Civil False Claims and Qui Tam provisions and 
to change the title of the head of the Office of Contracting 
Procurement. Act 12-83 was published in the July 4, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3721) and 
transmitted to Congress on June 25, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-17, effective September 12, 1997.
    123. June 25, 1997--Act 12-84, ``BNA Washington, Inc., Real 
Property Tax Deferral Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To 
amend the real property tax deferral procedure to provide for 
the deferral of real property taxes on certain real property. 
Act 12-84 was published in the July 4, 1997, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3740) and transmitted to Congress 
on June 25, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on 
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-18, effective 
September 12, 1997.
    124. Jun 18, 1997--Act 12-85, ``Children's Defense Fund 
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Temporary Amendment Act of 
1997.'' To provide, on a temporary basis, equitable real 
property tax relief to the Children's Defense Fund, a tax-
exempt organization. Act 12-85 was published in the June 27, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3610) and 
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-9, effective September 5, 1997.
    125. June 18, 1997--Act 12-86, ``Closing of a Public Alley 
in Square 253, S.O. 88-107, Temporary Act of 1997.'' To order, 
on a temporary basis, the closing of a public alley in Square 
253, bounded by F Street, NW, 13th Street, NW, G Street NW, and 
14th Street NW, in ward 2. Act 12-86 was published in the June 
27, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3612) and 
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-10, effective September 5, 1997.
    126. June 18, 1997--Act 12-87, ``Assessments Initiative 
Procedures Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a 
temporary basis, the Real Property Assessment and Tax 
Initiative of 1997 to delay its applicability until the real 
property tax year 1999. Act 12-87 was published in the June 27, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3614) and 
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-11, effective September 5, 1997.
    127. June 18, 1997--Act 12-88, ``Closing of a Public Alley 
in Square 484, S.O. 90-272, Temporary Act of 1997.'' To order, 
on a temporary basis, the closing of a public alley in Square 
484, bounded by K Street NW, 5th Street, NW, Massachusetts 
Avenues, NW, and 6th Street NW, in ward 2. Act 12-88 was 
published in the June 27, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 3616) and transmitted to Congress on June 18, 
1997 for a 30 day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-12, effective 
September 5, 1997.
    128. June 18, 1997--Act 12-90, ``Motor Vehicle Biennial 
Inspection fund Act of 1997.'' To amend an act to provide for 
the annual inspection of all motor vehicles in the District of 
Columbia to establish a dedicated fund for the District of 
Columbia Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program as 
mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Act 
12-90 was published in the June 27, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 3618) and transmitted to Congress on 
June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-13, effective 
September 5, 1997.
    129. June 18, 1997--Act 12-91, ``International Registration 
Plan Agreement Act of 1997.'' To provide for membership in the 
International Registration Plan pursuant to the Federally 
mandated reciprocal registration requirements of 49 U.S.C. 
Sec. 31704. Act 12-91 was published in the June 27, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3620) and 
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
14, effective September 5, 1997.
    130. June 18, 1997--Act 12-92, ``Ivy City Yard Fixed Right-
of-Way Mass Transit System Designation Temporary Act of 1997.'' 
To designate, on a temporary basis, all buildings, structures, 
and other improvements located at the Ivy City Yard as related 
to a fixed right-of-way mass transit system which is exempt 
from the subdivision requirement for certain proposed actions 
pertaining to the erection or construction of buildings, 
structures, and other improvements. Act 12-92 was published in 
the June 27, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
3625) and transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 12-15, effective September 5, 1997.
    131. June 18, 1997--Act 12-93, ``Motor Vehicle Excessive 
Idling Fine Increase Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To 
amend, on temporary basis, 16 DCMR 3224 and 18 DCMR 2601.2 to 
increase the civil infractions fine for violating the engine 
idling provisions of the District of Columbia Air Pollution 
Control Act of 1984 and the Traffic Adjudication Act of 1978 
and to amend the idling restriction of 18 DCMR 2418.3 to make 
it comply with the District of Columbia Air Pollution Control 
Act of 1984. Act 12-93 was published in the June 27, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3627) and 
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-16, effective September 5, 1997.
    132. July 11, 1997--Act 12-95, ``Ivy City Yard Fixed Right-
of-Way Mass Transit System Designation Act of 1997.'' To 
designate all buildings, structures, and other improvements 
located at the Ivy City Yard as related to a fixed right-of-way 
mass transit system which is exempt from the subdivision 
requirement for certain proposed actions pertaining to the 
erection or construction of buildings, structures, and other 
improvements. Act 12-95 was published in the July 18, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3998) and 
transmitted to Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
19, effective September 23, 1997.
    133. July 11, 1997--Act 12-97, ``Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority Safety Regulation Act of 1997.'' To 
regulate the safety and security of the rail fixed guide way 
system operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority by creating and operating a joint entity among the 
District of Columbia. Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State 
of Maryland to oversee this regulation and by authorizing the 
Mayor of the District of Columbia to enter into and implement 
an agreement with Virginia and Maryland to achieve these 
purpose. Act 12-95 was published in the July 18, 1997, edition 
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3998) and transmitted to 
Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review. Congress not 
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-19, effective 
September 23, 1997.
    134. July 11, 1997--Act 12-98, ``General Public Assistance 
Program Termination Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To 
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia General 
Public Assistance Act of 1982 to terminate the General Public 
assistance program. Act 12-98 was published in the July 18, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4028) and 
transmitted to Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken 
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-21, effective September 23, 1997.
    135. July 11, 1997--Act 12-99, ``Washington Convention 
Center Authority Collective Bargaining Amendment Act of 1997.'' 
To amend the Washington Convention Center Authority Act of 1994 
to provide for coverage of the Washington Convention Center 
Employees by the Public Employee Relations Board and by the 
labor-management relations title of the District of Columbia 
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978. Act 12-99 
was published in the July 25, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 4168) and transmitted to Congress on 
July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-22, effective 
September 23, 1997.
    136. July 11, 1997--Act 12-100, ``Business Improvement 
District Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a 
temporary basis, the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996 
to authorize the establishment and administration of business 
improvement districts in the District of Columbia and the 
assessment and collection of taxes for the improvement of 
business improvement districts. Act 12-100 was published in the 
July 25, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4170) 
and transmitted to Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day 
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having 
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 12-23, effective September 23, 1997.
    137. July 29, 1997--Act 12-107, ``Closing of a Public Alley 
in Square 253, S.O. 88-107, Reinstatement Act of 1997.'' To 
reinstate an act that ordered the closing of a public alley in 
Square 253, bounded by F Street, NW, 13th Street, NW, G Street, 
NW, and 14th Street, NW, in ward 2. Act 12-107 was published in 
the August 1, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
4316) and transmitted to Congress on July 29, 1997 for a 30 day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-24, effective October 8, 1997.
    138. July 29, 1997--Act 12-108, ``Closing of a Public Alley 
in Square 484 S.O. 90-272, Reinstatement Act of 1997.'' To 
reinstate an act that ordered the closing of a public alley in 
Square 484, bounded by K Street, NW, 5th Street, NW, 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, and 6th Street, NW in ward 2, and to 
amend the closing of a public alley in Square 107, S.O. 95-56, 
Act of 1996 to clarify a provision requiring an affordable 
housing contribution. Act 12-108 was published in the August 1, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4318) and 
transmitted to Congress on July 29, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
25, effective October 8, 1997.
    139. July 29, 1997--Act 12-109, ``Business Improvement 
Districts Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend the Business 
Improvement Districts Act of 1996 to authorize the 
establishment and administration of business improvement 
districts in the District of Columbia and the assessment and 
collection of taxes for the improvement of business improvement 
districts in the District of Columbia and the assessment and 
collection of taxes for the improvement of business improvement 
districts. Act 12-109 was published in the August 1, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4320) and 
transmitted to Congress on July 29, 1997 for a 30 day review. 
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
26, effective October 8, 1997.
    140. July 29, 1997--Act 12-113, ``Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Federal Law Conformity Temporary 
Act of 1997.'' To provide, on a temporary basis, individual and 
group health insurance subscribers in the District of Columbia 
the benefits and protections mandated by the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Act 12-113 was 
published in the August 1, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register 
(Vol. 44 page 4345) and transmitted to Congress on July 29, 
1997 for a 30 day review. This act shall expire on the 225th 
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-27, effective October 
8, 1997.
    141. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-117, ``Sex Offender Registration 
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary 
basis, the Sex Offender Registration Act of 1996 to require the 
Metropolitan Police Department to update its registry promptly, 
and to require new residents to the District of Columbia who 
fall within the registration requirements to register with the 
Metropolitan Police Department within 10 days of establishing 
residence in the District of Columbia. Act 12-117 was published 
in the August 8, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 
page 4506) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its 
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 12-28, effective October 23, 1997.
    142. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-119, ``Iglesia Del Dios Vivo 
Columna Y Apoya De La Verdad La Lux Del Mundo Equitable Real 
Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To provide equitable real 
property tax relief to the Iglesia Del Dios Vivo Columna Y 
Apoya De La Verdad ``La Lux Del Mundo'', a tax exempt religious 
organization. Act 12-119 was published in the August 15, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4641) and 
transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-29, effective October 23, 1997.
    143. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-125, ``Living Word Church 
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To provide 
equitable real property tax relief to the Living Word Church, a 
tax exempt religious organization. Act 12-125 was published in 
the August 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
4656) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 12-30, effective October 23, 1997.
    144. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-126, ``Faith Tabernacle Church 
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To provide 
equitable real property tax relief to Faith Tabernacle Church, 
a tax exempt religious organization. Act 12-126 was published 
in the August 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 
page 4658) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 12-31, effective October 23, 1997.
    145. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-128, ``Healthcare Entity 
Conversion Act of 1997.'' To establish procedures to ensure the 
protection of charitable assets held in the public trust by 
Healthcare entities when those assets are transferred to 
entitles that are for-profit and to make conforming amendments 
to the Health Services Planning Program Reestablishment Act of 
1996, the Hospital and Medical Services Corporation Regulatory 
Act of 1996, and the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 
1996, and to authorize the Corporation Counsel to approve all 
conversions. Act 12-128 was published in the August 22, 1997, 
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4819) and 
transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-32, effective October 23, 1997.
    146. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-129, ``Washington Home for 
Incurables Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To 
provide equitable real property tax relief to the Washington 
Home for Incurables a tax exempt. Act 12-129 was published in 
the August 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
4660) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 12-33, effective October 23, 1997.
    147. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-130, ``Real Property Interest 
Reporting Improvement Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend an act 
to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia to 
require the owner mortgagee, secured party under a deed of 
trust, trustee, and lienholder of any real property to notify 
the Recorder of Deeds when there is a name or address change, 
and to authorize an administrative fee to cover the cost of 
additional research to locate an owner, a mortgagee, a secured 
party under a deed of trust, a trustee, or a lienholder after 
an unsuccessful attempt using available information. Act 12-130 
was published in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. 
Register (Vol. 44 page 4827) and transmitted to Congress on 
September 3, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-34, effective October 
23, 1997.
    148. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-131, ``Health Care for the 
Homeless Project, Inc., Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act 
of 1997.'' To provide equitable real property tax, and transfer 
tax relief to the Health Care for the Homeless Project, Inc., 
the National Health Plan, and the Community Group Health 
Foundation, tax exempt organizations. Act 12-131 was published 
in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 
page 4662) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 12-35, effective October 23, 1997.
    149. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-132, ``Comprehensive Merit 
Personnel Act Pay Limit Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To 
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia 
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to repeal 
the prohibition on an employee receiving a rate of basic pay in 
excess of the rate of pay for the Mayor; and to amend the 
District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to 
authorize the Council to change or suspend by resolution the 
compensation provisions for officers and members of the 
Metropolitan Police Department and the Fire and Emergency 
Medical Services Department. Act 12-132 was published in the 
August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 
4829) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became 
D.C. Law 12-36, effective October 23, 1997.
    150. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-139, ``Real Property Tax sale 
Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend Title 47 of the District of 
Columbia Code to prevent owners of real property with 
delinquent real property taxes from participating in real 
property tax sales. Act 12-139 was published in the August 22, 
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4850) and 
transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day 
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. 
Law 12-37, effective October 23, 1997.
    151. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-140, ``Homestead Exemption 
Penalty Expansion Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend title 47 of 
the District of Columbia Code to establish as a misdemeanor the 
failure to notify the Mayor of termination of eligibility for 
the Homestead tax exemption program. Act 12-140 was published 
in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 
page 4852) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 12-38, effective October 23, 1997.
    152. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-143, ``Human Rights Amendment 
Act of 1997.'' To amend the Human Rights Act of 1977 to 
establish a mandatory mediation process prior to the formal 
investigation of a complaint by the Office of Human Rights, to 
provide for a period of up to 60 days for completion of the 
conciliation process after the Office of Human Rights completes 
its formal investigation, to permit the Commission to order the 
payment of civil penalties, to provide for a 1-year statute of 
limitations for filing a court action, and to provide for the 
tolling of the 1-year statute of limitations during the 
pendency of a complaint before the Office of Human Rights. Act 
12-143 was published in the August 22, 1997, edition of the 
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4856) and transmitted to Congress 
on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having 
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-39, effective October 
23, 1997.
    153. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-144, ``Real Property Assessment 
Process and Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes Amendment Act of 
1997.'' To amend title 47 of the District of Columbia Code to 
provide for an administrative appeal process for supplemental 
assessments, provide that real property shall be assessed at 
least once every 3 years, establish an administrative appeal 
process for triennial assessments, establish a process for 
appeals filed outside of the triennial assessment period, 
establish an appeal process for new owners, provide that the 
assessment role shall be estimated instead of certified, and 
authorize the issuance of District of Columbia general 
obligation tax revenue anticipation notes of the District of 
Columbia to finance general governmental expenses for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. Act 12-144 was published 
in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 
page 4859) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for 
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act 
became D.C. Law 12-40, effective October 23, 1997.

                    Subcommittee on Human Resources


1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 104th 
        Congress, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 67

    This law imposes parliamentary barriers to discourage the 
imposition of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal 
governments without adequate funding if the mandates would 
displace other essential governmental priorities. It also 
requires the legislative and executive branches to identify and 
quantify costs incurred by those governments in complying with 
Federal statutory and regulatory mandates. In addition, it 
required a study of existing mandates.
    The Human Resources Subcommittee is continuing to monitor 
Federal department compliance with the legislation, with 
special attention to two portions--the title II requirement 
that Federal agencies review proposed and final regulations for 
mandate impacts and consider less burdensome alternatives, and 
the title III requirement that a review of existing mandates be 
conducted.

2. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Public Law 104-
        191, 104th Congress, signed into law August 21, 1996

    The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
1996 [HIPAA] provided for changes in the health insurance 
market and imposed certain requirements on health insurance 
plans offered by public and private employers. It guaranteed 
the availability and renewability of health insurance coverage 
for certain employees and individuals, limiting the use of pre-
existing condition restrictions. It created Federal standards 
for insurers, health maintenance organizations [HMOs] and 
employer plans, including those who are self-insured. It 
ensures greater availability of health coverage plans for small 
employers. Medical Savings Accounts--personal savings accounts 
for unreimbursed medical expenses--were created by the act.
    The law also created a new program to combat health care 
fraud and abuse, established the Medicare Integrity Program, 
set up a new Medicare anti-fraud and abuse control account 
within the Medicare hospital trust fund, extended criminal 
sanctions under the Social Security Act for Medicare, Medicaid 
and other Federal health care programs and established new 
rules and penalties for fraud and abuse in Medicare and 
Medicaid.
    The Human Resources Subcommittee has been monitoring the 
implementation of the legislation, particularly the fraud and 
abuse provisions, tracking the amount of recouped resources as 
a result of successful collaborative anti-fraud initiatives on 
the part of the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 
the Office of the Inspector General [OIG], the Department of 
Justice [DOJ], and State agencies' efforts. The subcommittee 
has been monitoring the implementation of the new Adverse 
Action Data Base, the Medicare Integrity Program, and following 
the OIG expansion of its Operation Restore Trust initiative.

                   Subcommittee on the Postal Service


1. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, Public Law 91-375, August 12, 
        1970, 84 Stat. 719

    The Subcommittee on the Postal Service has legislative 
jurisdiction and oversight over the U.S. Postal Service, U.S. 
Postal Rate Commission and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. 
These entities operate under the authority granted pursuant to 
the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 [PRA] which traces 
congressional authority for postal services to Article I, 
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which direct Congress 
``(t)o establish Post Offices and Post Roads.''
    The U.S. Postal Service is governed by an 11 member Board 
of Governors; 9 of whom are appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate who in turn employ a Postmaster General 
and Deputy Postmaster General who also become members of the 
Board. The U.S. Postal Service handles 40 percent of the 
world's mail volume; it had total revenues in 1995 of $54.3 
billion; it employs 1 out of every 170 Americans; and processed 
181 billion pieces of mail or about 580 million pieces per day 
and delivered to 128 million addresses in 1995.
    The U.S. Postal Rate Commission, independent of the U.S. 
Postal Service, is governed by five, full-time, Presidentially-
appointed and Senate-confirmed Commissioners. It is responsible 
by hearing a request of the U.S. Postal Service for an increase 
in postage rates, reclassification of its postage schedule and 
for making a recommended decision upon such a request. The 
Commission also hears complaints from outside parties regarding 
postal rates or services.
    The Postal Inspection Service is the law enforcement branch 
of the U.S. Postal Service and is responsible for enforcing the 
Mail Fraud Act, Mail Order Consumer Protection Amendments of 
1983, Drug and Household Substance Mailing Act of 1990, and for 
enforcing the Private Express Statutes which give the Postal 
Service its letter-mail monopoly. It is also entrusted with 
insuring the security and safety of postal facilities and 
employees and for serving in the dual role of Inspector General 
for the agency.
    The subcommittee continued its in-depth oversight of the 
operations of these entities. During the first session, the 
subcommittee conducted a series of in-depth oversight hearings 
which highlighted the need for reform of postal operations. 
These hearings laid the foundation for the reforms contained in 
H.R. 3717, the Postal Reform Act of 1996, the first 
comprehensive postal reform legislation in a quarter century. 
H.R. 3717 focused constructive debate in the postal community 
on the future of the Postal Service in meeting its statutory 
mandate of provision of universal mail service. The 
subcommittee believes that shifting mail volumes and stagnant 
postal revenue growth requires an examination of the statutory 
structure under which our current postal system now operates if 
the Service is to maintain this important public service 
mission.
    The oversight hearings identified several weaknesses in the 
current statutory structure of the Postal Service. One weakness 
highlighted is the Postal Service's inability to compete under 
the procedures required by the current, 25 year old ratemaking 
structure. According to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. 
Postal Service controlled virtually all of the Express Mail 
market in the early 1970's; by 1995 its share had dropped to 
approximately 13 percent. Similarly, the Postal Service is 
moving considerably fewer parcels today than 25 years ago. In 
1971 the Postal Service handled 536 million parcel pieces and 
enjoyed a 65 percent share of the ground surface delivery 
market. This is in comparison to 1990 when the Postal Service 
parcel volume had dropped to 122 million pieces with a 
resulting market share of about 6 percent.
    Even first-class financial transactions and personal 
correspondence mail--monopoly protected areas under the Private 
Express Statutes--are showing the effect of electronic 
communications competition. Financial institutions are 
promoting computer software to consumers as a method of 
conducting their bill-paying and general banking, while 
Internet service providers and online subscription services are 
offering consumers the ability to send electronic messages to 
anyone in the world or around the corner. Similarly, many 
postal users have become accustomed to the immediacy of the 
facsimile machine. These new communication technologies all 
carry correspondence that formerly flowed through the Postal 
Service. These former sources of revenues supported a postal 
infrastructure dedicated to the mission of universal service.
    This shift in postal revenues will have a negative long-
term effect on the financial well being of the Postal Service. 
The subcommittee believes that should the Service continue to 
labor under the restrictions established by the 1970 act, its 
inability to compete, develop new products and respond to 
changing market conditions jeopardizes its ability to continue 
to provide universal service to the diverse geographic areas of 
our Nation. Congress must review reforms to the current postal 
statutory structure which will provide the Postal Service more 
competitive flexibility while assuring all postal customers of 
a continued universal mail service at reasonable and affordable 
rates. H.R. 3717 meets this goal by replacing the zero-sum game 
of the current ratemaking structure with a system that insures 
reasonable postal rates while allowing the Postal Service the 
flexibility it needs to compete in today's changing 
communication markets.
    As evidenced in our review of data quality, the act has 
fostered an entrenched distrust between the Postal Service and 
the Postal Rate Commission and allowed the two agencies to 
develop an inter-agency antagonism which fosters a sense of 
favoritism between postal customers. This problem is 
exacerbated by the existing cost-based ratemaking process.
    The subcommittee will continue to study, monitor and report 
on the effectiveness of the Postal Reorganization Act and will 
continue to seek needed reforms to improve the overall 
performance of the Postal Service and provide better service to 
all postal customers.

                      IV. Other Current Activities

                  A. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTS

                           Standing Committee

1. ``Financial Audit: Independent Counsel Expenditures for the Six 
        Months Ended September 30, 1996,'' March 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-64
    a. Summary.--The Department of Justice and the independent 
counsels are required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 594(d)(2), (h) 
and 596(c)(1) to report on expenditures from a permanent, 
indefinite appropriation established within Justice to fund 
independent counsel activities. In order to satisfy the 
requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 596(c)(2) and Public Law 100-
202, which established a permanent, indefinite appropriation 
within Justice to fund independent counsels, the GAO is 
required to audit the independent counsels' expenditures from 
the appropriation for each 6-month period in which they have 
operations and report those findings to the appropriate 
congressional committees.
    The GAO found that the statements of expenditures for the 
offices of independent counsel Arlin M. Adams/Larry D. 
Thompson, David M. Barrett, Joseph E. diGenova/Michael F. 
Zeldin, Daniel S. Pearson, Donald C. Smaltz, and Kenneth W. 
Starr were reliable in all material respects.
2. ``Financial Audit: Independent Counsel Expenditures for the Six 
        Months Ended March 31, 1997,'' September 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-164
    a. Summary.--The Department of Justice and the independent 
counsels are required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 594(d)(2), (h) 
and 596(c)(1) to report on expenditures from a permanent, 
indefinite appropriation established within Justice to fund 
independent counsel activities. In order to satisfy the 
requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 596(c)(2) and Public Law 100-
202, which established a permanent, indefinite appropriation 
within Justice to fund independent counsels, the GAO is 
required to audit the independent counsels' expenditures from 
the appropriation for each 6-month period in which they have 
operations and report those findings to the appropriate 
congressional committees.
    The GAO found that the statements of expenditures for the 
offices of independent counsel Arlin M. Adams/Larry D. 
Thompson, David M. Barrett, Joseph E. diGenova/Michael F. 
Zeldin, Daniel S. Pearson, Donald C. Smaltz, Kenneth W. Starr, 
and a sealed independent counsel were reliable in all material 
respects.
3. ``GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work 
        As Intended,'' April 1997, GAO/GGD-97-36
    a. Summary.--This report was addressed to the chairman and 
ranking member of the House Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee. The report was developed in 
partial response to the Government Performance and Results 
Act's requirement that GAO report on the act's implementation 
during the initial pilot phase--fiscal years 1994 to 1996--and 
on the prospects for its government-wide implementation.
    The Results Act provides for a series of pilot projects so 
that Federal agencies can gain experience in using the act's 
provisions and provide lessons to other agencies before 
government-wide implementation. One set of these pilot projects 
focused on managerial accountability and flexibility.
    GAO found that the managerial accountability and 
flexibility pilot did not work as intended. OMB did not 
designate any of the 7 departments and 1 independent agency 
that submitted a total of 61 waiver proposals as pilots. For 
about three-quarters of the waiver proposals, OMB or other 
central management agencies determined that the waivers were 
not allowable for statutory or other reasons or that the 
requirement for which the waivers were proposed no longer 
existed. For the remaining proposals, OMB or other central 
management agencies approved waivers or developed compromises 
by using authorities that were already available independent of 
GPRA.
    GAO found that three major factors contributed to the 
failure of the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot 
phase. First, changes in Federal management practices and laws 
that occurred after the Results Act was enacted affected 
agencies' need for the Results Act process. Second, the Results 
Act was not the only means by which agencies could receive 
waivers from administrative requirements, and thereby obtain 
needed managerial flexibility. And third, OMB did not work 
activity with agencies that were seeking to take part in the 
managerial accountability and flexibility pilot.
    As of November 1996, almost 11 months after OMB had 
received the endorsements by the central management agencies, 
OMB had not formally notified two of the eight agencies that 
nine of their requested waivers had been approved outside of 
the Results Act pilot process or that a compromise had been 
developed. Overall, officials in five of the eight agencies 
that submitted a waiver proposal to OMB said that they never 
received feedback from OMB on the status of their waiver 
proposals, or notification of specific concerns that OMB may 
have had about the quality and scope of the proposals, or 
explicit instructions from OMB on how their proposals could be 
improved to better meet OMB's expectations.
    b. Benefits.--This report was helpful to Congress in 
overseeing agency and OMB compliance with the Results Act, and 
in determining which pilot phases of the act would be 
instructional for government-wide implementation of the act.
4. ``The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Government-wide 
        Implementation Will Be Uneven,'' June 1997, GAO/GGD-97-109
    a. Summary.--This report was addressed to the chairman and 
ranking members of the following: the House Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee, the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee, the House Committee on Budget, the Senate Committee 
on Budget, the House Committee on Appropriations, and the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations. This report is in response 
to the Results Act requirement that GAO report to Congress on 
the prospects for government-wide implementation of the act.
    GAO's report indicated that the Results Act's 
implementation up to that point had achieved mixed results, 
which would lead to highly uneven government-wide 
implementation in the 1997. While agencies would likely meet 
statutory deadlines for producing initial strategic plans and 
annual performance plans, GAO found that those documents will 
not be of a consistently high quality or as useful for 
congressional and agency decisionmaking as they could be.
    GAO observed the following challenges for government-wide 
implementation: (1) Overlapping and fragmented crosscutting 
program efforts can undermine efforts to establish clear 
missions and goals; (2) The often limited or indirect influence 
that the Federal Government has in determining whether desired 
results is achieved complicates the effort to identify and 
measure the discrete contribution of the Federal initiative to 
a specific program result; (3) The lack of quality and the 
dearth of results-oriented performance information in many 
agencies hampers efforts to identify appropriate goals and 
confidently assess performance; and, (4) Instilling within 
agencies an organizational culture that focuses on results 
remain a work in progress across the Federal Government.
    b. Benefits.--This report helps Congress anticipate and 
oversee the administration's implementation of the Results Act. 
It gives a realistic view of the compliance to expect from 
agencies, the challenges agencies face. Congress can then 
better know where, when, and how to apply pressure on the 
administration to try and get the best compliance possible.
5. ``Managing for Results: Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant 
        Barriers to Focusing on Results,'' June 1997, GAO/GGD-97-83
    a. Summary.--While addressed to the chairman and ranking 
member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 
and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee, this report was initiated by GAO to support 
the broader responsibility of the GAO to report to Congress on 
the prospects for the Results Acts's implementation government-
wide, as required by the act.
    GAO found that officials at many regulatory agencies cited 
numerous barriers to their efforts to establish results-
oriented goals and measures. These barriers included 
significant problems in identifying and collecting the data 
they needed to demonstrate their agencies' results. Agencies 
also cited as a barrier the fact that diverse and complex 
factors affect agencies' results (e.g., business cycles, 
technological innovations, or the need to deliver Federal 
program initiatives and thus achieve results through third 
parties), and their lack of control or influence over those 
factors. Finally, agency officials observed that the long time 
period needed to see results in some areas of Federal 
regulation was a barrier to identifying and managing toward 
those results in the framework of annual performance plans and 
budgets. The impact of some agencies' regulatory actions, such 
as limiting exposure to a hazardous chemical, may not be 
evident for years. GAO thinks these barriers suggest that the 
implementation of the Results Act in a regulatory environment 
may prove more difficult in some cases than in others.
    b. Benefits.--This GAO report is important in aiding 
Congress to oversee and anticipate agency compliance with the 
Results Act. It is also important in helping executive branch 
agencies themselves prepare for government-wide implementation 
of the act.
6. ``Managing For Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission 
        Fragmentation and Program Overlap,'' August 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-
        146
    a. Summary.--As requested by Majority Leader Armey, 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton, 
Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, and Appropriations 
Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, GAO compiled its 
documentation of mission fragmentation and program overlap and 
reported on the specific ways in which the Results Act can 
focus attention on these management challenges and help to 
develop strategies to harmonize Federal responses.
    GAO found that the Results Act should offer a new and 
structured framework to address crosscutting issues. Each of 
its key stages--defining missions and desired outcomes, 
measuring performance, and using performance information--
offers a new opportunity to address fragmentation and overlap. 
The Results Act is intended to foster a dialog on strategic 
goals involving the Congress as well as agency and external 
stakeholders. This dialog should help to identify agencies and 
programs addressing similar missions and associated performance 
implications. The act's emphasis on results-based performance 
measures should lead to more explicit discussions of 
contributions and accomplishments within crosscutting programs 
and encourage related programs to develop common performance 
measures. Finally, if the Results Act is successfully 
implemented, performance information should become available to 
clarify the consequences of fragmentation and the implication 
of alternative policy and service delivery options, which, in 
tern, can affect future decisions concerning department and 
agency missions and the allocation of resources among those 
missions.
    b. Benefits.--This report helped confirm the requestors 
expectation that the Results Act would be a useful tool for 
addressing program overlap and fragmentation. As each stage of 
the Results Act is implemented by executive branch agencies, it 
is critical for Congress to know if its expectations are 
realistic so that oversight can be as effective as possible.
7. ``Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal 
        Agencies' Strategic Plans,'' September 1997, GAO/GGD-97-180
    a. Summary.--In response to a request from Majority Leader 
Dick Armey, Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman 
Dan Burton, Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, and 
Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, GAO reviewed 
and evaluated the latest available version of the draft 
strategic plans that were submitted to Congress for 
consultation by cabinet departments and selected independent 
agencies. Those reviews of the draft plans: (1) assessed the 
draft plans' compliance with the act's required elements and 
their overall quality; (2) determined if the plans reflected 
the key statutory requirements for each agency; (3) identified 
whether the plans reflected discussions about crosscutting 
activities and coordination with other agencies having similar 
activities; (4) determined if the draft plans addressed major 
management challenges; and, (5) provided a preliminary 
assessment of the capacity of the departments and agencies to 
provide reliable information about performance.
    GAO found in their review that several critical strategic 
planning issues are in need of sustained attention if agencies 
are to develop the dynamic strategic planning processes 
envisioned by the Results Act. First, most of the draft plans 
did not adequately link required elements in the plans. Second, 
long-term strategic goals often tended to have weaknesses. 
Third, many agencies did not fully develop strategies 
explaining how their long-term strategic goals would be 
achieved. Fourth, most agencies did not reflect in their draft 
plans the identification and planned coordination of activities 
and programs that cut across multiple agencies. Fifth, the 
questionable capacity of many agencies to gather performance 
information has hampered efforts to identify appropriate goals 
and confidently assess performance. And sixth, the draft 
strategic plans did not adequately address program evaluations.
    b. Benefits.--While Congress had set up congressional staff 
teams to review the individual draft strategic plans submitted 
by agencies, it was critical for congressional planning and 
oversight of the Results Act to have a review of all the plans 
taken as a whole. GAO's assessment again gave Congress a better 
sense of what expectations of agencies could be and where the 
weaknesses in the plans were.
8. ``The Results Act: Observations on the Draft Strategic Plans of the 
        Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 
        Energy, Health and Human Services', Housing and Urban 
        Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, 
        Treasury, Veterans Affairs, EPA's, Federal Emergency Management 
        Agency, General Services Administration, NASA, National Science 
        Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Management 
        and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business 
        Administration, Social Security Administration, the Postal 
        Service, USAID, and USTR's''
    a. Summary.--As requested by Majority Leader Dick Armey, 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton, 
Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, and Appropriations 
Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, GAO performed reviews on an 
individual basis of the draft strategic plans of all of the 
Chief Financial Officers Act agencies and a handful of other 
important Federal entities. These entities included: Labor, 
Treasury, Postal Service, HHS, Commerce, OPM, Interior, 
Transportation, DOD, OMB, HUD, NASA, Energy, Justice, EPA, 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SBA, FEMA, NSF, GSA, 
Agriculture, USTR, State, USAID, SSA, Education, and the 
Veterans Administration.
    b. Benefits.--GAO's individual reviews aided the 
congressional teams that were set up to examine specific agency 
strategic plans and consult with those agencies regarding the 
direction and implications of those plans. GAO's individual 
reviews were necessary especially in cases where the team was 
pressed for time in reviewing the draft plan itself or did not 
know the agencies programs in as great detail as the GAO. GAO 
also brought a great deal of expertise to their examination, 
which helped in many cases ask and answer important Results Act 
questions for the congressional teams.

                   Subcommittee on the Civil Service

1. Tax Administration: Lessons Learned From IRS' Initial Experience in 
        Redeploying Employees, January 9, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-24)
    a. Summary.--Thousands of Federal employees faced the 
possibility of losing their positions with the Internal Revenue 
Service [IRS] as a result of the agency's efforts to modernize 
its operations. The IRS developed a ``Redeployment 
Understanding'' in November 1993 after extensive negotiations 
with the National Treasury Employees Union [NTEU]. This 
agreement described procedures for filling vacancies through 
voluntary reassignments and seniority. Although this 
redeployment strategy was intended to facilitate the movement 
of employees whose positions were considered at risk, GAO found 
that, in the early stages, the redeployment strategy was used 
to move thousands of employees whose jobs were not in immediate 
jeopardy into positions that were expected to be needed in the 
new environment. GAO concluded that the ``Redeployment 
Understanding'' exacerbated the normal inefficiencies 
associated with such transitions by making many employees 
eligible for redeployment years before their jobs were expected 
to be eliminated and by not allowing IRS to fill jobs with 
people with related experience before bringing in volunteers 
from unrelated areas. Many employees cited concerns about the 
assistance provided to help employees find jobs.
    b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates the inefficiencies 
associated with premature redeployment strategies and documents 
ineffective operations with regard to IRS' personnel management 
practices. The costs associated with this premature and 
inefficient redeployment effort were exacerbated in November 
1997, when the IRS--after hearings in both chambers addressed 
major human resource management problems at the agency--
canceled the reduction in force that the redeployment strategy 
was designed to address. The report and subsequent events 
reinforce previous Federal and private experience that 
emphasize the importance of accomplishing significant 
organizational changes as quickly as possible in order to 
prevent expensive and inefficient coping strategies.
2. U.S. Customs Service: Varied Reaction to the Labor-Management 
        Partnership Concept, March 11, 1997 (GAO/T-GGD-97-54)
    a. Summary.--Both the Customs Service and the National 
Treasury Employees Union [NTEU] claimed that labor-management 
relations have improved at the agency since the institution of 
Executive Order 12871, creating ``partnership councils'' in 
Federal agencies. This testimony before the Committee on Ways 
and Means Subcommittee on Trade indicates that Customs had only 
begun to evaluate the results of the new relationship, and 
expected that 5 years would be necessary to make the 
partnership concept the agency's normal operating environment. 
The agency is still in the process of developing performance 
measures and an evaluation schedule for this major change in 
approach to human resource management during the agency's 
restructuring.
    b. Benefits.--This testimony reflects the length of time 
and intensity of planning commonly recognized as required to 
effect extensive organizational change. It confirms the 
challenges involved in implementing major initiatives, and is 
consistent with studies assessing the impact of corporate 
culture changes in the private sector.
3. Privatization: Lessons Learned By State and Local Governments, March 
        14, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-48)
    a. Summary.--This report to the House Republican Task Force 
discussed privatization efforts in Georgia, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, New York, and Virginia and the city of Indianapolis, 
IN. Governments in each of those jurisdictions had made 
extensive, recent use of privatization, primarily by increasing 
reliance on competition and contracting, rather than government 
employees. Each of the governments had tailored their 
approaches to privatization to local requirements, but GAO 
identified six lessons from their experiences. First, 
successful privatization requires effective political 
leadership. To be successful, privatization requires an 
effective organization that is committed to solid analysis of 
the conversion. Frequently, the changes will require 
legislative support. Those changes also need reliable cost data 
to support informed privatization. In approaching the 
transition, government organizations need to develop workforce 
transition strategies. GAO also contended that an agency needs 
to perform more sophisticated monitoring and oversight when its 
role in service delivery is reduced through privatization.
    b. Benefits.--This report provides a framework that can 
assist the subcommittee in examining any privatization plans 
and transition strategies that might be advanced by Federal 
agencies. It observed the important role that competition has 
played in successful State and local efforts to provide 
government employees continued opportunities to pursue their 
careers and highlighted the importance of effective transition 
planning for both the agencies and their affected employees.
4. GPRA: Managerial accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work 
        As Intended, April 10, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-36)
    a. Summary.--Through the Government Performance and Results 
Act (Result Act), Congress intended to shift agencies' 
perspectives from procedures and regulations to performance and 
results as they assess their operations. This report assessed 
pilot projects to evaluate whether managerial accountability 
and flexibility worked as intended in the pilot programs, and 
to identify lessons learned from these experiences with an eye 
toward government-wide application. These flexibilities did not 
work as intended in the seven departments and one independent 
agency that submitted 61 waiver proposals to the Office of 
Management and Budget [OMB]. OMB found that the waivers 
requested were not allowable for statutory or other reasons. 
For example, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, enacted 
after the Results Act, enacted new personnel ceilings for 
agencies that limited requests to waive those ceilings. Other 
waivers, however, were approved through the National 
Performance Review or other executive channels, resulting in a 
multitude of avenues to implement changes in organizations and 
limiting the extent to which changes could be attributed to the 
Results Act. Easier procedures, for example, facilitated the 
creation of 185 ``reinvention labs'' outside of the Results Act 
procedures. OMB was found to be slow in responding to waiver 
requests filed through Results Act procedures, thus favoring 
those organizations that used other channels. Agencies found 
that most benefits derived from preparing waiver requests under 
the Results Act resulted from recognizing that many of the 
burdensome requirements were imposed internally, rather than by 
oversight agencies or by statute. This assessment proved useful 
in developing flexibilities internally rather than through 
Results Act procedures.
    b. Benefits.--This report highlighted several of the 
internal factors that tend to limit organizational flexibility. 
It demonstrated that agencies can work toward improvements in 
their procedures through a variety of channels, and indicated 
that OMB was pursuing most changes through administrative 
mechanisms rather than the statutory waivers available under 
the Results Act.
5. Federal Retirement: Federal And Private Sector Retirement Programs 
        Vary, April 7, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-40)
    a. Summary.--This report describes the comparative features 
of the retirement benefit programs available to Federal 
employees and their private sector counterparts. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics' Data report thousands of retirement plans 
covering over 75 percent of full time employees in private 
firms with more than 100 employees. Although all private sector 
programs build on a Social Security base, employers offer 
varieties of defined benefit and defined contribution programs. 
Both GAO and the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] contracted 
with Watson Wyatt Worldwide, which has surveyed retirement 
programs at Fortune magazine's list of the 1,000 largest 
employers. Those data indicate that 70 percent of these 
employers combined defined benefit and defined contribution 
features in their retirement programs, comparable to the 
structure of the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS]. 
However, few private sector plans are structured to provide for 
an unreduced benefit at the completion of a 30-year career as 
early as age 55, a hallmark of most public sector retirement 
systems. When Federal employees retire at age 62, with 30 
years' service, their benefits are comparable with private 
sector retirees' total packages. Civil Service Retirement 
System [CSRS] employees who retire at 62 with 20 years of 
service receive annuities equal to approximately 36 percent of 
final salaries. This assumes no Thrift Savings Plan 
participation for these [CSRS] employees and no earned Social 
Security benefit from prior employment. This CSRS benefit is 
smaller than available to 63 percent of private programs with 
defined benefit and defined contribution components to their 
pension systems. It is also less than benefits available under 
the FERS package. FERS employees who retire after 20 years of 
service at age 62 receive about 66 percent of final salary, 
made up of a Social Security component, FERS defined benefit 
component, and withdrawals from a Thrift Savings Plan account. 
FERS employees retiring at 62 with 30 years of service receive 
annuities totaling approximately 81 percent of pre-retirement 
income. These projections, of course, differ with variable 
rates of participation in the Thrift Savings Plan and with 
salary levels.
    b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates that Federal 
retirement programs remain very attractive in comparison with 
those available to private sector employees. This report, 
however, did not provide a full and accurate portrayal of the 
level of benefits available to Federal employees. Its primary 
bases of comparison centered on people who retire at age 62, 
rather than those who retire at age 55, and the methodology 
section reflects that the private sector data base used for 
comparison did not include average age of retirement for 
private sector employees. Where Federal employees are eligible 
for full pensions at age 55 with 30 years service, those 
benefits did not get calculated in developing the comparison. 
Private sector retirees who leave their employers before age 62 
are not eligible for either Social Security benefits or other 
offsetting compensation comparable to that provided to FERS 
retirees until they reach age 62. The report, as a result, 
tends to understate the relative strength of the benefits of 
Federal employees in comparison with private sector 
counterparts.
6. Farm Service Agency: Additional Actions Needed to Address Employee 
        Conflict-of-Interest Issues, April 25, 1997 (GAO/RCED-97-104)
    a. Summary.--The creation of the Farm Service Agency [FSA] 
in 1994 consolidated programs of the Farmers Home 
Administration, many functions of the former Agricultural 
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and other agencies 
created the potential for conflicts of interest because it 
incorporated as Federal employees many people who had been 
participants in the Department of Agriculture's loan programs. 
FSA has been working to review cases where its employees have 
gained eligibility for loan programs and to identify cases 
requiring attention to avoid conflict of interest problems. As 
of September 30, 1996, about 414 of 16,300 FSA Federal and non-
Federal employees and about 1,209 of 8,150 county employees had 
4,089 FSA loans, with an outstanding principal that amounted to 
$265 million of the FSA's $16.9 billion portfolio. GAO 
recognized that FSA had made progress in identifying these 
situations, but concluded that it had not provided State 
offices with clear and consistent guidance to identify and 
resolve conflict of interest situations.
    b. Benefits.--This report is useful in describing potential 
vulnerabilities associated with the consolidation of agencies, 
especially in situations where responsibilities might result in 
conflicts of interest.
7. Federal Retirement: Comparison of High-3, 4, and 5 Salary Factors, 
        April 25, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-84R)
    a. Summary.--Until 1969, Federal employees' annuities were 
calculated on the basis of earnings in the 5 highest years of 
service (``high-5''). That year, the pension calculation 
formula was shifted to a ``high-3'' basis, and some analysts 
have speculated about the effects of reverting to the earlier 
standard. In an effort to assess the impact of modifying the 
high-3 salary factor currently used to calculate Federal 
pensions, the subcommittee chairman asked GAO to compare the 
pension calculations of current law with options involving a 
``high-4'' and a ``high-5'' factor. GAO created a variety of 
scenarios reflecting different age and service requirements 
applicable to CSRS and FERS employees at different grade and 
step levels. CSRS employees with 30 years service would have to 
work an additional 4 to 5 months to earn a comparable pension 
if a ``high-4'' calculation were adopted, and 7 to 9 additional 
months with a ``high-5'' formula in effect. For most employees, 
the ``high-4'' formula would result in a need to work an 
additional 3 to 4 months to earn an equivalent pension. These 
same employees would have to work an additional 5 to 8 months 
to gain an equivalent pension under a ``high-5'' standard.
    b. Benefits.--This report demonstrated that should the 
``high-3'' salary factor used in computing retirement benefits 
be changed, Federal employees could acquire identical 
retirement benefits with comparatively little additional 
service. Although no such change was included in the fiscal 
year 1998 Budget Reconciliation, this report provides a 
foundation for evaluating such proposals for consideration in 
the future.
8. The Excepted Service: A Research Profile, May 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-72)
    a. Summary.--Efforts to reinvent government and to respond 
to the Government Performance and Results Act, the Federal 
Workforce Restructuring Act, and other reform initiatives have 
frequently raised criticisms that cumbersome civil service 
procedures are leading obstacles in the path toward more 
effective and efficient government. This report documents that 
only 52 percent of Federal employees remain in the competitive 
civil service. The remaining 48 percent of Federal employees 
are in some variety of ``excepted service.'' GAO, however, 
could not provide a coherent framework for the ``exceptions'' 
that define this component of the Federal service. More than 
100 agencies employ some segments of excepted employees, but no 
accurate catalog of the exceptions has been compiled. Some 
agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, have had 
all employees excepted from major portions of title 5, while 
other agencies have only a few employees in such positions. GAO 
also was unable to develop a coherent rationale for the variety 
of exceptions that it found, and described most of them as 
responses to particular conditions defined by agencies. The 
staff study identified additional research that would be needed 
to clarify concerns about the variety of exceptions in Federal 
service.
    b. Benefits.--This staff study begins to define some of the 
criteria of the excepted service and to identify the extent of 
flexibilities already inherent in Federal management of 
personnel. The report falls short in not defining the range of 
exceptions nor the rationale for the exceptions that exist.
9. Federal Civilian Personnel: Cost of Lump-Sum Annual Payments to 
        Employees Separating From Government, May 29, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-
        100)
    a. Summary.--The Committee on the Budget requested GAO to 
review recent trends in Federal expenditures associated with 
paying lump-sum amounts reflecting the current value of accrued 
annual leave to Federal employees who separate from Government. 
Between 1985 and 1996, these payments averaged $595 million per 
year (in constant dollars), with a high of $700 million in 1992 
and a low of $355 million in 1991. GAO reported that OPM has 
not provided consistent guidance to agencies for paying these 
sums. Although Congress in 1992 granted OPM authority to issue 
regulations to promote consistency in these payments, those 
regulations remain in draft form. GAO reported a CBO estimate 
that agencies could realize $18 million in savings over 5 years 
by paying this leave at its value when the employee separates, 
rather than extending the payment period so that the employee 
benefits, for example, from a raise in pay at the start of the 
calendar year.
    b. Benefits.--This report highlighted another area of 
inefficient operations at OPM. It provides a basis for 
considering legislation to address reforms that might enhance 
savings and promote consistent administration where OPM has 
been unable to issue regulations over a period of 5 years after 
legislative authority was granted.
10. Federal Pensions: Judicial Survivors' Annuities System Costs and 
        Benefit Levels, June 27, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-87)
    a. Summary.--The Judicial Survivors' Annuities System 
provides annuities to surviving spouses and dependent children 
of deceased Federal judges and other participants in the 
system. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation increasing the 
benefits available through the system and reducing the 
contributions required of Federal judges to participate in it. 
That legislation required GAO to compare benefits available to 
judicial survivors to other Federal survivors' benefits and to 
determine the level of contributions that would be necessary to 
ensure that contributions provide one-half of the program's 
costs. Under current program requirements, participating judges 
contribute about 36 percent of the full normal cost of these 
benefits. Achieving the 50 percent level would require an 
increase of 0.9 percent to the 2.5 percent of pay currently 
contributed by active judges and the 3.5 percent of pay 
contributed by judges in senior status. GAO cautioned, however, 
that such increases could reduce participation rates, thus 
countering the legislative objective of increasing 
participation. This participation had declined from 90 percent 
in 1976 to 40 percent overall (and only 25 percent of new 
judges) in 1991. By 1995, participation rates had increased to 
67 percent of all judges and 73 percent of new appointees. GAO 
confirmed that these benefits are greater than those available 
to the majority of Federal employees.
    b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates the difficulties of 
designing benefit systems for people who enter Federal 
employment at advanced stages of their careers. The report 
confirms the obvious, that by making the benefit more 
attractive, the courts succeeded in increasing judges' 
participation rates. The attractiveness of the benefit, 
however, made it more difficult to maintain the system's 
financial reliance on the payroll tax base.
11. Federal Downsizing: Effective Buyout Practices and Their Use in 
        Fiscal Year-1997, June 30, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-124)
    a. Summary.--The Civil Service Subcommittee conducted 
hearings in 1995 and 1996, that demonstrated that the buyout 
program authorized by the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act 
of 1994, had been administered in a poorly-planned and 
inconsistent manner. In a June 6, 1996, hearing the 
subcommittee learned that OMB had allowed agencies to extend 
``reoffers of unused buyouts'' in a manner that violated the 
March 31, 1995 date terminating the program. As part of the 
reauthorization of buyouts written into the Omnibus Continuing 
Resolution of 1996, the Congress required a series of 
management controls intended to curb such abuses of the program 
in the future. In response to a request for oversight of these 
practices, GAO developed an inventory of 13 sound management 
practices, 10 of which were incorporated in the legislation 
extending buyouts for most non-Defense agencies to December 30, 
1997. GAO concluded that these management practices had 
resulted in better planning and implementation of the buyouts 
used by six agencies during fiscal year 1997 than had been the 
case in the previous 2 years.
    b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates the effectiveness of 
the subcommittee's oversight of this program in identifying 
weaknesses in the management of the first round of buyout 
programs, and in developing management criteria by which to 
evaluate subsequent activities in this area.
12. Federal Law Enforcement: Investigative Authority and Personnel at 
        32 Organizations, July 22, 1993 (GAO/GGD-97-93)
    a. Summary.--This report completes a series that the 
Judiciary Committee requested to ascertain the extent of law 
enforcement personnel at various agencies that perform an 
increasing variety of investigative and police functions. This 
report summarizes the personnel of 32 agencies employing 
between 25 and 699 law enforcement investigative personnel. The 
report identifies the range of authorities exercised by these 
individuals, including many in Inspectors General offices in 
these agencies. At the end of fiscal year 1996, these agencies 
employed 4,262 investigative personnel, a 70 percent increase 
since 1987.
    b. Benefits.--This report assists the subcommittee's 
efforts to monitor the growth of law enforcement personnel in 
Federal agencies and to assess the consequences for related 
Federal workforce planning.
13. Federal Downsizing: Buyouts at the Farm Service Agency, July 23, 
        1997 (GAO/GGD-97-133)
    a. Summary.--The Farm Service Agency was slated to reduce 
its workforce by 1,339 to accommodate staffing changes 
resulting from farm reform legislation. The agency conducted a 
cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate its perception that 
buyouts are a cheaper method of workforce reductions than RIFs, 
over a 5-year period, then used 926 buyouts for these 
separations. GAO observed, however, that buyouts were not 
necessary to separate retirement-eligible employees who were in 
offices that were scheduled to be closed. GAO also reported 
that 697 buyouts were paid to non-Federal county employees, 
less than anticipated because some overstaffed county offices 
did not receive enough applications. GAO could not confirm that 
the funds used for these buyouts had been diverted improperly 
from funds dedicated to conservation programs by law. The 
agency admitted that, with future buyout amounts reducing each 
year, the lower incentives were likely to make buyouts less 
attractive in the future.
    b. Benefits.--This report contributes to the subcommittee's 
efforts to monitor the workforce reduction strategies used by 
different agencies.
14. Federal Workforce: Agencies' Policies and Views on Flexiplace in 
        the Federal Government, July 3, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-116)
    a. Summary.--This report reviewed Federal efforts to 
promote flexiplace, including agencies' policies on flexiplace, 
to determine the extent to which Federal employees took 
advantage of this flexibility, ascertain whether agencies and 
unions identified barriers to the implementation of flexiplace, 
and determine whether agencies have witnessed difficulties 
implementing flexiplace. GAO reviewed 21 agency policies 
adopted consistent with the National Telecommuting Initiative 
Action Plan of 1996. Those plans covered nearly half of the 
employees that GAO visited, but found that about one-fourth of 
the personnel at these agencies were excluded from the 
flexiplace initiative for a variety of reasons. It reported 
that use of flexiplace has increased since 1993, with employee 
organizations identifying management resistance as the one 
barrier to expansion of the program. Agencies reported no 
difficulties implementing the program, but one manager noted a 
drop in productivity where it was used.
    b. Benefits.--This report provides a general oversight 
review of the operation of flexiplace so that the subcommittee 
can consider these effects as it addresses reauthorizing 
legislation in 1998.
15. Personnel Practices: Improper Personnel Actions on Selected CPSC 
        Appointments, June 27, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-131)
    a. Summary.--At the request of Subcommittee Chairman Mica, 
GAO investigated allegations of ``burrowing in'' at the 
Consumer Products Safety Commission [CPSC] received by the 
subcommittee. GAO found there was no ``burrowing in'' in the 
six instances covered by the allegations because the 
individuals involved did not convert from noncareer political 
appointments to career appointments. However, GAO did find 
irregular or improper personnel practices in each of the six 
instances. These improprieties included violations of veterans' 
preference, questionable awards of higher starting pay than 
usually allowed by law, and the questionable use of term 
appointments. GAO also investigated 20 other instances 
involving advanced rates of pay. Of those, it could only 
examine the Official Personnel Folders in 18. Its examination 
of those 18 revealed that advanced pay rates in 8 cases were 
based upon previous salary levels, 9 were based upon alleged 
superior qualifications, and the basis could not be determined 
in one instance. GAO could not find supporting documentation in 
four of the cases based upon superior qualifications.
    b. Benefits.--As a result of this investigation, OPM 
ordered the CPSC to take corrective actions. However, the 
inadequacy of the remedy directed for violations of veterans' 
preference rules--priority consideration for the next available 
similar position--highlights the need for the more effective 
redress mechanism for veterans contained in H.R. 240. Since 
CPSC received delegated hiring authority in 1996, this study 
also highlights the importance of increased oversight activity 
by OPM. As hiring and other personnel matters are 
decentralized, OPM must increase oversight governmentwide in 
order to ensure compliance with merit principles.
16. Pharmacy Benefit Managers: FEHBP Plans Satisfied With Savings and 
        Services, but Retail Pharmacies Have Concerns, February 21, 
        1997 (GAO/HEHS-97-47)
    a. Summary.--GAO examined the use by FEHBP plans of 
pharmacy benefit managers [PBM], which manage pharmacy benefits 
on behalf of plan sponsors. OPM estimates that about 9 million 
Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents are covered 
by the FEHBP, and approximately 58 percent of these enrollees 
were covered by a PBM. To conduct its investigation, GAO 
examined 3 FEHBP plans covering about 50 percent of all FEHBP 
employees and retirees that contract with one of the 6 largest 
PBMs. According to GAO, these plans estimate that PBMs saved 
them over $600 million in 1995, reducing the pharmacy benefit 
costs they otherwise would have incurred by 20-27 percent. The 
PBMs met most of their 1995 contract performance standards, and 
between 93 percent and 98 percent of those who responded to 
plans' customer satisfaction surveys were satisfied with their 
pharmacy benefits. Retail pharmacists, however, are concerned 
about the loss of business. GAO reports that Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield's 1996 benefit change, which encouraged the use of a 
mail order pharmacy, reduced affected enrollees' payments to 
retail pharmacies by 36 percent, or about $95 million. Total 
payments to retail pharmacies for all enrollees declined by 7 
percent, or about $34 million. Officials of PBMs and 
participating plans, as well as other industry experts, did 
agree that future efforts to impose additional controls on 
pharmacy costs could require more restrictive cost-containment 
procedures, limit enrollees' access to drugs and pharmacy 
services, and lessen enrollees' satisfaction with their 
pharmacy benefits.
    b. Benefits.--This report, as well as previous GAO studies, 
provide a useful framework for analyzing the role and impact of 
mail order pharmacies in the FEHBP.
17. Federal Pensions: Relationship Between Retiree Pensions and Final 
        Salaries, GAO/GGD-97-156 (August 11, 1997)
    a. Summary.--In fiscal year 1996, civilian employee pension 
benefits were one of the largest mandatory spending programs, 
excluding interest on the public debt. Nearly $40 billion in 
payments were made to 2.3 million retirees and survivors. Based 
upon its examination of data on a sample of Federal retirees, 
GAO estimated that about 27 percent of the 1.7 million retirees 
on the rolls as of October 1, 1995 receive pensions that exceed 
their final salaries. However, when the retirees' final 
salaries were adjusted for inflation, no retiree was receiving 
a pension greater than his final salary. GAO maintained that 
the use of constant dollars yields more meaningful results 
because it corrects for the effects of inflation or deflation. 
According to GAO, three factors played an important role in 
explaining why retirees' pensions grew to exceed their final 
salaries: the number and size of cost of living adjustments 
[COLAs] that retirees received, the number of years they had 
been retired, and their years of Federal service. The longer 
annuitants have been retired, explains GAO, the more COLAs they 
would have received and the more likely their annuity would 
exceed their final salary. Likewise, the longer an annuitant 
worked for the Federal Government the more likely his pension 
will exceed his final salary. This is because the initial 
pension of a retiree with many years of service would have 
equaled a higher percentage of his final salary than one with 
few years of service. Thus, it would take fewer years to close 
the gap. GAO also concluded that COLA policies have had an 
important impact on the size of Federal pensions, but that the 
effects cannot be summarized easily because of numerous changes 
in COLA policies over the past 35 years. GAO did conclude, 
however, that, other things being equal, a majority of those 
who retired before 1970, when COLA policies overcompensated for 
inflation, would have smaller pensions if current COLA policy 
had been in effect over the entire period of time. But about 90 
percent of those who retired after 1970 would have received 
larger pensions. GAO also points out that COLAs, which compound 
over time, permanently affect the size of an individual's 
annuity.
    b. Benefits.--This report will be useful in comparing the 
generosity of the Federal retirement systems with private 
sector pension plans, particularly considering automatic COLA 
provisions. Private pension plans do not typically provide 
annual, automatic COLAs.
18. Federal Pensions: Relationship Between Pensions and Final Salaries 
        for Retired Members of Congress, (GAO/GGD-97-156)
    a. Summary.--The research for this report was performed in 
connection with the previous study described in section 17 
above, and much of the analysis parallels that study's. 
However, the results were reported separately. GAO found that 
76, or roughly 19 percent, of the former Members of Congress on 
the rolls as of October 1, 1995, received pensions greater than 
their final salaries. When final salaries were adjusted for 
inflation, however, only one former Member's pension exceeded 
his final salary. That Member had an unusual salary history. 
GAO identified the same factors described in the previous study 
to explain why these pensions were higher than final salaries. 
In addition, GAO identified an additional factor: whether the 
former Member elected survivor annuity benefits, which reduces 
the amount of the principle annuity. The percentage of former 
Members whose pensions exceed their final salaries would have 
increased by two points if current COLA policy had been in 
effect during the entire period.
    b. Benefits.--This report, in connection with the previous 
report, will be useful in comparing the generosity of the 
Federal retirement systems with private sector pension plans.
19. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Employer's Experiences With ADR in 
        the Workplace, GAO/GGD-97-157 (August 12, 1997)
    a. Summary.--GAO examined the use of Alternative Dispute 
Resolution [ADR] procedures by private companies and Federal 
agencies. GAO determined that many private companies and 
Federal agencies have used ADR to avoid more formal processes, 
such as lawsuits and the administrative procedures available to 
Federal employees. Several factors contributed to the use of 
ADR. Traditional processes have become increasingly costly, in 
both time and money, especially since the number of 
discrimination complaints rose sharply in the early 1990s. New 
laws and regulatory changes also have encouraged use of ADR. In 
addition, ADR often focuses on disputant's underlying interests 
rather than on the legal validity of their positions in a 
specific matter.
    GAO identified 5 main ADR techniques available in both 
private and Federal sectors: ombudsmen; mediation; peer panels; 
management review and dispute resolution boards; and 
arbitration. In 1994, about 52 percent of private companies 
reported having some form of ADR for discrimination complaints 
in place. But, according to EEOC surveys, only 31 percent of 75 
Federal agencies covered made ADR available, a figure that had 
grown to 49 percent of 87 agencies covered in a 1996 survey. 
However, GAO determined that ADR use was not pervasive, or even 
widespread, in agencies that reported having some ADR 
capability.
    Private companies generally reported employing a wider 
variety of ADR methods than did Federal agencies. About 80 
percent of private firms using ADR used mediation, 39 percent 
used peer review panels, and about 19 percent used arbitration. 
Most Federal agencies used only mediation.
    No comprehensive data were available on ADR results in the 
private and Federal sectors. However, experts and officials at 
organizations using ADR generally considered it to be 
successful in resolving workplace disputes without resorting to 
more formal procedures. They also believed that avoiding 
litigation or more formal redress processes produced savings.
    With one exception, the five companies and five agencies 
GAO studied as case illustrations reported varied but generally 
positive experiences with ADR. The Department of Agriculture 
was the only one finding serious flaws with its ADR program. 
Officials with 9 of these 10 organizations said they had made 
efforts to involve employees in developing their ADR programs, 
to train key participants, and to publicize their ADR programs 
throughout their organizations. Private companies had more 
flexibility than Federal agencies in adopting ADR practices, 
especially arbitration, not available to the Federal workforce.
    Most of the organizations studied did not comprehensively 
evaluate the results of their ADR programs or the time and cost 
savings they may have generated. However, the data available 
appeared to show that all forms of ADR contributed to resolving 
workplace disputes. Mediation appeared to be particularly 
successful, resolving a high percentage of disputes in all but 
one organization. No companies and only two agencies reported 
data on time savings. Both agencies indicated that ADR lowered 
the time necessary to resolve disputes by one-third to one-
half. Only one company and one agency had evaluated cost 
savings. The company reported that the overall cost of dealing 
with employment disputes, including the cost of ADR, was less 
than half what the company had spent on legal fees for 
employment-related lawsuits. The agency concluded it was not 
clear whether ADR was less costly than the traditional EEO 
process when settlements were factored in.
    GAO reported the following lessons from its study: the 
importance of top management commitment in establishing and 
maintaining the program, the importance of involving employees 
in developing the program, the advantages of intervening in the 
early stages of disputes, the necessity to balance the desire 
to settle and close cases with the need for fairness to all 
concerned, and that ADR can help managers improve their 
understanding of the roots of conflict in their organizations.
    b. Benefits.--This study will greatly assist the 
subcommittee as it continues to examine ways to encourage the 
use of ADR to simplify and streamline the appellate procedures 
available to Federal employees.
20. Personnel Practices: Career Appointments of Former Political and 
        Congressional Employees, GAO/GGD-97-165 (September 2, 1997)
    a. Summary.--GAO examined appointments of former political 
appointees and legislative branch employees to career positions 
in the executive branch at or above GS-13 between January 1996 
and March 1997. GAO was asked to determine whether agencies 
used appropriate authorities and followed proper procedures in 
making such appointments and whether, the circumstances 
surrounding such appointments created the appearance of 
favoritism or preferential treatment. According to this report, 
18 agencies appointed a total of 36 former political appointees 
and legislative branch employees during this period. In all 
cases, GAO found the agencies used appropriate authorities and 
complied with proper procedures. However, GAO also determined 
that six appointments could create the appearance of favoritism 
or preferential treatment. In two of these cases, the agencies 
appeared to tailor the qualifications required of applicants to 
fit the political appointees selected. In two other cases, 
political appointees obtained career positions to which they 
had been reassigned shortly after receiving their political 
appointments, raising questions as to whether their initial 
political appointments were mere subterfuges. In the fifth 
case, the then-Chief of Staff to the OPM Director obtained a 
career SES appointment to the position of Director, Partnership 
Center. The Chief of Staff had been instrumental in 
establishing the position, and he was selected for the position 
by the OPM Director. His appointment surprised high ranking 
agency officials because of its potential for creating negative 
public perceptions. The sixth case involved a Schedule C 
political appointee, who had served as a GS-15 Special 
Assistant to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, who secured an 
appointment to a career SES appointment as Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Congressional Affairs. This position was 
advertised three times. The political appointee did not apply 
under the first two announcements. Rather, he served on the 
panels that rated the applications received under those 
announcements. The political appointee applied under the third 
announcement and was selected.
    b. Benefits.--The high-level conversions revealed by this 
report illustrate the need for legislative restrictions on the 
ability of political appointees to secure career appointments. 
Currently, political appointees are not barred from ``burrowing 
in'' to career positions during the administration in which 
they were appointed. When political appointees convert to 
career status under these circumstances, both the public and 
the Federal workforce often reasonably conclude that 
favoritism, not merit, is behind the selection, thus 
undercutting the merit system. In addition, the appointment of 
political appointees who owe their jobs to political allegiance 
to a particular administration into career positions is 
incompatible with the very idea of a permanent, apolitical 
career workforce. The subcommittee intends to consider 
legislation to curb the practice of converting political 
appointees to career status.
21. Federal Labor Relations: Survey of Official Time Used for Union 
        Activities, GAO/GGD-97-182R (September 30, 1997)
    a. Summary.--This study was undertaken in order to 
determine the extent to which Federal employee unions use 
Federal resources to conduct union business. During the 104th 
Congress, the Subcommittee on the Civil Service held hearings 
on taxpayer subsidies for Federal unions, examining selected 
agencies. That hearing revealed that Federal agencies typically 
provide taxpayer-provided resources (e.g., as paid time for 
union work, office space, office equipment, and supplies) to 
unions and that the amount of this subsidy has increased 
dramatically under the current administration. In an effort to 
develop a more complete picture, GAO surveyed 34 agencies that 
employed approximately 87 percent of Federal employees 
represented by a union. Agencies were asked to provide the 
following information for fiscal years 1989 through 1996: the 
amount of official time used by employees for union activities, 
the number of employees using official time, the number of 
employees who spent all of their time on union activities, the 
dollar value of time used for union activities, the dollar 
value of travel used for union activities, the dollar value of 
office space and related items, and the benefits and 
disadvantages, according to the agencies, of using official 
time for union activities. Most of the agencies responding to 
the survey did not provide comprehensive data on resources used 
for union activities. None provided data for all 8 of the 
fiscal years covered by the survey. In some cases, agencies 
provided data for only portions of fiscal years or on a 
calendar-year basis. Fifteen agencies provided information on 
official time during at least 1 of the fiscal years covered. 
Twelve reported a total of 1,028,544 hours of official time for 
fiscal year 1996. Overall, GAO concluded, the data received 
were insufficient to portray the total amount of resources 
these agencies used for union activities. Some of the Federal 
agencies said that use of official time (1) improved labor-
management relations, (2) decreased the number of grievances, 
and (3) helped with the implementation of organizational 
changes. However, the disadvantage cited by some agencies was 
that use of official time caused employees to set aside their 
regular work.
    b. Benefits.--GAO's work demonstrated the need for greater 
control and accountability in the use of official time and 
other Federal resources for union activities. It also provides 
useful information for evaluating H.R. 986, the Workplace 
Integrity Act, and other legislative proposals for controlling 
expenditures for official time. This study, and previous 
investigations by this subcommittee and the Social Security 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, indicate that 
tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to 
subsidize Federal unions. (Assuming that individuals on 
official time in 1996 earned the average pay rate for that 
year, the dollar value of the official time reported by only 12 
agencies was $20,795,119.) However, because agencies are not 
required to accurately record or report the use of official 
time and other resources provided to unions, it is difficult to 
quantify the full extent of this subsidy. Since these costs are 
unknown it becomes impossible to determine whether the 
purported benefits of official time and other union subsidies 
outweigh the costs. At the request of this subcommittee, GAO is 
developing more detailed estimates of the total costs of 
Federal resources used by unions. At the same time, the House 
report on the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1998 directed OPM to collect detailed information on the 
use of Federal resources to subsidize unions during the first 6 
months of 1998.
22. Private Pensions: Plan Features Provided By Employers That Sponsor 
        Only Defined Contribution Plans, GAO/GGD-98-23, (December 1, 
        1997)
    a. Summary.--This report describes patterns in private 
sector defined contribution plans' (1) eligibility requirements 
for employee participation, (2) arrangements for employer and 
participant contributions, (3) eligibility requirements for 
employee rights to accrued benefits, (4) employee investment 
options, (5) loan and other provisions for participant access 
to plan assets while still employed, and (6) options for 
withdrawal of benefits upon separation or retirement. It also 
compares features of these private plans with the Thrift 
Savings Plan [TSP] available to Federal employees. GAO 
concluded that the designs of the 3,297 employers with 100 or 
more employees that sponsored only single-employer plans varied 
so greatly that no single design could be identified as a 
``typical'' defined contribution plan.
    Eligibility requirements: Employers generally established 
requirements employees must meet before participating in their 
plans. In 1993, 51 percent of employers required their 
employees to meet a combination of age and service 
requirements--usually age 21 and 1 year of service. Of the 100 
larger employers with 10,000 or more employees, 55 percent 
reported that employees must meet length of service 
requirements, generally 1 year of service, with no age 
requirement. Under the TSP, newly hired employees covered by 
FERS must have from 6 to 12 months of Federal service to be 
eligible.
    Contribution arrangements: Almost all of the employers 
provided for employer contributions to the plan rather than 
require participants to fully fund their own pensions. Most 
commonly, employers made automatic, or nonmatching, 
contributions to the plan with no participant contributions 
required or permitted. Larger employers were more likely to 
allow participants to contribute to their plans on a pretax 
basis, generally in an arrangement similar to the TSP, in which 
the employer makes both nonmatching and matching contributions, 
and employees are able to make pretax contributions. Slightly 
more than half of employers that permit employees' pretax 
contributions (and 60 percent of larger employers) allowed 
employees to contribute more than 10 percent of their salaries. 
Federal employee contributions to the TSP are limited to 10 
percent of their basic pay. GAO was unable to determine the 
maximum employer contribution for the vast majority of private 
plans. However, where GAO could make that determination, the 
maximum contribution ranged from 5 percent to 6 percent of 
participants' pay. The government's maximum contribution under 
the TSP is 5 percent, which matches the participant's first 5 
percent of contributions.
    Vesting requirements: By law, participants own their own 
contributions (and earnings on those contributions). But 
employers generally establish minimum service requirements 
employees must satisfy to obtain title to employer 
contributions. Employees usually must work longer to vest in 
nonmatching contributions than in matching contributions. 
However, about one-third of the employers provided for 
immediate vesting of matching contributions, and one-eighth 
provide immediate vesting of nonmatching contributions. Larger 
employers were more likely to use immediate vesting for 
matching and nonmatching contributions. Under the TSP, Federal 
employees vest immediately in matching contributions and after 
3 years of service in the 1 percent nonmatching contribution.
    Investment options: A majority of employers who described 
the investment options available provided at least 4 investment 
options. These frequently included: employer stock, stock 
mutual funds, and bond mutual funds. Federal employees in the 
TSP may currently choose from 3 options--a nonmarketable 
government securities fund, a common stock index fund, and a 
diversified bond fund. Within 2 to 3 years, two additional 
options will be added, an international fund and a small 
company stock fund.
    Loans and withdrawals: Nearly two-thirds of the employers 
permitted employees to access a portion of their accounts 
before separation from employment. Half allowed participants to 
borrow from their accounts up to certain legal limits, and some 
allowed participants to withdraw some or all of their own 
contributions, usually in the event of a personal financial 
hardship. Larger employers were somewhat more likely to allow 
participants to borrow from their accounts or make financial 
hardship withdrawals. But they were less likely to allow 
withdrawals in the absence of financial hardship. The TSP 
includes a loan program and allows participants to make 
hardship withdrawals and a one-time withdrawal at age 59\1/2\ 
or later without separating from Federal service.
    Withdrawal options upon separation or retirement: Nearly 
all employers permitted employees to take their account 
balances as a lump-sum distribution when they retire. Two 
thirds permit withdrawals in even installments over a specified 
period, and about half provide the option of a lifetime 
annuity. Larger employers were less likely to permit 
installment or annuity options. The same options were generally 
available to employees who separated for reasons other than 
retirement, but most of these employees could also elect to 
defer withdrawals. The TSP allows employees to choose lump-sum 
distributions, installment payments, or an annuity. Federal 
employees may also defer withdrawal until the year after they 
turn 70\1/2\ years old.
    About 12 percent of the approximately 490,000 employers 
with 2 or more employees that sponsored only single-employer 
defined contribution plans also sponsored more than one such 
plan for the same groups of employees. Employers with less than 
100 employees were more likely to sponsor multiple plans. 
Experts GAO consulted suggested that smaller employers might be 
better able to sponsor multiple plans than larger employers. 
But larger employers might be more likely to sponsor additional 
plans in order to compete with other employers.
    GAO concluded that private employers design their pension 
programs to control costs, maximize Federal tax incentives, and 
comply with ERISA, while structuring their compensation and 
benefits to support their overall business and financial goals.
    b. Benefits.--The information in this study will be useful 
as the subcommittee reviews potential changes to the structure 
of Federal employee retirement plans.

   Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

1. ``Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA 
        Implementation.'' March 27, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-46
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to investigate 
the likely effectiveness of the Government Performance and 
Results Act [GPRA] based on input from previous public and 
private sector experiences. Using the lessons learned from 
these experiences, the subcommittee was able to direct the 
Office of Management and Budget and the Federal agencies in 
more profitable directions.
    b. Benefits.--Since 1950, the Federal Government has 
attempted several government-wide initiatives designed to 
better align spending decisions with expected performance, 
commonly known as ``performance budgeting.'' Congress enacted 
the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993 to improve 
the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of Federal 
programs by having agencies focus on program results. In this 
way, GPRA can be viewed as the most recent effort to closely 
link resources to performance expectations.
    Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the 
implementation of GPRA. Its report compares and contrasts the 
key design elements and approaches of GPRA with those of past 
initiatives to identify past lessons that have been 
incorporated into GPRA and issues that continue to pose 
significant challenges to successful implementation.
    GAO noted that: (1) in its overall structure, focus, and 
approach, GPRA incorporates critical lessons learned from 
previous efforts, but many of the same issues encountered in 
previous initiatives remain and will likely pose significant 
challenges if GPRA is to achieve its aim of better linking 
resource decisions to performance levels; (2) where past 
efforts failed to link executive branch performance planning 
and measurement with congressional resource allocation 
processes, GPRA requires explicit consultation between the 
executive and legislative branches on agency strategic plans; 
(3) past initiatives' experiences suggest that efforts to link 
resources with results must begin in the planning phase with 
some fundamental understanding about program goals; (4) where 
past initiatives devised unique performance information formats 
often unconnected to the structures used in congressional 
budget presentations, GPRA requires agencies to plan and 
measure performance using the ``program activities'' listed in 
their budget submissions; (5) where past initiatives were 
generally unprepared for the difficulties associated with 
measuring the outcomes of Federal programs and often retreated 
to simple output or workload measures, GPRA states a preference 
for outcome measurement while recognizing the need to develop a 
range of measures; (6) GAO's discussions with selected 
legislative staff and agency officials revealed fundamental 
differences in perspectives and expectations that are often a 
necessary consequence of the system of separated powers; (7) 
past initiatives often foundered because no mechanism existed 
to reconcile or even to address these legitimate, but at times 
competing, views; (8) GPRA, through required consultations and 
formal, public documents, is intended to encourage an explicit 
and periodic exchange of views between the branches; (9) GPRA 
differs from prior initiatives in that past performance 
budgeting initiatives were typically implemented governmentwide 
within a single annual budget cycle, while GPRA defines a multi 
year and iterative governmentwide implementation process that 
incorporates pilot tests and formal evaluations of key 
concepts; and (10) GPRA also differs from prior initiatives in 
that it will face an operating environment unknown to its 
predecessors: persistent efforts to constrain spending.
2. ``GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work 
        As Intended,'' April 10, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-36
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to investigate 
the success of the Government Performance and Results Act 
authorized pilot tests. GAO was asked to investigate these 
pilots in order for the subcommittee to make recommendations 
regarding the extension of GPRA flexibility provisions to other 
agencies. Based upon the results to date the subcommittee does 
not recommend extension of GPRA flexibility pilots or 
provisions to other agencies.
    b. Benefits.--Congress intended for the Government 
Performance and Results Act to fundamentally shift the focus of 
Federal managers from processes to outcomes and results. In 
crafting GPRA, Congress recognized that if Federal managers 
were to be held accountable for achieving results, they would 
need the authority and flexibility to achieve those results. 
GPRA provides for a series of pilot projects so that Federal 
agencies can gain experience in using the act's provisions and 
provide lessons to other agencies before GPRA's implementation 
governmentwide. One set of these GPRA projects focused on 
managerial accountability and flexibility. This report (1) 
determines whether the managerial accountability and 
flexibility pilot worked as intended and the reasons why it did 
or did not, and (2) identifies the lessons learned from this 
pilot and their possible implications for the governmentwide 
implementation of GPRA.
    GAO noted that: (1) the GPRA managerial accountability and 
flexibility pilot did not work as intended; (2) the Office of 
Management and Budget [OMB] did not designate any of the 7 
departments and 1 independent agency that submitted a total of 
61 waiver proposals as GPRA managerial accountability and 
flexibility pilots; (3) three major factors contributed to the 
failure of GPRA's managerial accountability and flexibility 
pilot phase to work as intended: first, changes in Federal 
management practices and laws that occurred after GPRA was 
enacted affected agencies' need for the GPRA process; second, 
GPRA was not the only means by which agencies could receive 
waivers from administrative requirements, and thereby obtain 
needed managerial flexibility; third, OMB did not work actively 
with agencies that were seeking to take part in the managerial 
accountability and flexibility pilot, in contrast to its more 
proactive posture toward other GPRA requirements, such as the 
pilots for the performance planning and reporting requirements; 
(4) overall, officials in five of the eight agencies that 
submitted a waiver proposal to OMB said that they never 
received feedback from OMB on the status of their waiver 
proposals, notification of specific concerns that OMB may have 
had about the quality and scope of the proposals, or, most 
important, explicit instructions from OMB on how their 
proposals could be improved to better meet OMB's expectations; 
(5) even though the pilot process did not result in any GPRA-
authorized waivers and thus did not work as intended, the 
process provided lessons for agencies and may have important 
implications for governmentwide GPRA implementation; (6) while 
preparing their waiver requests, several participating agencies 
learned that the burdens and constraints that confronted their 
managers often were imposed by the agency itself or its parent 
department and were not the result of requirements imposed by 
central management agencies; (7) the administration's effort to 
develop Federal management ``templates'' that, in part, 
document the range of flexibility agencies have under existing 
central management agency requirements is a promising means for 
disseminating knowledge about available flexibility among 
Federal agencies; and (8) in addition, the pilot experience 
should provide useful information for Congress to consider as 
GPRA is implemented governmentwide.
3. ``Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring 
        Performance,'' May 30, 1997, GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing focusing on 
the second phase, performance plans, of the Government 
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. After agency strategic 
plans are delivered in September 1997, the agencies will 
deliver performance plans in February 1998. The performance 
plans will require the agencies to collect and report on data 
that they had not previously tracked. The subcommittee 
identified problems that agencies will encounter and made 
relevant recommendations. The subcommittee encouraged the 
agencies to take these GPRA requirements quite seriously and to 
develop meaningful performance plans for both agency management 
and congressional oversight.
    b. Benefits.--The Government Performance and Results Act 
requires agencies to identify program goals and report on their 
progress in achieving them. GPRA includes a phase during which 
about 70 programs, ranging from the U.S. Geological Survey's 
National Water Quality Assessment Program to the entire Social 
Security Administration, were designated as GPRA pilot 
projects. These and other Government programs have been gaining 
experience with the act's requirements. GPRA requires GAO to 
review implementation of the pilot phase and to comment on the 
prospects for compliance by Federal agencies when 
governmentwide implementation begins. This report answers the 
following questions: What analytic and technical challenges are 
agencies experiencing as they try to measure program 
performance? What approaches have they taken to address these 
challenges? How have agencies made use of program evaluations 
or evaluation expertise in implementing performance 
measurement?
    GAO noted that: (1) the programs included in GAO's review 
encountered a wide range of serious challenges; (2) 93 percent 
of the officials GAO surveyed reported at least one challenge 
as a great or very great challenge, and some were not very far 
along in implementing the steps required by the Results Act; 
(3) 8 of the 10 tasks rated most challenging emerged in the two 
relatively early stages of the performance measurement process, 
identifying goals and developing performance measures; (4) in 
developing both goals and performance measures, respondents 
found it difficult to move beyond a summary of their program's 
activities, such as the number of clients served, to 
distinguish the desired outcome or result of those activities; 
(5) sometimes selecting an outcome measure was impeded, 
instead, by conflicting stakeholder views of the program's 
intended results or by anticipated data collection problems; 
(6) issues in the data collection stage were rated as less 
serious and revolved around the programs' lack of control over 
data that third parties collected, but programs may have 
avoided some data issues through selection of measures for 
which data already existed; (7) the greatest challenge in the 
analysis and reporting stage was separating a program's impact 
on its objectives from the impact of external factors, 
primarily because many Federal programs' objectives are the 
result of complex systems or phenomena outside the program's 
control; (8) in such cases, it is particularly challenging for 
agencies to confidently attribute changes in outcomes to their 
program, the central task of program impact evaluation; (9) the 
programs GAO reviewed had applied a range of analytic and other 
strategies to address these challenges; (10) because they had 
either volunteered to be GPRA pilots or had already begun 
implementing performance measurement, the programs included in 
GAO's review were likely to be better suited or prepared for 
conducting performance measurement than most Federal programs; 
and (11) the challenges experienced by the projects that are 
pilot testing the act's requirements suggest that: (a) more 
typical Federal programs may find performance measurement to be 
an even greater challenge, particularly if they do not have 
access to program evaluation or other technical resources; and 
(b) full-scale implementation will require several iterations 
to develop valid, reliable, and useful performance reporting 
data systems.
4. ``The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Government-wide 
        Implementation Will be Uneven,'' June 2, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-109
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing on the 
Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] to pressure the 
agencies to improve the quality of their strategic plans. Draft 
versions of agency strategic plans are required by GPRA to be 
drafted in consultation with Congress. The subcommittee made 
sure that the agencies fully understood their obligations to 
Congress; that the agencies understood the six legally required 
topics; that agency plans would be considered in appropriations 
and authorizing decisions; and that Congress would look 
unfavorably upon strategic plans that were not both substantive 
and realistic.
    b. Benefits.--GAO found that implementation of the 
Government Performance and Results Act has so far yielded mixed 
results, which will lead to highly uneven government-wide 
implementation in the fall of 1997. Some agencies, such as the 
Social Security Administration and the Veterans Health 
Administration, have already seen significant performance 
improvements after they adopted a disciplined approach to 
setting goals, measuring performance, and using performance 
information to improve effectiveness. In general, however, 
substantial performance improvements at Federal agencies have 
been relatively few, and many agencies seemed ill prepared to 
answer the fundamental question posed by the act: What are we 
accomplishing? Agencies face various challenges to implementing 
the act, some of which will not be resolved quickly. One set of 
challenges arises from the complications of Government 
structure and from program proliferation. Others involve 
methodological difficulties in identifying performance measures 
or the lack of data needed to establish goals and assess 
performance.
    GAO noted that: (1) GPRA's implementation has achieved 
mixed results; (2) while agencies are likely to meet the 
upcoming statutory deadlines for producing initial strategic 
plans and annual performance plans, those documents will not be 
of a consistently high quality or as useful for congressional 
and agency decisionmaking as they could be; (3) the Office of 
Management and Budget selected over 70 performance planning and 
reporting pilots that far exceeded the number required by GPRA 
and that should provide a rich body of experience for agencies 
to draw on in the future; (4) the experiences of some of GPRA's 
pilot agencies and related efforts by nonpilot agencies showed 
that significant performance improvements were possible, even 
in the short term, when an agency adopted a disciplined 
approach to setting results-oriented goals, measuring its 
performance, and using performance information to improve 
effectiveness; (5) however, the reported examples of 
substantial performance improvements were relatively few; (6) 
one set of challenges to effectively implementing GPRA arises 
from the complications of government structure and from program 
proliferation; (7) others involve methodological difficulties 
in identifying performance measures or the lack of data needed 
to establish goals and assess performance; (8) the following 
are among the challenges that GAO observed: (a) overlapping and 
fragmented crosscutting program efforts present the logical 
need to coordinate efforts to ensure that goals are consistent 
and, as appropriate, that programs efforts are mutually 
reinforcing; (b) the often limited or indirect influence that 
the Federal Government has in determining whether a desired 
result is achieved complicates the effort to identify and 
measure the discrete contribution of the Federal initiative to 
a specific program result; (c) the lack of results-oriented 
performance information in many agencies hampers efforts to 
identify appropriate goals and confidently assess performance; 
(d) instilling within agencies an organizational culture that 
focuses on results remains a work in progress across the 
Federal Government; and (e) linking agencies' performance plans 
directly to the budget process may present significant 
difficulties.
    Finally, GAO believes that GPRA's success or failure should 
not be judged on the strategic plans for the first year. 
Rather, it will take several years for Federal agency strategic 
plans to fulfill congressional intent.
5. ``Managing for Results: Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant 
        Barriers to Focusing on Results,'' June 24, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-83
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing focusing on 
implementation difficulties of the Government Performance and 
Results Act. GAO was asked to study five regulatory agencies in 
depth and analyze any difficulties they were encountering. The 
subcommittee was able to make these difficulties known so they 
could be addressed early and presumably rectified before agency 
plans were delivered to OMB and Congress. Further, the 
subcommittee made recommendations for OMB and agency management 
actions to overcome these implementation difficulties as soon 
as possible.
    b. Benefits.--The Government Performance and Results Act 
seeks to boost the performance of Federal agencies by focusing 
on program performance and measuring results. Because 
establishing results-oriented goals and performance measures 
will not be easy, GPRA provides for a phased implementation 
period. Beginning in fiscal year 1994 and extending over 
several years, agencies are to develop strategic goals, 
identify performance measures, and by fiscal year 1999 
implement annual results-oriented performance reports linked to 
budget requests. The President has directed regulatory agencies 
to change the way they measure their performance and to focus 
on results. This report focuses on the efforts of five agencies 
to focus on results: the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Food 
and Drug Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency. GAO describes the (1) five 
agencies' strategic goals and related program performance 
measures as well as employee performance standards as of 
January 1997; (2) extent to which agency officials and GAO 
believe that these goals, program performance measures, and 
employee performance standards focus on results; and (3) aids 
and barriers that agency officials said that they faced in 
trying to focus on results.
    GAO noted that: (1) as would be expected in the early 
stages of implementing a new and difficult initiative, GAO 
observed that some of the five regulatory agencies were further 
along in the development of strategic goals, program 
performance measures, and employee performance standards than 
others; (2) the agencies also varied in the degree to which 
their goals, associated sets of program performance measures, 
and employee performance standards that were in use as of 
January 1, 1997, focused on results as judged by both agency 
officials and GAO; (3) in this regard, it is important to note 
that although GPRA was intended to encourage agencies to focus 
their goals and measures on results, the act does not require 
that all of an agency's goals or performance measures be 
explicitly results-oriented; (4) similarly, the President's 
directive to orient frontline regulators' performance standards 
toward results does not appear to require that every standard 
be results-oriented; (5) there were differences in the extent 
to which agency officials characterized their goals, program 
performance measures, and employee performance standards as 
``results-oriented'' and the extent to which GAO did; (6) in 
general, agencies frequently concluded that their goals, 
measures, and standards were more results-oriented than GAO 
did; (7) at the broader and more conceptual level of strategic 
goals, there were relatively few differences between agency 
officials' assessments of the extent of results-orientation and 
GAO's; (8) in enacting GPRA, Congress realized that the 
transition to results-oriented management would not be easy; 
(9) for that reason, the act provided for a phased approach to 
implementation, during which time agencies have been able to 
identify the obstacles that need to be overcome and some 
factors they found helpful; (10) the factor that agency 
officials most commonly said aided the establishment of a 
results-orientation in the agencies was the enactment of GPRA; 
(11) although agency officials identified some aids to focusing 
their agencies on results, they cited numerous barriers to 
their efforts to establish results oriented goals and measures; 
(12) these barriers included significant problems in 
identifying and collecting the data they needed to demonstrate 
their agencies' results; and, (13) agencies also cited as a 
barrier the fact that the diverse and complex factors affect 
agencies' results, and their lack of control or influence over 
external events and factors.
6. ``Managing For Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission 
        Fragmentation and Program Overlap,'' August 29, 1997, GAO/AIMD-
        97-146
    a. Summary.--Congress is particularly interested in 
comparing ``bang for the buck'' for duplicate programs. GAO was 
asked to study how the Government Performance and Results Act 
could be used to address this need. GPRA, if implemented as 
intended by Congress, can deliver the required performance and 
related cost information that Congress needs to compare the 
relative desirability of duplicate and overlapping programs. 
The subcommittee made recommendations to OMB and the Federal 
Departments and agencies that facilitate the correct 
implementation of GPRA. Further, the subcommittee made 
recommendations to congressional authorization and 
appropriation committees to seriously consider the agency 
strategic plans and performance reports when making both 
budgetary and policy decisions.
    b. Benefits.--As the Government searches for ways to do 
more with less, mission fragmentation and program overlap at 
Federal agencies have become increasingly important issues. 
Congress, the administration, and GAO have all cited the 
fragmented nature of many Federal activities, along with the 
need to reduce the deficit, as compelling reasons to undertake 
a fundamental reexamination of Federal programs and structures. 
The Government Performance and Results Act presents an 
opportunity to begin such a reexamination. This report 
summarizes earlier GAO work on mission fragmentation and 
program overlap and describes specific ways in which the 
Results Act can focus attention on these management challenges 
and can help develop strategies to harmonize Federal responses.
    GAO noted that: (1) GAO's work has documented the 
widespread existence of fragmentation and overlap from both the 
broad perspective of Federal missions and from the more 
specific viewpoint of individual Federal programs; (2) GAO's 
work has shown that as the Federal Government has responded 
over time to new needs and problems, many Federal agencies have 
been given responsibilities for addressing the same or similar 
national issues; but GAO's work also suggests that some issues 
will necessarily involve more than one Federal agency or more 
than one approach; (3) taken as a whole, this body of work 
indicates that fragmentation and overlap will present a 
particular and persistent challenge to the successful 
implementation of the Results Act; (4) but at the same time, 
the Results Act should offer a new and structured framework to 
address crosscutting issues; (5) each of its key stages--
defining missions and desired outcomes, measuring performance, 
and using performance information--offers a new opportunity to 
address fragmentation and overlap; (6) for example, the Results 
Act is intended to foster a dialog on strategic goals involving 
the Congress as well as agency and external stakeholders; (7) 
this dialog should help to identify agencies and programs 
addressing similar missions and associated performance 
implications; (8) the act's emphasis on results-based 
performance measures should lead to more explicit discussions 
of contributions and accomplishments within crosscutting 
programs and encourage related programs to develop common 
performance measures; (9) if the Results Act is successfully 
implemented, performance information should become available to 
clarify the consequences of fragmentation and the implications 
of alternative policy and service delivery options, which, in 
turn, can affect future decisions concerning department and 
agency missions and the allocation of resources among those 
missions; (10) emphasizing missions, goals, and objectives, as 
envisioned by the Results Act, should facilitate a broader 
recognition of the nature and extent of fragmentation and 
overlap; and (11) however, past efforts to deal with 
crosscutting Federal activities and recent developments in both 
the executive branch and Congress underscore the need for 
specific institutions and processes to sustain and nurture a 
focus on these issues.
7. ``Managing For Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal 
        Agencies' Strategic Plans,'' September 16, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-180
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to review the 
quality of OMB's strategic plan as prepared under the 
Government Performance and Results Act. In preparation the 
subcommittee reviewed OMB's draft GPRA strategic plan and found 
it insufficient. The subcommittee met with key OMB officials to 
provide consultative advice and as a result the final OMB 
strategic plan submitted at fiscal year end was noticeably 
improved. The subcommittee also participated with congressional 
leadership in the review and evaluation of all agency draft 
strategic plans prepared in accordance with GPRA. As a 
consequence the average score of the agency strategic plans 
almost doubled between the drafts provided in August and the 
final GPRA strategic plans delivered at the end of September 
1997.
    b. Benefits.--In part of its effort to introduce 
performance-based management into the Federal Government, the 
Government Performance and Results Act requires agencies to 
develop strategic plans. GAO evaluated the latest available 
versions of the draft strategic plans that agencies submitted 
to Congress and found that many of them were missing key 
elements required by the legislation. For example, the plans 
often did not (1) link required elements, (2) fully develop 
strategies to achieve their results, (3) identify cross-cutting 
issues and programs, (4) gather and use performance 
information, or (5) address program evaluations. This report 
summarizes GAO's reviews of agency draft strategic plans and 
discusses strategic planning issues in need of sustained 
attention.
    GAO noted that: (1) a significant amount of work remained 
to be done by executive branch agencies if their strategic 
plans are to fulfill the requirements of the Results Act, serve 
as a basis for guiding agencies, and help congressional and 
other policymakers make decisions about activities and 
programs; (2) although all 27 of the draft plans included a 
mission statement, 21 plans lacked 1 or more of 5 other 
required elements; (3) overall, one-third of the plans were 
missing two required elements; and just over one-fourth were 
missing three or more of the required elements; (4) GAO's 
reviews of agencies' draft strategic plans also revealed 
several critical strategic planning issues that are in need of 
sustained attention if agencies are to develop the dynamic 
strategic planning processes envisioned by the Results Act; (5) 
most of the draft plans did not adequately link required 
elements in the plans; (6) these linkages are important if 
strategic plans are to drive the agencies' daily activities and 
if agencies are to be held accountable for achieving intended 
results; (7) furthermore, 19 of the 27 draft plans did not 
attempt to describe the linkages between long-term strategic 
goals and annual performance goals; (8) long-term strategic 
goals often tended to have weaknesses; (9) although the Results 
Act does not require that all of an agency's strategic goals be 
results oriented, the intent of the act is to have agencies 
focus their strategic goals on results to the extent feasible; 
(10) many agencies did not fully develop strategies explaining 
how their long-term strategic goals would be achieved; (11) 
most agencies did not reflect in their draft plans the 
identification and planned coordination of activities and 
programs that cut across multiple agencies; (12) the 
questionable capacity of many agencies to gather performance 
information has hampered, and may continue to hamper, efforts 
to identify appropriate goals and confidently assess 
performance; (13) the draft strategic plans did not adequately 
address program evaluations; and (14) evaluations are important 
because they potentially can be critical sources of information 
for ensuring that goals are reasonable, strategies for 
achieving goals are effective, and that corrective actions are 
taken in program implementation.
8. ``Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000 
        Issues,'' September 26, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-149
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee has taken the lead in the 
Federal Government in raising the year 2000 issue. The 
subcommittee has applied pressure on the administration--OMB, 
agencies in general, and laggard agencies in particular. The 
subcommittee continued to pressure the various Federal agencies 
to achieve year 2000 compliance before the deadline of January 
1, 2000 by holding a press conference and issuing grades for 
each of the 24 largest agencies based upon their progress to 
date. Over half of the agencies failed to demonstrate 
sufficient progress on this issue. The ``Report Card of Year 
2000 Progress'' received considerable publicity and achieved 
its objective of forcing many agency heads to pay attention to 
this serious problem.
    b. Benefits.--This report focuses on the Logistics Systems 
Support Center's [LSSC] program for solving its year 2000 
computer system problem, which stems from the inability of 
computer programs to interpret the correct century from 
recorded or calculated data having only two digits to indicate 
the year. LSSC's Commodity Command Standard System supports the 
Army's wholesale logistics supply management business effort, 
which buys more than $23 billion worth of supplies and 
equipment each year for troops around the world. Unless LSSC 
overcomes its year 2000 problem, the Commodity Command Standard 
System could malfunction or generate incorrect information, 
potentially jeopardizing military missions. GAO discusses the 
status of LSSC's effort to correct year 2000 problems and the 
appropriateness of LSSC's strategy for addressing year 2000 
problems affecting the Commodity Command Standard System.
    GAO noted that: (1) the year 2000 problem is one of the 
most comprehensive and complex information management projects 
ever faced by LSSC; (2) if not successfully completed, the 
procurement of weapon systems and their spare parts, accounting 
for the sales of Army equipment and services to allies, and the 
financial management of $9 billion of inventory could be 
disrupted; (3) as a result, it could be extremely difficult to 
efficiently and effectively equip and sustain the Army's forces 
around the world; (4) LSSC has completed several actions to 
address the CCSS year 2000 problem; (5) a year 2000 project 
manager and management staff have been designated, a project 
manager charter and schedule were developed, and supplementary 
contractor support was acquired to assist with assessment 
tasks; (6) regularly scheduled quarterly meetings are held by 
the Army Materiel Command [AMC] headquarters to report LSSC 
year 2000 status; (7) these steps are compatible with the 
Department of Defense's [DOD] suggested approach and consistent 
with those found in GAO's five-phased approach for planning, 
managing, and evaluating year 2000 projects; (8) although LSSC 
commenced its year 2000 project over a year ago, there are 
several issues facing LSSC that, if not completely addressed, 
may result in the failure of CCSS to successfully operate at 
the year 2000; (9) LSSC has yet to completely address: (a) 
competing workload priorities and staffing issues; (b) the 
appropriate mix and scheduling of needed testing data and 
expertise as well as the development of test plans; (c) the 
scope and substance of written interface agreements with system 
interface partners to ensure that CCSS subsystems will be 
capable of exchanging data at the year 2000; and (d) 
contingency plan development to help assure that Army missions 
will be accomplished if CCSS is not fully available to users by 
the year 2000; (10) LSSC's risk of failure is increased because 
the agency has not attained the level of software development 
and maintenance maturity that would provide the foundation 
needed for successful management of large-scale projects such 
as the year 2000 initiative; and (11) because CCSS is used to 
support military readiness, these critical elements must be 
resolved and aggressively pursued to enable LSSC to achieve a 
year 2000 compliant environment prior to the year 2000.
9. ``Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000 
        Problem,'' August 11, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-117
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee continues to pressure all 
Federal Departments and agencies to reach year 2000 computer 
compliance before the deadline of January 1, 2000. Overall, the 
Department of Defense [DOD] has not achieved a rate of progress 
that will lead to success. The subcommittee continues to 
pressure DOD in general and also to commission GAO studies to 
focus on particular portions of DOD that are both critical and 
behind schedule. This brings the pressure of governmentwide 
year 2000 report cards to bear on particular mission-critical 
systems and conversely provides the specificity to assure the 
subcommittee that its overall perspective is well grounded in 
reality.
    b. Benefits.--The year 2000 problem refers to the inability 
of computer programs to interpret the correct century from a 
recorded or calculated date having only two digits to indicate 
the year. Unless this shortcoming is corrected, the Defense 
Financing and Accounting Service's [DFAS] computer systems 
could malfunction or produce incorrect information. The impact 
of these failures would be widespread, costly, and potentially 
debilitating to the DFAS accounting and financial reporting 
mission. This report discusses (1) the status of DFAS' efforts 
to identify and correct its year 2000 systems problems and (2) 
the appropriateness of DFAS' strategy and actions for ensuring 
that problems will be successfully addressed.
    GAO noted that: (1) DFAS managers have recognized the 
importance of solving the year 2000 problem; (2) to help ensure 
that services are not disrupted, DFAS has developed a year 2000 
strategy based on the generally accepted five-phased Government 
methodology for addressing the year 2000 problem; (3) this 
approach is also consistent with GAO's guidelines for planning, 
managing, and evaluating year 2000 programs; (4) in carrying 
out its year 2000 strategy, DFAS has assigned accountability 
for ensuring that year 2000 efforts are completed, established 
a year 2000 systems inventory, implemented a quarterly tracking 
process to report the status of individual systems, estimated 
the cost of renovating systems, begun assessing its systems to 
determine the extent of the problems, and started to renovate 
and test some applications; (5) DFAS also established a year 
2000 certification program that defines the conditions that 
must be met for automated systems to be considered year 2000 
compliant; (6) while initial progress has been made, there are 
several critical issues facing DFAS, that if left un-addressed, 
may well result in the failure of its systems to successfully 
operate in 2000: (a) DFAS has not identified in its year 2000 
plan all critical tasks for achieving its objectives or 
established milestones for completing all tasks; (b) DFAS has 
not performed formal risk assessments of all systems to be 
renovated or ensured that contingency plans are in place; (c) 
DFAS has not identified all system interfaces and has completed 
written interface agreements with only 230 of 904 interface 
partners; and (d) DFAS has not adequately ensured that testing 
resources will be available when needed to determine if all 
operational systems are compliant before the year 2000; (7) 
risk of failure in these areas is increased due to reliance on 
other DOD components; and, (8) DFAS is also dependent on 
military services and DOD components to ensure that its systems 
are year 2000 compliant.
10. ``Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000 
        Problems,'' August 12, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-106
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee continues to push for 
attention to the year 2000 computer problem throughout the 
Federal Government. One critical issue that is being ignored by 
many Federal agencies is the ``ripple effect.'' As GAO 
discovered in this commissioned study, the Defense Logistics 
Agency [DLA] systems are connected to each other, to systems in 
other Federal agencies, and to systems outside the Government. 
If one of these systems fails, it can pass contaminated data to 
connected systems and thereby cause them to also fail. This 
failure can be passed from system to system, like ripples in a 
pond. Conversely, even though DLA may have fixed its own 
systems, its computers can still fail because of contaminated 
data received from outside the agency. The subcommittee has 
raised this aspect of the year 2000 issue for the entire 
Government and for DLA in particular.
    b. Benefits.--If the military does not resolve its year 
2000 computer problem in time, computer systems at the Defense 
Logistics Agency, which supplies the military with supply, 
technical, logistics, and contract services, could malfunction 
or produce incorrect information. The impact of these failures 
could be widespread, costly, and debilitating to important 
logistics functions. This report discusses (1) the status of 
DLA's efforts to correct its year 2000 problems, and (2) the 
appropriateness of DLA's strategies and actions for ensuring 
that the problem will be successfully addressed.
    GAO noted that: (1) DLA has recognized that the year 2000 
problem has the potential to be the largest information 
technology dilemma it has encountered to date and that if not 
successfully resolved, the supply, technical, logistics, and 
contract services that DLA provides to the military services 
could be severely disrupted; (2) to its credit, DLA has already 
assessed the year 2000 impact on its operations, inventoried 
its systems, conducted pilot projects to determine year 2000 
effects on some of its major systems, and developed and issued 
policies, guidelines, standards, and recommendations on year 
2000 correction for the agency; (3) these steps are consistent 
with GAO's guidelines and the Department of Defense's five-
phase approach for planning, managing, and evaluating year 2000 
programs; (4) however, DLA has not yet completed several 
critical steps associated with the assessment phase of year 
2000 correction that are designed to ensure the agency is well-
positioned to deal with delays or other problems encountered in 
the remaining phases; (5) DLA has not been working enough with 
its customers and others who have established system 
connections or interfaces to ensure consistency in handling 
date information passed between systems; (6) the agency has not 
included thousands of field-developed, unique programs as part 
of its year 2000 systems inventory or made these programs part 
of its year 2000 program office's responsibility; (7) these 
unique programs can introduce errors into DLA's automated 
information systems just as easily as those systems that have 
external interfaces with DLA systems; (8) in addressing these 
two issues, DLA can help ensure the success of its efforts to 
correct the systems within its control; (9) DLA has not: (a) 
prioritized the 86 automated information systems that it plans 
on being operational in the year 2000 to ensure that the most 
mission critical systems are corrected first; or (b) developed 
contingency plans to establish the course of action that should 
be followed in the event that any of DLA's mission critical 
systems are not corrected on time; and (10) since DLA 
activities are critical to supporting military operations and 
readiness, GAO believes that the agency should begin 
prioritizing its systems and developing contingency plans so 
that logistics operations can continue even if unforeseen 
problems or delays in year 2000 corrective actions arise.
11. ``Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Risks of VBA's Year-2000 
        Efforts,'' May 30, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-79
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee has pushed the Federal 
Departments and agencies to make informed decisions about their 
alternatives in rectifying the year 2000 computer problem. Some 
systems are already compliant. Some systems can be retired as 
no longer necessary. However, most systems will need to be 
fixed. There are several alternatives available: the 
programming code within a system can be changed; the entire 
system can be replaced with a new system; or a ``smart-tool'' 
can provide a work-around for lower cost. The best alternative 
for each system will depend on many factors. Each agency must 
assess every system in order to know the total amount of work 
to be done. The Veterans Benefits Agency [VBA] is a good 
example of this situation. The subcommittee has recommended to 
OMB and the Federal agencies that they perform a complete 
assessment on each system; determine the best alternative for 
each system; and then plan their workload and schedule for 
being year 2000 compliant before the deadline.
    b. Benefits.--Unless timely, corrective action is taken, 
the Veterans Benefits Administration, like other Federal 
agencies, could face widespread computer failures at the turn 
of the century because of the year 2000 problem. In many 
computer systems, the year 2000 is undistinguishable from 1900. 
This could make veterans who are due to receive benefits appear 
ineligible, disrupting the issuance of benefits checks. VBA has 
tried to address this problem, but it can do more. First, the 
year 2000 management office's structure and technical 
capabilities are inadequate. Second, key year 2000 readiness 
assessment processes--determining the potential severity of the 
year 2000 impact on VBA operations, inventorying its 
information systems, and developing contingency plans--have not 
been completed. Third, VBA lacks enough information on the 
costs or potential problems associated with its approach to 
making systems year 2000 compliant. As a result, it cannot make 
informed choices about which systems must be funded to avoid 
disruptions in service and which can be deferred. Addressing 
these problems requires top management attention. Contributing 
to the challenges are the loss of key computer personnel, 
difficulties in obtaining information on whether interfaces and 
third-party products are year 2000 compliant, and delays in 
upgrading systems at VBA data centers.
    GAO noted that: (1) correcting the year 2000 problem is 
critical to VBA's mission of providing benefits and services to 
veterans and their dependents; (2) if not corrected, 
calculations based on incorrect dates could result in 
inaccurate and late payment of benefits to veterans, prompting 
financial stress to millions across the country; (3) VBA has 
acted to address the problem, but can do more; (4) the year 
2000 management office structure and technical capabilities are 
insufficient; (5) key year 2000 readiness assessment processes 
have not been completed; (6) both VBA's initial and revised 
strategies are risky in that without sufficient information on 
the costs or potential problems associated with its approach to 
making systems year 2000 compliant, it cannot make informed 
choices as to which systems must be funded to avoid disruptions 
in service, versus which can be deferred; (7) deficiencies in 
these three areas add risk to an already difficult challenge; 
(8) addressing these problems will require close and continual 
top management attention and leadership; (9) contributing to 
the challenge facing VBA are the loss of key computer 
personnel, difficulties in obtaining necessary information from 
external sources on whether interfaces and third-party products 
are year 2000 compliant, and delays in upgrading systems at VBA 
data centers; (10) the issue of whether third-party products 
are year 2000 compliant is being faced by other Federal 
agencies as well; (11) the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
chief information officer told GAO that VBA will: (a) revise 
its year 2000 strategy to focus on converting the existing 
noncompliant benefits payment systems rather than replacing 
them; and (b) acquire contractual support to assist in managing 
the year 2000 effort and in making necessary changes; (12) 
these are positive developments, and GAO looks forward to 
seeing VBA's plans to implement these steps; and (13) the 
implementation of these recommendations will put VBA in a 
better position to avoid these types of problems in the future.
12. ``Air Traffic Control: Improved Cost Information Needed to Make 
        Billion Dollar Modernization Investment Decisions,'' January 
        22, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-20
    a. Summary.--In 1981, the Federal Aviation Administration 
[FAA] began an air traffic control modernization program that 
the agency now expects will cost more than $34 billion by 2003. 
The vast majority of these air traffic control capital 
investment projects, both in terms of money and number, involve 
software-intensive information acquisition, processing, and 
display systems. GAO found that the program's cost-estimating 
and accounting practices are badly flawed, resulting in an 
absence of reliable cost and financial information needed to 
make informed investment decisions. This report examines the 
cost-estimating and accounting practices that FAA has used for 
its air traffic control project. GAO discusses whether (1) air 
traffic control cost estimates are based on good estimating 
processes and (2) actual air traffic control project costs are 
being properly captured and reported.
    b. Benefits.--The Federal Aviation Administration has had 
perennially troubled procurement. Procurement issues in general 
and information technology procurement in particular are of 
direct, ongoing concern to the taxpayers. The soundness of 
procurement choices is critical to both the size and quality of 
Government services. This report assisted the subcommittee in 
its review of procurement reforms.
13. ``Acquisition Reform: DOD Faces Challenges in Reducing Oversight 
        Costs,'' January 29, 1997, GAO/NSIAD-97-48
    a. Summary.--The Pentagon considers acquisition reform 
(lowering the cost of acquiring weapon systems) to be one of 
its highest priorities. In an era of shrinking military 
budgets, the Department of Defense plans to use the savings 
from acquisition reform to pay for forces modernization. The 
DOD established a reinvention laboratory in September 1994 to 
help reduce nonvalue-added oversight requirements, thereby 
lowering contractors' compliance costs and the Government's 
oversight costs. Overall, the reinvention laboratory has made 
only limited progress in reducing the cost of contractors' 
compliance with Government regulations and oversight 
requirements. In particular, laboratory participants reported 
little success in addressing 9 of the top 10 cost drivers. DOD 
officials said that the reinvention laboratory tended to 
receive little top-level support from elsewhere in DOD. Other 
factors that limited various projects included statutory and 
non-DOD regulatory requirements, disagreements between DOD and 
contractors over the value of some oversight requirements, and 
difficulties coordinating and obtaining approval for proposed 
changes that involved multiple customers. These results, 
however, should not deter DOD from continuing its efforts to 
reduce nonvalue added oversight requirements. Sustained support 
from DOD leadership is essential. From a budgetary perspective, 
the laboratory results underscore the need for caution in 
estimating cost savings from oversight reform.
    b. Benefits.--The Department of Defense faces serious 
challenges in acquisition reform to reduce costs and redirect 
savings to other higher priority areas. This report outlines 
those challenges and describes the major issues for the 
committee's review. Cooperation between Congress and the 
Department of Defense is crucial if these challenges are going 
to be met successfully.
14. ``Privatization: Lessons Learned by State and Local Governments,'' 
        March 14, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-48
    a. Summary.--A number of State and local governments have 
successfully shifted functions or responsibilities to the 
private sector, usually through contracting or managed 
competition. Lessons learned from these experiences may be 
helpful to the Federal Government as it pursues its own 
privatization efforts. This report discusses privatization 
efforts in the States of Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New 
York, and Virginia as well as the city of Indianapolis, IN.
    b. Benefits.--The report assisted the subcommittee in its 
review of Government organization and management. Privatization 
within the Federal Government has occurred only in isolated 
instances, so it is important to look to the State and local 
government where the primary activity is occurring for guidance 
and lessons.
15. ``Cooperative Purchasing: Effects Are Likely to Vary Among 
        Governments and Businesses,'' February 10, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-33
    a. Summary.--The National Performance Review reported in 
1993 that consolidating Government purchasing would benefit the 
taxpayer through greater volume discounts and simplified 
administration. The following year, Congress established a 
cooperative purchasing program to allow State and local 
governments, as well as Indian tribes and Puerto Rico, to 
purchase from Federal supply schedules. However, Congress 
suspended the program in 1996 until its impact could be 
assessed. This report assesses the effects of the cooperative 
purchasing program on these non-Federal Governments and Federal 
agencies and on industry, including small businesses and 
dealers. GAO also assesses the preliminary implementation plan 
prepared by GSA. GAO concludes that although there is little 
risk to Federal interests, the benefits for non-Federal 
Governments and the consequences for industry will likely vary.
    b. Benefits.--The report assisted the committee in its 
review of cooperative purchasing, which was repealed by the 
Congress in 1997.
16. ``Telecommunications Management: More Effort Needed by Interior and 
        the Forest Service to Achieve Savings,'' May 8, 1997, GAO/AIMD-
        97-67
    a. Summary.--Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO 
reviewed efforts by the Department of the Interior and the 
Forest Service to reduce costs by consolidating their 
telecommunications services, focusing on whether: (1) the 
Interior Department has consolidated and optimized 
telecommunications services to eliminate unnecessary services 
and maximize savings; and (2) the Interior Department and the 
Forest Service are sharing telecommunications services where 
they can.
    GAO noted that: (1) to its credit, Interior has undertaken 
a number of telecommunications cost-savings initiatives that 
have produced significant financial savings and helped reduce 
the Department's more than $62 million annual 
telecommunications investment; (2) however, Interior is not 
systematically identifying and acting on other opportunities to 
consolidate and optimize telecommunications resources within 
and among its bureaus or its 2,000-plus field locations; (3) 
the cost-savings initiatives that have been undertaken have 
generally been done on an isolated and ad hoc basis, and have 
not been replicated throughout the Department; (4) GAO did not 
review consolidation and sharing opportunities at all of 
Interior's field locations; (5) however, at the four sites GAO 
visited, GAO found that telecommunications resources were often 
not consolidated or shared, and bureaus and offices were paying 
thousands of dollars annually for unnecessary services; (6) 
Interior does not know to what extent similar 
telecommunications savings may exist at its other offices 
because it lacks the basic information necessary to make such 
determinations; (7) Interior and the Department of Agriculture 
[USDA] may also be missing opportunities to save millions of 
dollars by not sharing telecommunications resources; (8) even 
though the Departments have a 2-year old agreement to identify 
and act on sharing opportunities, little has been done to 
implement this agreement and, accordingly, only limited savings 
have been realized; and (9) moreover, while Interior and the 
Forest Service currently plan to collectively spend up to 
several hundred million dollars to acquire separate radio 
systems over the next 8 years, the Departments have not jointly 
determined the extent to which they can reduce these costs by 
sharing radio equipment and services.
    b. Benefits.--The report has assisted the committee in its 
review of Federal telecommunication programs and procurement of 
those services.
17. ``Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance 
        Facility Planning and Decisionmaking,'' May 19, 1997, GAO/GGD-
        97-39
    a. Summary.--Trial courtrooms, because of their size and 
configuration, are expensive to build. The judiciary's current 
policy is, whenever possible, to assign a trial courtroom to 
each district judge. GAO's work in seven cities--Dallas, Miami, 
Albuquerque, Sante Fe, Las Cruces, San Diego, and Washington, 
DC--found that courtrooms were idle, on average, about 46 
percent of the days available for courtroom activities. In 
other words, these courtrooms were vacant 115 days out of 250 
Federal workdays in 1995. Courtrooms were used for trials less 
than one-third of the days, and the use of courtrooms for 
trials varied by location. At the six locations with more than 
one trial courtroom, all courtrooms at any one location were 
seldom used for trials the same day. Senior judges--district 
judges who were eligible to retire but chose to continue to 
perform judicial duties, often at reduced caseloads--used the 
courtrooms assigned to them for trials considerably less 
frequently than did active district judges. The judiciary 
recognizes that it has not developed the data or done the 
research to support its practice of providing a separate trial 
courtroom for every district judge. Although it has taken some 
steps to help it better understand courtroom usage, the 
judiciary has yet to develop a plan to gather data on actual 
use of courtrooms for trials or to systematically quantify the 
latent and other usage factors.
    b. Benefits.--The problems of overspending in courthouse 
construction is serious and longstanding. This report helps 
focus agency attention on the issue.
18. ``Debt Collection: Improved Reporting Needed on Billions of Dollars 
        in Delinquent Debt and Agency Collection Performance,'' June 2, 
        1997, GAO/AIMD-97-48
    a. Summary.--Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO 
reviewed debt collection issues for nontax debts, focusing on: 
(1) reported government-wide data on credit receivables and 
delinquencies for loans managed by the Federal Government; (2) 
the status of efforts at four major credit agencies to resolve 
delinquencies; (3) the dollars collected using various 
legislatively-established collection tools; and (4) ways debt 
collection reporting can be enhanced to evaluate progress in 
collecting debt, and thereby assess agency efforts to meet the 
mandates of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. GAO 
did not verify the accuracy of the information provided to it 
by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], the Financial 
Management Service [FMS], or by the four agencies included in 
the review.
    b. Benefits.--The committee originated the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act, which is the most recent effort to provide 
additional tools to collect debts of the Federal Government. 
This report aided the committee's deliberations at the November 
12, 1997 hearing on this issue.
    In the report, GAO noted that: (1) government-wide 
reporting to Congress indicates that the amount of debt Federal 
agencies are directly managing has remained about $200 billion 
for the 5 years ended September 30, 1996; (2) during that time, 
reported delinquencies for these Federal credit receivables 
varied between $31 billion to $38 billion; (3) at September 30, 
1995, the most recent data available on program-level 
collection performance at the time of GAO's field work, the 
housing agencies were dealing with more than half of their 
delinquent debt through various involuntary collection tools 
and, for almost a third of their delinquent debt, were 
attempting to contact borrowers to get them to resume payments 
on the original or revised terms; (4) the Department of 
Education and its agents were attempting to locate and confirm 
or revise repayment agreements associated with about 70 percent 
of Education's delinquent debt; (5) contacting borrowers with 
delinquent student loans is an especially difficult task since 
they tend to be younger and thus more transient; (6) collection 
on such unsecured loans tends to be more difficult because 
there is no collateral to be seized if borrowers do not pay; 
(7) delinquent student loans accounted for 40 cents of every 
dollar of delinquent nontax debt directly managed by the 
Government and over half of the delinquent Federal credit 
receivable debt; (8) GAO identified several enhancements that 
would facilitate valid assessments of agency collection 
efforts; (9) better data and key analyses are crucial aspects 
of Federal efforts to measure success in accomplishing the 
charter for a more business-like credit management environment 
as set out by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; (10) 
progress in this area will be especially critical to the 
success of FMS as it assumes new debt collection management and 
reporting responsibilities under the act; (11) such data is 
central to effective day-to-day management in terms of 
selecting collection strategies and deploying available staff 
and contract resources; and (12) among the enhancements are: 
(a) developing a reporting framework to identify and assess the 
status of agency efforts to collect delinquent balances; (b) 
providing more information on how actively, successfully, and 
cost-effectively agencies are using individual collection 
tools; reporting actual delinquent amounts that agencies are 
trying to collect.
19. ``Contract Management: Fixing DOD's Payment Problems Is 
        Imperative,'' April 10, 1997, GAO/NSIAD-97-37
    a. Summary.--The Defense Department has made hundreds of 
millions of dollars in overpayments to contractors, many 
undetected for years, because it uses inadequate computer 
systems requiring manual entry of often erroneous or incomplete 
data and a burdensome document-matching process. Improving 
DOD's payment system will take sustained attention and support 
from the highest levels of management for years to come. 
Although DOD is taking some steps to overcome its payment 
problems, it remains to be seen how effective these steps will 
be. Emulating the best practices used by the private sector 
could help DOD re-engineer its payment system.
    b. Benefits.--The problem of inaccurate disbursements at 
the Department of Defense is an ongoing and serious problem. 
Without improvements in this area, the Federal Government will 
be unable to have audited financial statements pursuant to the 
CFO Act.
20. ``Relocation Travel: Numbers and Costs Reported by Federal 
        Organizations for Fiscal Years 1991 Through 1995,'' June 30, 
        1997, GAO/GGD-97-119
    a. Summary.--Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO 
provided information on the number of civilian employees 
relocated during fiscal years (fiscal year) 1991 through 1995 
and the associated costs of these relocations, focusing on: (1) 
the total number of civilian employees who were relocated at 
the Federal Government's expense; (2) the total cost of these 
relocations to the Government; (3) the agencies that had 
rotational policies requiring their civilian employees to 
relocate; and (4) trends for the number and cost of civilian 
employee relocations during this period.
    b. Benefits.--This survey request was conducted pursuant to 
a requirement of a law passed by the committee. The Travel 
Reform and Savings Act of 1996 was designed to save $320 
million when fully implemented. In order to ensure that such 
savings occur, a baseline of such costs was needed. That is the 
purpose of this report.
    GAO noted that, for fiscal year 1991 through 1995: (1) 97 
Federal organizations reported authorizing about 132,800 
relocations, and 23 other organizations reported making about 
40,200 relocations; (2) a small number of organizations 
accounted for the bulk of the relocations authorized or made; 
(3) while the total numbers of relocations authorized and made 
fluctuated yearly across the organizations that provided data 
for all 5 fiscal years, there was moderate change in these 
totals between fiscal year 1991 and 1995; (4) across the 
organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal years, the 
total number of relocations authorized decreased by less than 1 
percent (89 organizations) and the total number of relocations 
made increased by about 12.5 percent (19 organizations) from 
fiscal year 1991 to 1995; (5) 97 Federal organizations reported 
obligating about $3.4 billion for relocations, and 23 other 
organizations reported expending about $363 million for 
relocations; (6) a small number of organizations accounted for 
the bulk of the relocation obligations or expenditures; (7) 
across the organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal 
years, total relocation obligations varied and total relocation 
expenditures increased yearly; (8) there was noticeable change 
in these totals between fiscal year 1991 and 1995; (9) in 
constant 1995 dollars, total relocation obligations increased 
about 16 percent (83 organizations) and total relocation 
expenditures increased about 88 percent (22 organizations) from 
fiscal year 1991 to 1995; (10) for the 22 organizations, this 
increase was due to the Department of the Navy's expenditures; 
(11) excluding the Navy's expenditures, the 21 remaining 
organizations' total expenditures decreased by less than 1 
percent during the period; (12) 15 Federal organizations 
reported that they had mandatory rotational policies requiring 
some of their employees to rotate on a prescribed schedule; 
(13) most of these organizations attributed their policies to 
Federal regulations that limit overseas tours of duty; and (14) 
based on data provided by these 15 organizations, GAO estimated 
that these rotational policies accounted for about 19 percent 
of the total relocations reported as authorized and about 7 
percent of the total relocations reported as made during this 
period.

                    Subcommittee on Human Resources

1. ``Medicare Transaction System: Success Depends Upon Correcting 
        Critical Managerial and Technical Weaknesses, May 16, 1997, 
        GAO/AIMD-97-78
    a. Summary.--Operating nine separate automated information 
systems to process Medicare claims, an increasing volume of 
claims, and an outdated operating system, the Health Care 
Financing Administration [HCFA] announced in 1991 they were 
going to spend approximately $200 million to replace their 
existing systems with a single, unified system, the new 
Medicare Transaction System [MTS]. MTS was to be implemented in 
1998, providing improved service, reducing operating costs, 
facilitating better contractor oversight, and ensuring greater 
protection against waste, fraud and abuse, at the same time 
handling the growing volume of managed care and alternative 
payment methodologies. Due to ongoing changes in the planning, 
development and implementation strategy for MTS since its 
inception, at the request of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources, GAO initiated a review of the initiative to 
determine to what extent HCFA was managing its interim claims 
processing, whether the agency was using required practices to 
assess the proposed MTS initiative on a cost-benefit basis, 
whether the project was being managed as an investment and 
whether HCFA was applying sound systems development practices 
so as to minimize risk. GAO concluded the original projected 
cost of the MTS project had expanded to close to $1 billion and 
that the hoped for benefits of modernizing its management 
information tool and claims processing function would not be 
achieved unless HCFA was able to overcome serious management 
and technical weaknesses in three areas. (1) improvement of the 
interim Medicare processing environment, correcting the year 
2000 computer related problem, consolidation of existing 
processing sites and conversion from the current nine systems 
to two; (2) management of the MTS project as an investment and 
adherence to practices known to be essential in making good 
technology investment decisions, including preparing a valid 
cost-benefit analysis, looking at viable alternatives, and 
identification of how the proposed project would contribute to 
improvements in agency mission performance; and (3) the 
implementation of sound systems-development practices necessary 
to reduce risk and assure success in the development of system 
requirements and software; agency oversight of the contractor's 
software development strategy, management of the project's 
schedule, and implementation of a program to address risk.
    b. Benefits.--Earlier GAO reports on the MTS project 
highlighted subcommittee concerns and called attention to the 
deficiencies in the planning, development and management of the 
project, resulting in HCFA modifying portions of the original 
MTS plan to address the concerns. This report reinforced the 
view of the subcommittee that the project was not well 
conceived, suffered from shifting requirements, was threatened 
by slippage in due dates and had far exceeded initial cost 
estimates. As a result, HCFA made the decision to sever its 
relationship with the contractor at the completion of one phase 
of the project and determined it needed to reassess the project 
before proceeding further. The report reinforces the view that 
HCFA should implement GAOs recommendations to improve the 
management of its modernization effort and increase the 
assurance that the future approach taken will be cost-
effective, of limited risk, and supportive of the agency's 
mission.
2. ``Gulf War Illnesses: Improved Monitoring of Clinical Progress and 
        Re-examination of Research Emphasis Are Needed,'' Report to the 
        Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee 
        on Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security, 
        June 1997, GAO/NSIAD-97-163. (Note: This report responds to the 
        mandate of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization act. The 
        report was also presented in testimony before the House 
        Subcommittee on Human Resources hearing on June 24, 1997, 
        entitled ``Gulf War Illnesses: Enhanced Monitoring of Clinical 
        Progress and of Research Priorities Needed,'' GAO/T-NSIAD-97-
        190)
    a. Summary.--The 1997 defense authorization act mandated 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] to analyze the 
effectiveness of the Government's clinical care and medical 
research programs relating to Gulf War veterans' illnesses. The 
GAO evaluated: (1) DOD and VA efforts to assess the quality of 
treatment and diagnostic services provided to Gulf War veterans 
and their provisions for follow-up of initial examinations; (2) 
the Government's research strategy to study the veterans' 
illnesses and the methodological problems posed in its studies; 
and, (3) the consistency of key official conclusions with 
available data on the causes of veterans' illnesses.
    The report, prepared by GAO's Special Studies and 
Evaluations Group, found that (1) although efforts have been 
made to diagnose veterans' problems and care has been provided 
to many eligible veterans, neither DOD nor VA has 
systematically attempted to determine whether ill Gulf War 
veterans are any better or worse today than when they were 
first examined; (2) while the ongoing epidemiological research 
will provide descriptive data on veterans' illnesses, 
formidable methodological problems are likely to prevent 
researchers from providing precise, accurate, and conclusive 
answers regarding the causes of veterans' illnesses; and (3) 
support for some official [VA and DOD] conclusions regarding 
stress, leishmaniasis, and exposure to chemical agents was weak 
or subject to alternative interpretations.
    b. Benefits.--The GAO report provides important information 
about the VA and DOD response to the Gulf War veterans' 
illnesses. The report points out that the hundreds of millions 
of dollars in research being spent by the Federal Government to 
identify the causes of the illnesses may result in little 
return, that exposure to toxic agents is the likely cause of 
the illnesses not stress, and that medical treatment outcomes 
on sick veterans is unknown. This information, if acted upon, 
could prevent the waste of millions of dollars and improve the 
chances of helping sick veterans return to better health 
sooner.
3. ``Gulf War Illnesses: Public and Private Efforts Relating to 
        Exposures of U.S. Personnel to Chemical Agents,'' Report to the 
        Ranking Minority Member of the House Veterans Affairs 
        Committee, October 1997, GAO/NSIAD-98-27
    a. Summary.--The GAO report reviewed: (1) the potential 
exposure of U.S. military personnel to chemical warfare agents 
before, during and after the Gulf War, and (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the missing Nuclear, Biological and 
Chemical [NBC] logs maintained by the U.S. Central Command 
(CENTCOM) during the war. The report, prepared by the GAO's 
Military Operations and Capabilities Issues Group, concluded 
that 14 Federal and private organizations (8 Federal and 6 
private) have efforts underway examining potential exposure of 
U.S. troops to chemical agents, and 1 Federal organization was 
examining missing NBC logs.
    b. Benefits.--This GAO report provided some new information 
on organizations examining potential chemical agent exposures 
to Gulf War troops and the missing NBC logs. The subcommittee 
has investigated the illnesses since February 1997, including 
11 hearings, and its report on findings and recommendations has 
been approved by the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. The committee's investigative record and report deal 
extensively with potential exposure of U.S. troops to chemical 
agents and the missing NBC logs, and this GAO report provides a 
brief summary and overview of those same topics.
4. ``Social Service Privatization: Expansion Poses Challenges in 
        Ensuring Accountability for Program Results,'' October 27, 
        1997, GAO/HEHS-98-6
    a. Summary.--Since 1990, more than half the States surveyed 
have begun to redesign the roles that Government plays in 
providing social services through efforts to assign, or 
contract, some or all aspects of service delivery to private 
entities. The GAO concludes this trend will continue as 
political leaders and program managers seek ways to meet the 
demand for high-quality services at reduced cost. Most States 
reported being satisfied with the number of qualified bidders 
for outsourcing projects. However, the GAO reports State and 
local governments often have little experience in developing 
contracts that adequately specify desired program results and 
performance measures. This deficit raises the question how HHS 
will meet GPRA mandates to measure outcomes and hold grantees 
accountable for program results.
    b. Benefits.--The GAO reports that, under the proper 
conditions, privatization of social services may result in 
improved services and increased cost-effectiveness. The report 
provided the subcommittee, the Congress and the public with 
current information on the extent, problems and prospects for 
privatization of social service delivery systems. This 
information will be useful as welfare reform and other 
initiatives are evaluated through continuing oversight.
5. ``Proprietary Schools: Poorer Student Outcomes at Schools That Rely 
        More on Federal Student Aid,'' June 13, 1997, GAO/HEHS-97-103
    a. Summary.--Proprietary schools are private non-profit 
institutions primarily offering vocational training. The 
General Accounting Office [GAO] found proprietary schools that 
rely more heavily on Federal student aid tend to have poorer 
student outcomes. On average, the greater a school's reliance 
on Federal funds, the lower its students' completion and 
placement rates and the higher its students' default rates. 
Requiring proprietary schools to obtain a higher percentage of 
their revenues from other sources could save millions in 
default claims. Achieving this result, however, would require a 
substantial increase to the current 15 percent threshold, which 
requires that proprietary institutions obtain at least 15 
percent of their revenues from sources other than Federal 
student financial aid programs. Yet raising the threshold 
significantly might cause schools to make changes, such as 
admitting fewer poorer students, that might compromise students 
access to post secondary education.
    b. Benefits.--By identifying the relationship between 
Federal student financial aid and poor student outcomes, GAO 
provides important information to help Congress and the 
executive branch evaluate and develop program performance 
standards, and target student aid programs more effectively to 
achieve their congressionally-mandated purposes.
6. ``Proprietary Schools: Millions Spent to Train Students for 
        Oversupplied Occupations,'' June 10, 1997, GAO/HEHS-97-104
    a. Summary.--Proprietary schools are private, non-profit 
institutions primarily offering vocational training. Under the 
Higher Education Act's title IV programs, the Federal 
Government spends billions of dollars each year on job training 
at proprietary schools, which prepare students for such 
occupations as automobile mechanic, electronic technician, and 
cosmetologist. The General Accounting Office [GAO] found that 
the Federal Government is spending millions of dollars to train 
students for occupations that already have an oversupply of 
workers. In the 12 States GAO reviewed, more than 112,000 
proprietary school students received more than $273 million in 
Federal funds to be trained in fields with projected labor 
surpluses. Several major Federal job training programs, such as 
the Job Training Partnership Act, restrict training to fields 
with favorable job prospects. In passing the Student Right-to-
Know Act, Congress recognized the need to improve the quality 
of information that students receive. The act stops short, 
however, of requiring schools to report employment outcomes of 
recent graduates, such as training-related job placements. In 
addition, no mechanism currently exists to ensure that students 
get important information on local labor market conditions.
    b. Benefits.--The report provides Congress with information 
pointing to the need to expand the Student Right-to-Know Act to 
require proprietary schools to report recent graduates' 
training-related job placements and local job market 
conditions. The report also should help Federal and local 
program officials to target student aid programs toward areas 
of greater job opportunities.
7. ``Job Corps: Need for Better Enrollment Guidance and Improved 
        Placement Measures,'' October 21, 1997, GAO/HEHS-98-1
    a. Summary.--The Job Corps is one of the few remaining 
Federal training programs, serving 68,000 disadvantaged youths 
annually at a cost of about $1 billion. However, the program 
still loses a quarter of its participants shortly after 
enrollment. One reason may be ambiguous eligibility 
requirements, which lead recruitment contractors to enroll 
youths who are ill-suited for what the program has to offer. 
The General Accounting Office [GAO] concludes that the Job 
Corps needs to identify participants who have the commitment, 
the attitude, and the motivation to complete the training and 
benefit from Job Corps' comprehensive and intensive services. 
Furthermore, although the Labor Department uses performance 
measures to make decisions about renewing placement 
contractors, GAO found two of the four measures that Labor uses 
do not provide information needed to assess the performance of 
placement contractors. In addition, related measures on overall 
program performance are flawed. Although the Job Corps reported 
that about 65 percent of its participants are placed in jobs 
and that about 46 percent of these placements are linked to Job 
Corps training, GAO questions the accuracy and the relevancy of 
both of these figures.
    b. Benefits.--As the Department of Labor continues efforts 
to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act, this 
report documents the need for better management of contractors 
and for adherence to statutory eligibility and placement 
criteria for Job Corps participants to ensure continued program 
success.

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
                                Justice

1. ``Drug Control: Long-Standing Problems Hinder U.S. International 
        Efforts,'' February 1997, GA/NSIAD-97-75
    a. Summary.--GAO summarized the findings from its previous 
work on international drug control and interdiction efforts, 
focusing on: (1) the effectiveness of U.S. efforts to combat 
drug production and the movement of drugs into the United 
States; (2) obstacles to implementation of U.S. drug control 
efforts; and (3) suggestions to improve the operational 
effectiveness of the U.S. international drug control efforts. 
GAO noted that: (1) despite long-standing efforts and 
expenditures of billions of dollars, illegal drugs still flood 
the United States; (2) although these efforts have resulted in 
some successes, including the arrest of traffickers and the 
eradication, seizure, and disruption in the transport of 
illegal drugs, they have not materially reduced the 
availability of drugs; (3) a key reason for U.S. 
counternarcotics programs' lack of success is that 
international drug-trafficking organizations have become 
sophisticated, multi-billion dollar industries that quickly 
adapt to new U.S. drug control efforts; (4) as success is 
achieved in one area, the drug-trafficking organizations change 
tactics, thwarting U.S. efforts; (5) other significant, long-
standing obstacles also impede U.S. and drug-producing and 
transit countries' drug control efforts; (6) in the drug-
producing and transit countries, counternarcotics control 
efforts are constrained by competing economic and political 
policies, inadequate laws, limited resources and institutional 
capabilities, and internal problems such as terrorism and civil 
unrest; (7) moreover, drug traffickers are increasingly 
resourceful in corrupting the countries' institutions; (8) U.S. 
efforts have been hampered by competing U.S. foreign policy 
objectives, organizational and operational limitations, 
difficulty in obtaining bilateral and multilateral support for 
U.S. drug control efforts, inconsistency in the funding for 
U.S. international drug-control efforts, and the lack of ways 
to tell whether or how well counternarcotics efforts are 
contributing to the goals and objectives of the national drug 
control strategy, which results in an inability to prioritize 
the use of limited resources; (9) there is no panacea for 
resolving all of the problems associated with illegal drug 
trafficking; (10) however, a multi-year plan that describes 
where, when, and how U.S. agencies intend to apply resources 
would provide a more consistent approach; (11) this plan should 
include performance measures and long-term funding needs linked 
to the goals and objectives of the international drug control 
strategy; (12) ONDCP should, at least annually, review the plan 
and make appropriate adjustments; and, (13) with this multiyear 
plan, program managers and policymakers can make more-informed 
decisions on priorities.
    b. Benefits.--The United States has spent billions of 
dollars on international drug control and interdiction efforts 
but illegal drugs still flow into this country. A major factor 
is that international drug-trafficking organizations have 
become sophisticated, multibillion-dollar industries capable of 
changing tactics to elude new U.S. drug control efforts and 
corrupting the institutions of drug-producing and transit 
countries. U.S. efforts have also been hampered by competing 
foreign policy objectives, inconsistent funding for U.S. 
international drug control plans, and a lack of ways to measure 
the success of counternarcotics efforts. Although no panacea 
exists that will curb illegal drug trafficking, a multi-year 
plan that sets out funding needs linked to goals and objectives 
would provide a more consistent approach to drug control 
efforts. GAO also believes that improved uses of technology and 
intelligence and the development of a centralized ``lessons 
learned'' system could bolster counter-narcotics efforts.
2. ``Environmental Cleanup at DOD: Better Cost-Sharing Guidance Needed 
        at Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated Sites,'' March 1997, 
        GAO/NSIAD-97-32
    a. Summary.--This report examines Department of Defense 
[DOD] policies and practices regarding cleanup of environmental 
contamination at government-owned, contractor-operated [GOCO] 
plants, as a follow-up to previous reports which demonstrated 
inconsistent policies and practices on cost sharing. GAO 
reviewed nine higher-cost case studies at the Defense Logistics 
Agency [DLA] and the military services (1) to assess the 
consistency of cost-sharing practices across DOD and (2) to 
compare the service cleanup estimates against DOD's. 
Specifically, GAO identified the actions taken and the types of 
arrangements for sharing cleanup costs between the Government 
and other responsible parties, and examined site-specific 
cleanup cost data.
    The services' policies and practices for having contractors 
share cleanup costs still vary widely. Not withstanding GAO 
recommendations to do so, DOD has not given the services 
adequate guidance for making decisions on whether and when to 
seek recovery of environmental cleanup costs incurred by DOD 
from contractors and other parties at GOCO facilities. The Army 
authorized indemnifying its operating contractors from cleanup 
costs at ammunition plants; the Navy policy requires cost-
recovery efforts, but has not initiated timely requests for 
cost sharing or followed up; and the Air Force is beginning to 
seek participation in cleanup costs from its operating 
contractors.
    Regarding cleanup at GOCO facilities visited by GAO, DOD's 
fiscal year 1994 report to Congress included costs that were 
closer to the military services' supporting data than DOD's 
reported fiscal year 1993 estimates. DOD's estimates for 
cleaning up the 78 GOCO facilities increased from $1.4 billion 
in fiscal year 1993 to $3.6 billion in 1994, but decreased 
somewhat to $3.3 billion in 1995. Although DOD and the services 
have addressed GAO's recommendations to improve cost 
information, their estimates of past and projected costs still 
differ, and not all costs were included.
    Because Superfund holds parties liable for the billions of 
dollars needed to remedied past contamination regardless of 
wrongdoing, it is important that DLA and the services deal with 
potentially responsible parties on the basis of consistent 
policy and accurate data. However, the lack of DOD guidance on 
cost sharing has permitted inconsistencies in approaches to 
cost sharing, and the potential for some parties to be held 
responsible for cleanup costs, while others in similar 
situations are not. If cost sharing agreements are reached, 
omissions in historical information and cost data may inhibit 
the recovery of all appropriate costs.
    b. Benefits.--This report highlights DOD's lack of accurate 
accounting data and a coherent and consistent department-wide 
policy for determining cleanup costs at GOCO sites. In 
addition, this reports the likelihood of higher and previously 
unplanned cleanup costs to the Congress. To address the 
inconsistencies in cost sharing approaches and the potential 
for disparate treatment of other responsible parties described 
in this report, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
issue guidance to DOD components to resolve current disparities 
and to promote future consistent treatment of all parties in 
cost recovery decisions. So that sufficient data will be 
available for cost sharing negotiations and program oversight, 
GAO also recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the 
military services and DLA to: (1) Identify, to the extent it 
has not already been done, whether parties other than the 
government were involved with any contamination, as part of 
environmental cleanup preliminary assessments at GOCO 
facilities; (2) Obtain all relevant data regarding other 
responsible parties identified, whether or not wrongdoing is an 
issue; (3) Gather and maintain the most timely and accurate DOD 
cost data available in DLA, military service, and other 
agencies' records; and (4) Provide consistent estimates, 
including all cleanup costs for DOD's environmental reports to 
Congress, regardless of the source of funds.
3. ``Drug Control: Update on U.S. Interdiction Activities in the 
        Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.'' October 1997, GAO/NSIAD-98-30
    a. Summary.--Since GAO's April 1996 report ``Drug Control: 
U.S. Interdiction Efforts in the Caribbean Decline [NSIAD-96-
119]'' the amount of drugs smuggled and the counternarcotics 
capabilities of host countries and the United States have 
remained largely unchanged. Cocaine trafficking through the 
Caribbean and Eastern Pacific regions continues, and drug 
traffickers are still relying heavily on maritime modes of 
transportation. Recent information shows that traffickers are 
using ``go-fast'' boats, fishing vessels, coastal freighters, 
and other vessels in the Caribbean and fishing and cargo 
vessels with multiton loads in the Eastern Pacific. Also, 
recent estimates indicate that, of all cocaine moving through 
the transit zone, 38 percent (234 metric tons) is being shipped 
through the Eastern Pacific. Although the United States has 
continued to provide technical assistance and equipment to many 
Caribbean and other transit zone countries, the amount of 
cocaine seized by most of the countries is small relative to 
the estimated amounts flowing through the area. The counterdrug 
efforts of many transit zone countries continue to be hampered 
by limited resources and capabilities. Moreover, the United 
States does not have bilateral maritime agreements with 12 
transit zone countries to facilitate interdiction activities. 
Also, since the April 1996 report, the United States has 
increased funding but has had limited success in detecting 
monitoring, and interdicting air and maritime trafficking in 
the transit zone. JIATF-East assets devoted to these efforts 
have stayed at almost the same level. However, drug-trafficking 
events are usually not detected and, when detected, often do 
not result in narcotics seizures. U.S. counternarcotics 
officials believe that the Eastern Pacific, ``a major drug-
threat area.'' could benefit from greater attention. JIATF-East 
has requested additional resources from DOD to address Eastern 
Pacific drug trafficking, believing that cocaine seizures it 
supports could be doubled. DOD has not determined, what, if 
any, additional support will be allocated to the Eastern 
Pacific above current force levels. In 1996, the U.S. Customs 
Service and the U.S. Coast Guard initiated two intensive 
operations in and around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands that resulted in increased cocaine seizures and a 
disruption in drug-trafficking patterns.
    b. Benefits.--In response to GAO's recommendation in their 
April 1996 report that ONDCP develop a regional plan of action, 
ONDCP officials told GAO that it developed an overall strategy 
that identifies agency roles, missions, and tasks to execute 
the drug strategy and establish task priorities. However, the 
strategy does not include quantitative objectives for 
activities that would establish a defined baseline for 
developing operational plans and resource requirements. 
According to GAO, ONDCP's performance measurement system 
remains incomplete, as of October 1, 1997, because proposed 
measurable targets, the core of ONDCP's system, were still 
under review. Until these measurable targets are developed, it 
will not be possible to hold agencies accountable for their 
performance. In addition, law enforcement agencies with 
jurisdiction in the Caribbean are in the process of developing 
a regional plan led by DEA, the FBI, and the U.S. Customs 
Service. This plan was expected to be completed by January 
1998.
4. ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability With State 
        and Local Flexibility.'' October 1997, GAO/HEHS-98-3
    a. Summary.--The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one 
of several substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs 
funded by the Federal Government. The act that authorizes the 
program requires a variety of Federal, State, and local actions 
to ensure accountability. These actions involve four major 
types of accountability mechanisms: (1) an application process, 
requiring approval of State and local program plans; (2) 
monitoring activities by State agencies; (3) periodic reports 
and evaluations; and (4) the use of local or substate regional 
advisory councils. In combination, these mechanisms address 
accountability for both how funds are spent and progress toward 
achieving national, State, and locally defined goals.
    The Department of Education oversees State programs 
directly and local programs indirectly through required State 
actions. Its State oversight is a combination of activities 
required by the act and other generally applicable 
requirements. Working along with States, Education reviews, 
helps States to revise, and, finally, approves State plans--
which include a description of planned State-level activities, 
criteria for selecting high-need districts that will receive 
supplemental funds, and plans for monitoring local activities--
before disbursing funds. In addition, Education conducts on-
site monitoring visits. To allow States and localities enough 
flexibility to meet their needs, Education has issued no 
program-specific regulations on the act. Education does, 
however, require States to conform to general and 
administrative regulations and advises States on program 
matters, such as allowable expenditures, through nonbinding 
guidance. In addition, the Department may get involved in 
resolving allegations of impropriety in the use of funds. For 
example, Education, in response to allegations about Drug-Free 
Schools programs, reviewed programs in West Virginia and 
participated in resolving adverse audit findings in Michigan. 
To date, however, no overall evaluations of the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools program have been completed.
    b. Benefits.--The major purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools programs is to help the Nation's schools provide a 
disciplined environment conducive to learning by eliminating 
violence in and around schools and preventing illegal drug use. 
States and localities have wide discretion in designing and 
implementing programs funded under the act. They are held 
accountable for achieving the goals and objectives they set as 
well as for the Federal dollars they spend. As permitted under 
the act, States and localities are delivering a wide range of 
activities and services. Likewise, accountability mechanisms 
have been established and appear to be operating in ways 
consistent with the act.
    The lack of uniform information on program activities and 
effectiveness may, however, create a problem for Federal 
oversight. First, with no requirement that States use a 
consistent set of measures, the Department faces a difficult 
challenge in assembling the triennial reports so that a 
nationwide picture of the program's effectiveness emerges. 
Second, although Education provides a mechanism for States to 
report information annually, under the act, nationwide 
information on effectiveness and program activities may only be 
available every 3 years, which may not be often enough for 
congressional oversight.

                   Subcommittee on the Postal Service

1. ``Information on Post Office Closures, Appeals, and Affected 
        Communities,'' March 1997. GAO/GGD-97-38BR
    a. Summary.--At the request of Subcommittee Chairman 
McHugh, the General Accounting Office reported on the Postal 
Service's closure of post offices. A Post Office closure is 
when the Postal Service permanently closes the operations of an 
independent post office [IPO], eliminates the position of the 
postmaster associated with that office, and provides the 
customers with alternative postal services, such as highway 
contract routes, rural route services, or community post 
offices.
    In a 1996 report, GAO reported that of 39,140 post offices, 
stations branches and other postal outlets, about 45 percent 
reported total revenues that were about $1.1 billion lower than 
their total expenses in fiscal year 1995.
    The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 provides that no 
small post office can be closed for economic reasons alone. For 
some years after the act, Congress appropriated funds to 
reimburse the Postal Service for the ``public service costs'' 
that the Postal Service incurred in retaining postal operations 
in communities where the post offices were not self-sustaining. 
In 1976, Congress added to the provisions to govern whether and 
how the Service is to close post offices. These provisions 
included that prior to closing a post office, the USPS must 
consider the effects on the community served, the postal 
employees affected by the closure, the Government policy to 
provide effective and regular postal service to all areas of 
the country as well as any economic savings to the Service 
resulting from the closure. The customers must be provided with 
a written proposal and adequate notice at least 60 days prior 
to the proposed date for the closure of the post office and 
what lead to the decision to close the post office. About 
28,000 post offices, headed by a postmaster, are subject to the 
statutory closing restrictions. The Postal Rate Commission is 
authorized to affirm the proposal or remand the issue to the 
Postal Service for reconsideration, using Postal Service data. 
Though the Postal Service is not required to notify the PRC of 
the outcome of the reconsideration, the PRC must rule on 
appeals no later than 120 days after receiving it.
    The Postal Service has closed 3,924 post offices since 
1970. There have been 296 appeals of closures to the PRC which 
affirmed 170 of the Postal Service's proposals. Three 
circumstances may prompt the Postal Service to consider whether 
to close a post office: vacancy in the postmaster position (due 
to promotion, transfer, retirement or death); emergency 
suspension of a post office's operations (as in circumstances 
such as a fire, natural disaster or termination of a lease); 
and special circumstances (such as incorporation of two 
communities into one). In fiscal year 1995, 239 post offices 
were closed, and in 1996, 161 post offices were closed.
    b. Benefits.--By commissioning this study, the Postal 
Service is alerted to the subcommittee's oversight concerns 
about retention of small and rural post offices. This report 
provides important information to Congress and to the 
communities facing postal closures. It encapsulates the process 
for closing post offices.
2. ``Postal Reform in Canada: Canada Post Corporation's Universal 
        Service and Ratemaking,'' March 1997. GAO/GGD-9745/BR
    a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office responded to 
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh's request to provide information 
on the 1981 reform initiative of the Canadian postal system 
which ultimately became the Canadian Post Corp. [CPC], a Crown 
Corp.--a commercial function operating for public purposes in 
which the Canadian Government is the only shareholder--which 
was given broad authority to address existing problems within 
the Canadian postal system. The GAO report covered matters 
relating to universal mail service, CPC ratemaking and key 
events affecting the CPC since its establishment.
    The CPC Act provided that the CPC Board of Directors would 
be selected by the Canadian Government, designate a minister to 
oversee the CPC and approve proposed CPC regulations, approve 
its 5 year-plans, annual operating and capital budgets. The CPC 
is subject to antitrust law which is executed by Canada's 
Bureau of Competition Policy. The CPC is required to endeavor 
to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis.
    It is reported that the CPC incurred operating losses from 
its inception through fiscal year 1988. In 1989 it reported its 
first profit and also reported profits in 4 of the 7 fiscal 
years 1990 through 1996. CPC has now paid dividends. In 1994, 
it became subject to Federal income tax. The term ``universal 
service'' is not mentioned in the CPC Act but it does cite 
``maintaining basic customary postal service,'' and must 
consider several conditions in providing a standard of service 
which will meet the needs of communities of similar size. The 
CPC does not require basic letter mail service at uniform 
price, but it is CPC policy to do so. The CPC Act provides that 
the Canadian Post has the ``exclusive privilege'' of collecting 
and delivering most letter mail in Canada; this accounts for 
about 50 percent of CPC's operating revenue. In an attempt to 
improve mail service, the CPC reduced mail delivery from 6 to 5 
days a week and dropped mail delivery for businesses in urban 
areas from several times a day to once a day. CPC provides mail 
delivery less frequently, as infrequently as once a week, to 
about 200 communities in the remote regions of northern Canada. 
CPC reduced the number of post offices it owned by closing post 
offices and privatizing 50 percent of its post offices, which 
are now typically in conveniently located, privately owned 
outlets like grocery stores, which can provide longer operating 
hours and a wider range of services. Most of the conversions 
took place prior to February 1994 when the Government put a 
moratorium on the conversion program.
    The CPC sets some of its postal rates by regulation. These 
are generally single-piece domestic and international letters, 
and prescribing rates of postage discounts on mailable matter 
prepared in the form defined by regulation. Under the CPC Act, 
reasonable opportunity is provided for interested parties to 
comment on the regulations subject to government approval, 
though it does not specify how these comments are to be 
addressed. The comments are analyzed and sent to the Minister 
responsible for CPC and then the proposed regulation is 
approved by the Board of Directors. In 1996, the only postal 
rates established by regulation were for basic domestic and 
international single-piece letters, international printed 
matter--including newspapers and periodical--literature for the 
blind and some registered mail products. Non-regulated rates, 
those set by agreement, must be approved by the CPC Board of 
Directors or others within the CPC. These rates may relate to 
variations of postage rates based on bulk mailing or 
preparation of mail in a manner which would expedite processing 
and provision of experimental services for periods not 
exceeding 3 years. The CPC, over the years, has sought and 
received government approval to remove a number of rate 
categories from the regulatory process and now most of the 
postal rates are established without regulation and without 
government approval. These products include bulk mail, 
overnight or urgent delivery, unaddressed advertised mail and 
parcels. Nonregulated postage rates fall into generic and 
nongeneric rates. Generic rates apply to discounted bulk-
business letter mail, advertising mail, parcels, and courier 
services. These rates are available to anyone who meets bulk 
mail requirement. Nongeneric postage rates are established 
though negotiated, confidential agreements, customized for 
individual, large-volume business customers and approved by CPC 
officials below the top level through authority delegated by 
the Board of Directors. These are generally for mail other than 
letter, such as parcels and unaddressed advertising mail.
    The CPC Act provides that rates issued by regulation must 
be fair, reasonable and consistent. The rates are established 
by taking into account the basic customary service obligation, 
providing uniform basic letter rates and limiting rates to the 
rise in the Consumer Price Index. The total revenues provided 
must be sufficient to defray expenses incurred by the CPC in 
the conduct of its operations. The established pricing policies 
comply with the CPC Act and the antitrust provisions of the 
Competition Act. An independent auditing firm ensures that the 
CPC is allocating and distributing costs properly for 
ratemaking purposes. The detailed cost and revenue data is 
considered to be commercially sensitive.
    b. Benefits.--The information reported in this study 
provides useful information to the subcommittee in its efforts 
to reform the U.S. Postal Service to make it more competitive 
in an era when it is facing extreme competition because of 
advances made in the electronic and technological fields.
3. ``U.S. Postal Service: Information on Emergency Suspensions of 
        Operations at Post Offices,'' April 1997, GAO-GGD-97-70R
    a. Summary.--Subcommittee Chairman McHugh requested 
information on emergency suspension of operations at post 
offices by the Postal Service. The Postal Reorganization Act of 
1970 mandates that no post office can be closed for economic 
reasons alone. In 1976, Congress added provisions that govern 
whether and how the Postal Service can close post offices and 
give the customers the right to appeal the determination to the 
Postal Rate Commission. However, emergency suspensions cannot 
be appealed because they are not governed by statute. These 
closures are set within the Postal Operations Manual and the 
Post Office Discontinuance Guide (Handbook-101). They provide 
that Service district managers, Customer Service and Sales, may 
suspend the operations of any post office under their 
jurisdiction when an emergency or other condition requires such 
action. An emergency is defined as an occurrence that creates a 
threat to the safety and health of postal employees or 
customers, or to the security of the mail. This may include, 
among other situations, a natural disaster; termination of a 
lease or rental agreement when other suitable accommodations 
are unavailable; lack of qualified personnel to operate the 
post office; severe health or safety hazard in the work 
environment; severe damage to, or destruction of, the post 
office building; and lack of adequate measures to safeguard the 
office or its revenues. Service procedures require that the 
senior vice president, Marketing be notified immediately by the 
district managers, who must also notify affected customers by 
individual letter of the effective date and the reason for the 
suspension, the alternative service available, the nearest post 
office and its hours of operation, and the name and telephone 
number of a person to contact for more information. Alternative 
postal service must be established as soon as possible after a 
suspension and, if there is time, a community meeting should be 
convened. District managers are required to decide within 6 
months of a suspension whether to reopen the post office or to 
initiate a study to determine the feasibility of permanently 
closing the post office. The post office remains in suspension 
status while the study is initiated and there is no set time 
for completion of the study. The Postal Service reports that 
since the beginning of 1992 through March 1997, the operations 
of 651 post offices were suspended, the greatest number 
occurring in 1993, primarily because of the early out 
retirement incentive which resulted in a number of postmasters 
retiring early in 1993. Many of the post offices lost their 
lease at that time because the retiring postmaster owned the 
building or qualified people were not available to continue the 
operations of the post office. As of March 1997, 470 post 
offices were under emergency suspensions. The average time of 
the suspension was 4.3 years.
    b. Benefits.--There was much postal patron concern 
regarding the emergency closing of post offices because of the 
inconveniences they caused. This study by the GAO puts into 
concise form the number of emergency suspensions and why the 
post offices were closed.
4. ``U.S. Postal Service: Information About Restrictions on Mailbox 
        Access,'' May 1997. GAO/GGD-97-85
    a. Summary.--At the request of Subcommittee Chairman 
McHugh, the GAO responded to subcommittee concerns to evaluate 
if changes are needed to 18 U.S.C. 1725, the law that gives the 
Postal Service exclusive access to mailboxes, known as the 
``mailbox restriction.'' The Postal Service relies on the 
provision to protect postal revenue, facilitate efficient and 
secure delivery of mail and ensure the privacy of postal 
customers. Some postal competitors believe that the provision 
is unnecessary, unfair and restricts their business and, 
therefore, should be repealed. No studies have been made to 
substantiate the claims of either the Postal Service or the 
competitors. GAO reported that Congress adopted the mailbox 
restriction rule in 1934 to prevent the delivery of unstamped 
matter in mailboxes, which was occurring during that time and 
adversely impacting postal revenues. Civic groups which had 
placed the unstamped material in the mailboxes claimed that the 
restriction abridged their first amendment rights to free 
speech and the press.
    In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the mailbox restriction, ruling that the 
law and enforcement actions were not geared to the content of 
the message place in mailboxes. It also found that mailboxes 
are essential to mail delivery and that postal customers agree 
to abide by laws and regulations that apply to mailboxes in 
exchange for the Postal Service agreeing to deliver and pick up 
mail in them. Based on their national study, the GAO found 
about 66 percent reported that their household received mail in 
unlocked mailboxes. About 82 percent of the adults surveyed are 
opposed to allowing just anyone to put materials into their 
mailbox. However, 58 percent favored granting mailbox access to 
express mail companies such as Federal Express and United 
Parcel Service. About 49 percent endorsed allowing other 
companies, such as utilities, to have access; 38 percent 
favored magazines and newspapers, and 29 percent agreed to 
having catalogs, coupons or ads. The Postal Service, postal 
labor unions and management associations, and a contractors' 
association expressed that the mailbox restriction should not 
change. The Justice Department also opposed change because the 
restriction deters the distribution of sexually explicit 
materials to mailboxes because there are some laws and 
regulations governing the distribution of these materials only 
to mail delivered by the Postal Service and would not be 
applicable to others if they utilized the mailboxes for 
delivery. Most mailer groups also agreed with the mailbox 
restriction should remain but others differed.
    The Postal Inspection Service which is responsible for 
enforcing postal laws, did not have data on the number of mail 
thefts but reported that it was not a serious problem because 
the mailbox restriction deters mail theft and makes it easier 
to resolve the cases. Under current law a violation of the 
mailbox restriction provision can be punished by a fine but not 
by imprisonment. The maximum fine for each offense is $5,000 
for individuals and $10,000 for organizations.
    b. Benefits.--In its deliberations on postal reform, the 
subcommittee considered a demonstration project to relax the 
mailbox rule. This provision became a hotly debated issue but 
no empirical data was available until this GAO study was 
completed. As a result of the GAO finding, this measure has 
been dropped from the legislative proposal.
5. ``The Results Act: Observations on the Postal Service's June 1997 
        Draft Strategic Plan,'' July 1997, GAO/GGD-97-163R
    a. Summary.--The majority leader, chairmen of the 
Committees on the Budget, Appropriations and Government Reform 
and Oversight asked for GAO review of the drafts prepared by 
cabinet departments of strategic plans as required by the 
Government Performance and Results Act. Subcommittee Chairman 
McHugh requested that the Postal Service be included in this 
review. This report assessed whether the Postal Service was in 
compliance with the Results Act, whether the major statutory 
responsibilities were reflected in the submitted text, whether 
the Postal Service addressed major management problems, whether 
the Service had capacity to provide reliable information for 
measuring results and whether the strategic plan shows input 
from consultation and interagency coordination for cross-
cutting functions. For several years, the Postal Service has 
been using its own strategic planning system, CustomerPerfect!, 
based on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, to set 
its goals and it provided a strong basis for addressing the 
Results Act requirements. Recognizing that the strategic 
planning process is ongoing and iterative, the GAO observed 
that the Postal Service draft plan generally included the six 
components required by the act and provided useful information, 
but that the discussion could be strengthened to meet the 
requirements of the act. Though the plan showed the major 
statutory responsibilities, GAO determined that the Service 
should have elaborated on and discussed major management 
problems and submitted a more complete mission statement, 
general goals and objectives, and strategies to achieve the 
goals and objectives.
    The Results Act requires that strategic plans contain a 
description of how goals and objectives are to be achieved 
including a description of operational processes, skills and 
technology, and human, capital information and other resources 
necessary to meet these goals. The GAO also suggested that the 
plan could better discuss how these components may be affected 
by key management problems, such as labor-management relations, 
the need to strengthen internal controls to protect revenues 
and ensuring the integrity of acquisitions. The Postal Service 
provided multiple goals. GAO commented that the Postal Service 
faces a difficult challenge in successfully implementing all 
the projected goals. Even though it recognizes the challenges, 
the Postal Service needs to explain how its executives will 
manage the process.
    b. Benefits.--This overview by the GAO will provide the 
Postal Service with an objective, unbiased assessment of its 
presentation of goals and projections for the future. A more 
refined product from the Postal Service will enable Congress to 
perform its oversight duties with clearer direction and, by 
charting its course with more refinement, Postal Service 
customers will be served by a more efficient and goals oriented 
agency. Clearly, the Postal Service stakeholders will have a 
better vision of how the Postal Service will compete in an 
electronic communications market. The Postal Service will 
benefit from the expressed clarity of purpose, expressing 
accuracy and effectiveness of delivery performance, 
appropriateness of measurements of postal productivity and the 
measurement of business and residential customer satisfaction.
6. U.S. Postal Service: ``Issues Related to Governance of the Postal 
        Service,'' August 1997, GAO/GGD-97-141
    a. Summary.--Subcommittee Chairman McHugh requested that 
GAO furnish information regarding the governance of the Postal 
Service which would be beneficial in the subcommittee's efforts 
to reform the Postal Service. The objectives were to identify 
major areas of concern or issues that former and current 
Governors of the Postal Service may have regarding the Board 
and to compare the major characteristics, similarities or 
differences, of the Postal Service Board of Governors with the 
characteristics of other boards of government-created 
corporations or corporation-like organizations. Nine other 
entities were chosen for comparison (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, 
TVA, RTB, FDIC, AMTRAK, CPB, Canada Post, Australia Post). 
Additionally, the GAO provided information on governance issues 
to assist in the postal reform endeavor. Present and former 
Governors of the Postal Service indicated that attention should 
be given to several areas: the limitations on the Board to 
establish postage rates; the inability of the Board to pay the 
PMG more than the level I of the Executive Schedule; the lack 
of pay comparability of the Board; and amending the 
qualification requirements of Board appointees to ensure they 
have the necessary experience to oversee a major Government 
entity.
    b. Benefits.--Prior to the issuance of this report, no 
other study was available to answer questions pertinent to the 
subcommittee's interest in comparison of the Postal Service 
with other entities of like characteristics. This report 
contains invaluable information for the subcommittee's use.
7. ``Little Progress Made in Addressing Persistent Labor-Management 
        Problems,'' October 1997, GAO/GGD-97-85 and GAO/T-GGD-98-7
    a. Summary.--This report was submitted in response to 
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh's request that the GAO review the 
efforts of the Postal Service to enhance employee working 
conditions and the overall performance of the Service. This 
report contains updated material to GAO's 1994 report, ``U.S. 
Postal Service: Labor-Management Problems Persist on the 
Workroom Floor.'' The GAO had made several recommendations to 
the Service to improve labor-management relations. The current 
report determined the status and results of the identified 
concerns in the previous report and made recommendations to 
help alleviate the problems. The GAO ascertained that the 
problems still exist because the Postal Service and the unions 
and management groups cannot concur on how best to address the 
concerns; therefore, the GAO recommendations have not been 
implemented in most cases, though employee officials indicated 
that some of the initiatives would be workable. Improving 
relations between labor and management continues to be an 
ongoing challenge and concern, particularly since the 
communications arena is becoming inevitably competitive. This 
material was the subject of a subcommittee hearing on November 
4, 1997 at which GAO testified.
    b. Benefits.--Employee salaries represent 80 percent of the 
cost for services for the USPS. Additionally, as the Postal 
Service faces increased competition, and in an effort to 
contain costs associated with employee grievances, it is 
imperative that labor-management relations be improved and 
costs contained. The GAO report of 1994 prompted the Postal 
Service to call a summit in October 1997, in an effort to start 
implementing some of the recommendations that it proposed to 
improve relations and expedite the grievance process.

         V. Prior Activities of Current or Continuing Interest

                           Standing Committee

    1. Line Item Veto.--As part of its comprehensive effort to 
reduce the Federal deficit and control runaway Federal 
spending, the 104th Congress sought to strengthen the power of 
the President to rescind appropriations by passing the Line 
Item Veto Act, Public Law 104-130, 110 Stat. 1200, (codified at 
2 U.S.C. Sec. 691 et. seq.) as an amendment to the Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974, Public Law 93-344 (codified as amended at 
2 U.S.C. Sec. 683); Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight Report No. 104-11, Pt. II, January 30, 1995.
    Once the President signed the act into law, and utilized 
the new authority afforded by the act, several Members of 
Congress sought relief in Federal District Court, asserting the 
act offends Article 1 of the Constitution. The committee is 
following the activity of the executive, judicial and 
legislative branches concerning the continuing viability and 
utilization of the authority of the act.

                Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

    1. Review public safety in the District of Columbia.
    2. Continue investigation into the District of Columbia's 
financial condition, to include the District's accumulated 
operating deficits.
    3. Oversight of the District of Columbia's education 
emergency Board of Trustees and temporary superintendent/CEO 
Julius Becton.
    4. Continue monitoring the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment 
Facility and the operation and performance of the Water and 
Sewer Authority.
    5. Investigation of the Washington Aqueduct.
    6. Review the operations of the Lorton Corrections 
Facility.
    7. Continue to monitor the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue 
and the impact of the Federal Government's security reviews.

                    Subcommittee on Human Resources

    1. Department of Veterans Affairs handling of medical 
claims by Gulf War veterans.
    2. Federal and State child support enforcement program 
implementation and coordination.
    3. HUD takeover of the Chicago Housing Authority and the 
department's capacity to manage that and other distressed 
housing authorities.
    4. Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
    5. Efforts to combat fraud against Medicare and Medicaid in 
the home health care industry and in nursing homes.
    6. Maximizing the use and efficiency of computers in the 
Social Security system.
    7. FDA drug advertising, promotion and labeling policies.
    8. Operation of the Vaccines for Children program.
    9. Department of Labor enforcement authority and activities 
with regard to sweat shops, racketeering and organized crime.
    10. HUD management of public housing tenant initiatives.
    11. FDA standards for assessment of risk, safety and 
efficacy of medical devices, including breast and jaw implants.
    12. Health Care Finance Administration efforts to control 
the growth of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.
    13. AIDS funding.
    14. Monitoring of emerging infectious diseases by the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    15. Health Care Finance Administration's proposed 
``Medicare Transaction and Information Systems.''
    16. HUD compliance with statutory deadline to end the use 
of ``welfare hotels'' and other unfit transient facilities.
    17. Mission and level of coordination between the NLRB, 
National Mediation Board, the Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service and the Railroad Retirement Board.
    18. Social Security Disability Income claims screening for 
alcohol and drug abuse.
    19. FDA regulation of health claims for dietary 
supplements.
    20. Organizational structure of the Equal Employment 
Opportunities Commission.
    21. Review of rural health programs.
    22. Status of FDA action on the backlog of food additive 
petitions.
    23. Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense 
Hospital coordination.
    24. Preventing teen pregnancy.
    25. Department of Labor management of Multiemployer Welfare 
Arrangements with regard to health care fraud.
    26. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Public Law 104-4) 
compliance.
    27. Organizational structure and effectiveness of the 
Office of Workers Compensation Program.
    28. Pre-emption of State governments by Federal health and 
safety agencies.
    29. Safety of the Nation's blood supply.
    30. Department of Education's direct student lending 
program.
    31. Quality of health care provided by the Indian Health 
Service.
    32. Medicare reimbursement for durable medical equipment.
    33. National Institute of Health grant allocations process.
    34. Ensuring medical records privacy.

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
                                Justice

    The subcommittee will continue its investigations and 
oversight work in the following areas within its jurisdiction:
    1. The activities of the Drug Enforcement Administration in 
the drug war.
    2. The efforts of the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy in coordinating the National Drug Control Program 
agencies.
    3. The Department of Defense with respect to areas which 
fall under subcommittee jurisdiction.
    4. The U.S. Coast Guard's active involvement in 
international drug interdiction.
    5. The U.S. Customs Service and their involvement in the 
drug war.
    6. The use of the National Guard in multi-jurisdictional 
areas.
    7. Oversight of the National Aeronautic and Space 
Administration.
    8. The efficiency of the National Archives and Records 
Administration.
    9. Issues relating to Operation Lightning Strike.
    10. The operations of the Department of State with respect 
to the drug war.
    11. The efficiency of the drug treatment programs.
    12. The Immigration and Naturalization Program 
``Citizenship USA.''
    13. Oversight of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program.
    14. Investigation of the waste in defense inventory 
management at the Defense Logistics Agency.
    15. Oversight of counternarcotics intelligence 
coordination, analysis and dissemination.
    16. Oversight of Federal sentencing guidelines.

                   Subcommittee on the Postal Service

    The subcommittee will continue its investigations and 
oversight work in the following areas within its jurisdiction.
    1. Operation of the U.S. Postal Service. The subcommittee 
will continue to exercise its general oversight authority 
through the conduct of general oversight hearings.
    2. Postal Service labor-management relations. The 
subcommittee is interested in keeping the avenues of 
communication open between labor and management in an effort to 
minimize grievance related activities and raising the levels of 
productivity among all levels of employees within the Postal 
Service.
    3. Cooperation between the Postal Service and the Postal 
Inspection Service and the Postal Service Inspector General's 
Office. The Inspector General's Office was created a year ago. 
The effectiveness of the IG's office is dependent on mutual 
respect and professionalism between the offices, and adequate 
funding for that office. The subcommittee is fully committed to 
ensuring that the integrity and effectiveness of the office is 
protected so that it will ensure oversight responsibilities of 
the Postal Service and help to protect the Service from waste, 
fraud and abuse.

       VI. Projected Programs for the 105th Congress, 2nd Session

                   Subcommittee on the Civil Service

                         A. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

    A number of civil service matters have come before the 
subcommittee requiring passage of legislation. Some are 
addressed in bills already introduced, while others are being 
drafted. The subcommittee expects to deal with the following 
legislative matters:
    1. H.R. 240, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 
1997, which passed the House in April 1997. The subcommittee 
will work to seek passage in the Senate.
    2. H.R. 1836, Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act 
of 1997, which passed the House in November 1997. The 
subcommittee will work to seek passage in the Senate.
    3. H.R. 2675, Federal Employees Group Life Insurance 
Improvement bill, which passed the House in November 1997. The 
subcommittee will seek passage in the Senate.
    4. H.R. 2676, The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring 
and Reform Act of 1997, which passed the House in November 
1997. The subcommittee anticipates significant changes to the 
personnel provisions during Senate deliberations and will 
participate in subsequent reviews.
    5. H.R. 1337, Haskell Indian Nations University and 
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative 
Systems Act. The subcommittee anticipates early passage of this 
bill.
    6. A bill to correct the problem of Federal employees 
having been placed in the wrong retirement system. The 
subcommittee proposes to address this issue jointly with the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
    7. A bill to provide improved access to health care for 
military families and retirees. H.R. 1631 among several other 
bills has been introduced to address this problem. The 
subcommittee proposes to address this issue jointly with the 
Committee on National Security.
    8. An omnibus civil service bill to address matters in the 
following areas:
          a. strengthen performance management requirements--
        reward good performance; deal more readily with poor 
        performers;
          b. streamline and consolidate the employee grievance 
        and appeals process;
          c. provide greater flexibility in personnel 
        management rules and procedures;
          d. enhance the security of Federal retirement funds 
        and employee contributions;
          e. provide more choices for Federal employees in 
        their health and life insurance benefits;
          f. reform the Federal worker's compensation system 
        (FECA--Worker's Comp) to provide greater equity and 
        eliminate fraud and abuse.
    9. A bill to create a new benefit option for Federal 
employees to purchase long term care for themselves or members 
of their immediate families.
    10. As in previous years the subcommittee anticipates 
having to deal with civil service related provisions in the 
annual Budget Resolution and Budget Reconciliation Acts for 
fiscal year 1999.
    11. As in previous years the subcommittee anticipates 
having to deal with civil service related provisions in the 
annual Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999.
    12. As in previous years the subcommittee anticipates 
having to deal with civil service related provisions in various 
appropriations acts for fiscal year 1999.
    13. Following investigative hearings over violations of the 
Pendleton Act and the Hatch Act in the course of recent 
Presidential election campaigns, the subcommittee will consider 
legislative reforms to these acts.

                 B. OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE PROGRAM

    The subcommittee has a number of matters under 
consideration in its oversight program. Hearings will be 
scheduled on a number of these topics in order to more fully 
develop the public record. These issues include the following:
    1. Violations of the Hatch Act and Pendleton Act.
    2. Sexual harassment in the Federal workplace.
    3. Use and abuse of authorities to hire temporary Federal 
employees.
    4. The practice of paying Federal employees for doing no 
constructive work.
    5. Abuses in Intergovernmental Personnel Act appointments.
    6. Federal affirmative action programs and employment 
discrimination in the Federal workplace.
    7. The use of official time by Federal employees to pursue 
union work and to lobby; examine the extent of Federal 
subsidies to Federal unions.
    8. Frequency and extent of problems in OPM processing of 
retirement claims.
    9. OPM's management of the FEHB program.
    10. Accuracy and validity of wage and salary surveys used 
to set annual Federal pay adjustments (Federal Employees' Pay 
Comparability Act of 1990).
    11. Oversight of human resource issues in the National 
Performance Review [NPR] and Performance Based Organizations 
[PBOs].
    12. Oversight of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
    13. Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel.
    14. Oversight of the Federal Labor Relations Board.
    15. Oversight of the Federal division of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission.

                Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

                             A. LEGISLATION

    1. Economic Development; Convention Center.

                         B. OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

    1. District of Columbia Public Schools--facilities, 
enrollment, academic performance.
    2. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department--
reorganization and crime fighting programs management and 
personnel.
    3. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority--
operation and improvement of facilities, privatization review, 
facility and personnel management, and selling bonds.
    4. District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer--financial 
management, financial status tax collection, vendor payments 
and management initiatives.
    5. Corrections Trustee for the Lorton Prison closure--
review progress of duties of the Corrections Trustee as 
identified in Public Law 105-33, Title XI, Subtitle C.

   Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

    1. Year 2000 Problem.--The subcommittee will continue its 
active oversight of the Government's effort to prepare for the 
year 2000 date change. A series of hearings will begin in 
February with oversight of the Federal Aviation 
Administration's year 2000 problem. The subcommittee will also 
work with the Office of Management and Budget to continue to 
strengthen and expand quarterly reporting requirements from all 
Federal agencies. Further, the subcommittee will work with the 
General Accounting Office and agency Inspectors General to 
improve verification of the quality of reporting.
    2. The Government Performance and Results Act.--The 
subcommittee will continue its oversight of implementation of 
the Results Act as performance plans are produced government-
wide for the first time. The subcommittee will hold the first 
in a series of hearings in mid-February. The subcommittee will 
consider legislation that will amend both strategic and 
performance planning provisions of the Results Act.
    3. Oversight of Federal Property Laws.--The subcommittee 
will hold a series of hearings on Federal property laws. The 
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act has not been 
reauthorized since its inception in 1949. This law and its 
authorities will be re-examined with a view to determining 
whether economy and efficiency would be enhanced by amendments.
    4. Federal Debt Collection.--The subcommittee will continue 
its activities in the area of debt collection improvement. It 
will hold a series of hearings on implementation of the Debt 
Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and will consider 
legislation aimed at benefit fraud reduction and promotion of 
asset sales.
    5. Oversight of the U.S. Customs Service.--The subcommittee 
will continue its investigation into an imbalance in staffing 
by the U.S. Customs Service between the East and West Coasts. 
The subcommittee plans field hearings in Miami and New York as 
well as further hearings in Washington, DC.
    6. The Federal Election Commission.--The subcommittee will 
examine the management practices at the Federal Election 
Commission. The hearing will focus on issues of enforcement, 
including the audit process, and disclosure, among others.
    7. The Federal Advisory Committee Act.--With the assistance 
of the General Accounting Office, the subcommittee will examine 
the current use of Federal advisory committees by the Federal 
Government. Hearings are anticipated.
    8. The Electronic Freedom of Information Act.--The 
subcommittee has jurisdiction over several government-wide 
information laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, the 
Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the 
Government in the Sunshine Act. The subcommittee conducts 
regular oversight of the compliance of Federal departments and 
agencies with the requirements of these laws.
    The subcommittee will conduct oversight hearings on the 
Freedom of Information Act with particular focus on the role of 
electronic reporting in the timeliness of responses to Freedom 
of Information requests.
    9. The Inspectors General Act.--The Inspectors General Act 
became law in 1978. The subcommittee will observe the 20th 
anniversary of this important law with a series of hearings. 
The hearing will focus on ways to make the Offices of 
Inspectors General more efficient and effective in 
implementation of the act.
    10. Federal Financial Management.--The subcommittee will 
continue a variety of oversight initiatives in the area of 
financial management. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 
required agencies to audit revolving funds, trust funds and all 
funds that resembled commercial enterprises. The 1994 
Government Management Reform Act extended the CFO requirements 
to cover all agency resources, with agency-wide audited 
financial statements due in March 1997, and Federal Government-
wide audited financial statements due in March 1998. The act is 
an important tool in improving the financial management of 
Federal departments and agencies.
    The subcommittee will examine with particular care the 
financial management problems at the Department of Defense and 
the Internal Revenue Service. The subcommittee also plans 
hearings on financial management at the Social Security 
Administration and the Health Care Financing Administration.
    11. Medical Records Privacy.--The Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 gave Congress a 
deadline of August 1999 to enact legislation protecting the 
privacy of medical records. Several bills have been introduced 
on this issue and referred to the subcommittee. The 
subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Medical Records 
Privacy'' in the 1st session. It will hold further hearings and 
play an active role in shaping legislation in the 2d session.

                    Subcommittee on Human Resources

                             A. LEGISLATION

    1. Comprehensive Preventive Health and Promotion Act of 
1997 (H.R. 177, 105th Congress).
    2. Family Services Improvement Act of 1997 (H.R. 1480, 
105th Congress).
    3. Health Care Fraud and Abuse Act of 1997 (H.R. 362, 105th 
Congress).
    4. Subsidy Termination for Overdue Payments Act of 1997 
(H.R. 399, 105th Congress).
    5. Unfunded Federal Mandates Relief Act of 1997 (H.R. 62, 
105th Congress).

                              B. OVERSIGHT

    1. VA efforts to diagnose and treat Gulf War veterans.
    2. VA health care enrollment priorities.
    3. Blood supply safety and Hepatitis-C notification.
    4. Adequacy of informed consent in Federal research.
    5. Management of organ and tissue donation programs.
    6. Regulation of medical foods and clinical nutrition.
    7. Impacts of antibiotic resistance on public health.
    8. Effects of Federal mandates on local education.
    9. The Department of Labor's ``one stop'' career centers 
initiative.
    10. Job Corps curriculum and training contractors.
    11. Management of the Early Head Start program.
    12. Privatization of social service delivery in the context 
of welfare reform.
    13. Management of teen pregnancy prevention and abstinence 
promotion programs.
    14. The use of compliance plans in reducing health care 
fraud.
    15. Regulation of managed care.
    16. DOL pension security enforcement.
    17. HUD contracting practices and contract management 
capacity.

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 
                                Justice

    Drug policy oversight will continue, with a heavy emphasis 
on source and transit zone interdiction, source country 
programs, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement.
    1. Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy will continue to require accountability from the 
counterdrug efforts and will be completed in the upcoming 
session.
    2. Oversight of the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy.
    3. Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
and it's corresponding responsibility to coordinate the 
counterdrug efforts of the National Drug Control Program 
agencies.
    4. Investigation of the waste in defense inventory 
management at the Defense Logistics Agency.
    5. Investigation of the ``Citizenship USA'' program 
implemented by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
promote voter registration. Specific focus on the role the 
Office of the Vice President in developing and maintaining this 
program.
    6. Review of President's annual decision to certify or 
decertify countries which he determines to be either ``major 
drug-transit countries'' or ``major illicit drug producing 
countries.''
    7. Review of defense appropriations for fiscal year 1998.
    8. Oversight of disaster relief programs managed by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    9. Continued oversight of the National Archives and Records 
Administration.
    10. Oversight of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program.
    11. Review of Southwest Border narcotics interdiction, 
support, and coordination.
    12. Examination of the effectiveness of Federal, State, and 
local drug prevention programs.
    13. Oversight of Federal law enforcement and military 
efforts along the Southwest Border.
    14. Oversight of counternarcotics intelligence 
coordination, analysis and dissemination.
    15. Oversight of Federal efforts to combat domestic and 
international money laundering.
    16. Federal information security procedures and 
maintenance.
    17. Federal sentencing guidelines.

                   Subcommittee on the Postal Service

                           A. INVESTIGATIONS

    The subcommittee will continue its review of selected 
programs and activities that are under its jurisdiction. The 
subcommittee will commence investigation of issues which occur 
and problems that are brought to its attention.
    Ongoing investigations are:
    1. Presort Mail Fraud.--The subcommittee received 
information from time to time regarding the Postal Service's 
lax monitoring of Presorted Mail. The information obtained from 
this investigation will help the Postal Service to focus on 
revision of their policies for acceptance of mail and payment 
for services.
    2. Investigation of Disparate Treatment in Discipline 
Between Craft and Management Employees.--Craft employees have 
alleged disparate levels of disciplinary treatment between 
labor and management. The subcommittee has observed and has 
been informed of situations where management personnel are 
treated with greater leniency when it comes to standards of 
discipline as compared with rank-and-file employees whose 
infractions may have been minor in comparison. The subcommittee 
has identified the following specific instances: for example, a 
Postmaster was found to have been involved in a hit and run 
accident in a Postal vehicle after hours and failed to report 
the accident as required. He subsequently was found to have 
lied to Postal Inspectors and officials when questioned 
regarding the incident. He ultimately was transferred to a 
smaller postal facility without any degradation in pay or 
grade. In contrast, a craft employee who requested leave to 
watch her son play in the Little League World Series was denied 
such leave. When she attended the game, she was subsequently 
disciplined for her action.
    Union officials have reported numerous cases of alleged 
disparate disciplinary treatment vis-a-vis craft and management 
employees. Disparate treatment frustrates employees and results 
in more grievances. Such treatment also raises questions 
regarding management responsibility and accountability for such 
action. Subcommittee Chairman McHugh raised these concerns with 
the Postmaster General and the Deputy Postmaster General.
    The dialog which as been opened between labor and 
management, and under the oversight of the subcommittee, should 
provide frank discussions to hold management and workers to the 
same standards. This will remove some of the existing friction 
which presently exists between labor and management and will 
provide mutual benefits to both parties.
    3. Outsourcing.--The subcommittee is concerned regarding 
the Postal Service's management of employing outside contract 
employees to perform core Postal Service functions. Recognizing 
that labor costs currently exceed 80 percent of total Postal 
Service operating costs, the subcommittee encourages the 
Service to identify ways to better control its operating 
expenses. However, the subcommittee wants to ensure that any 
cost-cutting measures do not result in a degradation of 
service. The subcommittee will focus on whether, and to what 
extent, the Postal Service is utilizing outsourcing contracts, 
whether such costs result in long-term savings, the impact such 
measures have on service and future plans for outsourcing.
    4. Monitoring Data Quality.--The subcommittee is continuing 
its oversight of the quality of data submitted by the Postal 
Service to the Postal Rate Commission during the conduct of 
rate and reclassification proceedings. This issue was first 
raised during the conduct of the general oversight hearings in 
the 104th Congress. The subcommittee subsequently worked with 
the Service, the Rate Commission and GAO in facilitating the 
choice of an independent contractor to study and recommend ways 
of improving the quality of Postal Service data.
    5. Delivery Point Sequencing.--Delivery Point Sequencing 
[DPS] is the final phase of the letter automation program. DPS 
completes the automation program by replacing the carriers 
manual sorting with automated sequencing of letters to 
eliminate in-office work hours and increase delivery hours. The 
Postal Service has invested about $5 billion in letter 
automation since the program began in 1982, with approximately 
38 percent of these funds devoted toward research, development 
and implementation of DPS.
    To date, GAO had identified Postal Service savings of 
approximately about $6.5 billion from letter automation and it 
projects about the Service to achieve $20.5 billion in savings 
by 2005. Though the 1992 Postal reorganization slowed the 
installation of equipment and some of the projects, USPS 
implementation of DPS appears to be on schedule. USPS credits 
DPS for the avoidance of 1,300 new routes that would have been 
needed to accommodate address growth in 1997. Though there are 
savings in these areas, employee grievances regarding the 
implementation of DPS need to be resolved before real savings 
are realized.
    The study will determine whether the nationwide 
implementation of delivery point sequencing is on schedule and 
whether the project is producing the cost savings in carrier 
work hours that have been anticipated. The chairman has 
requested the GAO to evaluate the system. Full implementation 
of DPS should enable Postal Service personnel to significantly 
reduce the time postal carriers spend manually sorting letter 
mail. The quicker the procedure is implemented, the quicker the 
Postal Service can realize savings. The chairman has requested 
the GAO to evaluate whether DPS is on schedule and the system 
whether it will achieve its anticipate savings.
    6. International Mail Market.--The subcommittee will study 
how Congress can ensure that the Postal Service competes 
effectively and fairly in the international mail market. In 
particular, the subcommittee is interested in knowing whether 
customs treatment by major trading partners of items sent 
through Global Package Link differs from customs treatment 
afforded equivalent shipments by private companies. 
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh has written to the General 
Accounting Office to examine this issue.
    7. Electronic commerce/new and non-postal products.--The 
chairman has requested the General Accounting Office to 
evaluate the statutory and regulatory constraints for the 
Postal Service regarding the Service's provision of electronic 
products and how it affects the Service's ability to develop, 
test, and market these products. This study would also review 
and define what non-postal activities, joint ventures and 
strategic alliances the Postal Service may be engaged in and 
the past, present and future costs associated with these non-
postal activities. The subcommittee is interested in the 
current array of postal products that the Postal Service 
considers to be the core or traditional products, how and in 
what ways this array may change over the next 5 years and the 
impact such revenues as derived from the provision of these 
products have on the ability to provide and support the 
Service's universal delivery obligations.
    8. U.S. Postal Service' Participation in the Universal 
Postal Union.--Postal Service competitors have brought 
complaints before the subcommittee concerning the USPS acting 
as sole representative of U.S. interests before international 
governmental bodies and tribunals. The subcommittee recognizes 
the USPS as the leading provider of postal services in our 
country. However, many agreements and decisions flowing from 
representation at these international bodies affect competitor 
concerns as well. The subcommittee is interested in learning 
whether a neutral authority, such as the U.S. Trade 
Representative, representing all U.S. interests, both the USPS 
and competitors, would better benefit our postal structure.

                             B. LEGISLATION

    1. The subcommittee will continue working on H.R. 22, the 
Postal Reform Act of 1997. Extensive hearings were held by the 
subcommittee on this legislation in the 104th and thus far in 
the 105th Congress. It is expected that the legislation will be 
voted on by late spring or early summer.
    2. The subcommittee will continue to consider such bills 
and resolutions as may be referred to it.

                  VIEWS OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

    While I agree with elements of the chairman's Interim 
Report, there are several sections that warrant a response as 
discussed below. It should also be pointed out that this report 
should not be considered an official committee report, because 
it was not approved by the committee.

            Comments on Matters of Interest, Full Committee

 OVERSIGHT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS 
                              ACT OF 1993

    The Interim Report substantially distorts the October 30, 
1997, hearing record on ``The Results Act: Are We Getting 
Results?'' By failing to mention the testimony of the Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget and the written 
testimony of the Acting Comptroller General, James Hinchman, 
the report leaves the impression that the agency strategic 
plans submitted under the Government Performance and Results 
Act conflicted with the statute. In fact, OMB Director Raines 
made the point in his testimony that the executive branch made 
a commitment early in 1997 to deliver agency strategic plans 
that were both timely and compliant with the statute. Based on 
the submissions to Congress October 1, 1997, OMB believed that 
commitment had been kept. Acting Comptroller General Hinchman 
made the point in his written statement that agency strategic 
plans were much improved over earlier drafts. He concluded that 
the final strategic plans of the agencies provide a workable 
foundation for the next stages of GPRA implementation.

                   CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING INVESTIGATION

    The section of the Interim Report regarding the campaign 
fundraising investigation distorts the record of the committee 
and has little relation to any actual events. An objective 
evaluation of the record will indicate that the committee spent 
$5 million on its partisan investigation in 1997 and uncovered 
virtually nothing that was not already reported by the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee or media organizations, such as 
the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, or the Wall 
Street Journal.

                    Comments on Other Investigations

 REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ACQUISITION STRATEGY REGARDING THE 
           FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM OF 2001 PROGRAM

    The Interim Report distorts the committee's record with 
regard to the Cooperative Purchasing Program. The report states 
that the committee strongly supported the complete repeal of 
Section 1555 of FASA, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. 
In general, this section should probably be deleted in its 
entirety, as the committee has held no hearings nor taken any 
legislative action with regard to the provision in the 105th 
Congress. The Cooperative Purchasing Program authorized by this 
section of law has never been implemented, and insufficient 
data exists to make any definitive conclusion about its impact 
on the private sector.

   SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Interim Report's section on the activities of the 
Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee 
contains a gratuitously partisan and completely unsubstantiated 
comment which presumably refers to the committee's 
investigation into the White House Travel Office in the 104th 
Congress. The contention that those hearings ``demonstrated'' 
that associates of the President used their access to promote 
their own business interests is not supported by the record. 
Allegations, innuendo and hearsay may have been repeated by 
some Members of the majority, but little, if anything, was ever 
``demonstrated.''

   SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND 
                           REGULATORY AFFAIRS

The Investigation of the White House Database
    This investigation is ostensibly part of the committee's 
campaign finance investigation. Contrary to the majority's 
conclusions, this investigation has not produced any concrete 
benefits--other than eating up enormous sums of taxpayer 
dollars since it began in June 1996.
    This investigation has also prevented the subcommittee from 
fulfilling its legislative and oversight responsibilities. 
Despite having a staff of seven, the subcommittee marked up no 
legislation and held only three hearings in 1997.
Investigation of OIRA's Review of the NAAQS Rules
    Contrary to the majority's conclusions, OIRA's review of 
the NAAQS appears to have been thorough and legal. Its analysis 
estimated that the health and environmental benefits of the 
NAAQS would be between $20 and $100 billion a year, 
significantly more than the costs. Furthermore, OIRA has been 
cooperative by answering numerous production requests, requests 
for interviews, and other information requests. In fact, former 
Administrator of OIRA, Sally Katzen, testified in front of the 
subcommittee on this issue and answered all of its questions.
Securities and Exchange Commission
    The subcommittee's investigation of the Securities and 
Exchange Commission is an example of the extraordinary abuse of 
the subcommittee's powers and procedures. These abuses are 
described in the July 15, 1997, Wall Street Journal opinion 
column, ``Business World: Fly First Class (With the Other 
Criminals).''
Oversight of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Programs
    In its report, the majority fails to note that wetlands 
have numerous benefits: they improve water quality by filtering 
out pollutants; they provide a home for a large variety of 
plants and animals; they are important to the fishing industry; 
and they prevent flooding.
    In 1780, the lower 48 States had about 220 million 
wetlands; today we have about 104 million. Protections such as 
the Clean Water Act and the Swampbuster Program have 
significantly slowed the rate at which we lose wetlands; 
however, we have not yet reached a level of no net loss. A 
recent study found we are losing about 117,000 acres a year. 
About 78 percent of the current conversions of wetlands to non-
wetlands are conversions to agricultural uses.
    Moreover, it is not always the number of acres that is 
important, but the quality of the wetlands. One large protected 
area may be more important than a number of very small wetlands 
that add up to more acreage. Furthermore, a smaller but older 
wetland area can be more valuable because of the diversity of 
flora and fauna it supports. Others are important because of 
their proximity to polluted waterways.
Oversight of the Security and Exchange Commission's ``Disclosure of 
        Accounting Policies for Derivative Financial Instruments and 
        Derivative Commodity Instruments''
    The conclusions in this section of the report are 
controversial and not necessarily supported by the record 
before the subcommittee.
EPA's Particulate and Ozone Rulemaking
    This section of the report is full of erroneous conclusions 
and is contradicted by much of the evidence and testimony 
presented to the subcommittee.
GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup
    This section of the report relies heavily on a GAO analysis 
of EPA's Superfund Program. At the subcommittee's hearing, 
however, substantial problems were raised with GAO's 
methodology. The majority's conclusions are not warranted.
Office of Management and Budget's ``Report to Congress on the Costs and 
        Benefits of Federal Regulations''
    The subcommittee's conclusions are not justified. Given the 
limited time and available resources, many feel OMB did an 
adequate job. In 1997, OMB estimated that benefits of 
regulations in 1997 exceeded costs by about $19 billion.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL 
                                JUSTICE

National Drug Control Policy
    In this section the report gives short shrift to the 
Baltimore needle exchange program, which is a model for the 
country in terms of community support, safeguards, and public 
health impact. By describing the program as ``self-selecting,'' 
the majority seems to be dismissing out of hand the program's 
documented successes. With regard to the discussion of the Drug 
Control Policy hearing on Columbia, the report reads, ``The 
hearing was characterized by a sense of enormous disappointment 
with the United States State Department and United States 
Embassy in Colombia during Mr. Frechette's tenure, both on 
policy decisions and management issues.'' The majority, by 
criticizing Mr. Frechette, appears to be personalizing a larger 
disagreement over policy, primarily the administration's 
decision to decertify Colombia and its insistence on the 
Government of Colombia's acquiescence to end-use monitoring 
agreements (to ensure that our military assistance isn't used 
to perpetrate human rights abuses).
Department of Defense Inventory Management
    The Interim Report's section on the activities of the 
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice 
Subcommittee describes the subcommittee's oversight of 
inventory management problems at the Department of Defense. 
There are serious problems with that system, and the 
opportunity exists to save billions of taxpayer dollars. The 
conclusion that such savings should be plowed back reflexively 
into the Department of Defense is not necessarily justified. 
Such policy decisions may well be opposed by Republican and 
Democratic members of the committee.
Immigration and Naturalization Service Program Citizenship USA
    In this section the report contains unsupported, conclusory 
observations that the INS ``consciously weakened, discarded or 
ignored'' legal and procedural requirements and ``deliberately 
concealed'' problems with the program. Although problems with 
the program are well-documented and largely undisputed, the 
majority's characterization that the INS intentionally 
naturalized ineligible applicants or knowingly mismanaged the 
naturalization program for political gain is unfair and 
inaccurate.
Oversight of the Census Bureau and Census 2000
    The majority report conveniently ignores the facts and 
substitutes for those facts inflammatory rhetoric designed to 
bolster their fears that an accurate census count might 
endanger their majority in Congress.
    The plan for the 2000 census is not ill conceived nor does 
it ``present the most imminent danger of wasting taxpayers' 
funds'' as claimed by the majority report. In fact, just the 
opposite is true. The Census Bureau has proposed a plan that 
will produce a census that is more accurate than 1990. In 
response to that plan the majority has repeatedly claimed it 
would spend any amount necessary for a census with old 
fashioned methods, even though those methods would produce a 
census with a error rate in excess of 10 percent.
    In 1991, Representative Rogers, now chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, 
testified before Congress that there is a need for:

          an independent review of the Census that is 
        fundamental in nature. A back-to-basics, zero-based 
        study that begins with no preconceived notions about 
        what we collect or how we collect it. For that reason, 
        I have pursued the idea of having the National Academy 
        of Sciences conduct such a review. The Academy is 
        credible, experienced, and more importantly, 
        independent. Plus, I have been satisfied they can pull 
        together a panel of reputable minds, capable of 
        blending fresh, policy view points, with an 
        understanding of statistical methods.

    In 1992 Congress passed H.R. 3280, ``A bill to provide for 
a study, to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, 
on how the Government can improve the decennial census of 
population, and on related matters.'' That study laid out the 
blueprint for the 2000 census.
    The Census Bureau took the recommendations from the two 
National Academy of Sciences panels of experts and crafted them 
into a plan for the 2000 census that improved the accuracy of 
the census and was less expensive than doing it the old way. 
That plan was presented to Congress, and in hearings held by 
the National Security Subcommittee in 1995, the only criticism 
was not that the plan included the use of sampling, but rather 
that it did not go far enough in using sampling to augment a 
traditional count. Both the GAO and the Inspector General 
testified that the plan was too conservative in the use of 
sampling and should go further.
    The inclusion of the 2000 census on the GAO high risk 
report series was not because the census plan included the use 
of sampling, which the GAO supports. GAO views the 2000 census 
as a high risk because of the failure of Congress to either 
give legislative direction for the census or accept the 
administration's plan. It is the indecision of Congress which 
creates the risk, not the use of sampling. Congress has further 
put the census at risk by funding the planning activities in 
1996 and 1997 at only 80 percent.
    The majority report asserts that the use of sampling is 
both illegal and unconstitutional. However, that assertion 
ignores both court cases and legal opinions from the Department 
of Justice. Every court that has ruled on the legality and 
constitutionality of sampling has ruled in favor of its use. 
The Department of Justice under Presidents Carter, Bush, and 
Clinton has expressed in writing the opinion that the use of 
sampling is both legal and constitutional.
    In 1996 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had ceded its 
authority to run the Census to the Secretary of Commerce, and 
in doing so, gave the Secretary broad latitude to determine how 
the census would be conducted. The majority has attempted 
several times to modify that authority, but in each case has 
failed to generate sufficient support for their position to 
suggest that they could override a Presidential veto. In the 
spirit of cooperation, the administration has agreed to move 
forward planning for two censuses: one that uses sampling to 
achieve a fair and accurate census; and one that excludes 
modern scientific methods, and repeats the errors of the past 
which disadvantage the poor and minorities. The administration 
has agreed to this dual planning process despite the fact that 
it places an extreme burden on the Census Bureau, and 
ultimately is likely to be a waste of taxpayers funds.
    While the majority report professes great concern about the 
2000 census, the subcommittee held only one hearing on the 
census during the first session of the 105th Congress. At that 
hearing it was suggested that vigorous outreach could count 
those who were missed in the 1990 census, and the efforts of 
the cities of Milwaukee and Cincinnati were presented as 
examples. Unfortunately, both of those cities had undercounts 
significantly higher than the national average, and both had 
undercounts nearly 4 times the level of undercount in its 
respective State. It was also suggested that local outreach 
should start earlier for the 2000 census than it did for the 
1990 census. The Census Bureau agreed with that assessment, and 
included in their budget request for fiscal 1997 funds for 
outreach and promotion. Unfortunately, the 20 percent reduction 
in funding provided by the Congress forced postponement of 
those efforts.
    The administration has put forward a plan for the 2000 
census that will achieve a fair and accurate result while 
containing the costs to the American public. The Government 
Reform majority has objected to those plans, but has failed to 
put forward any alternative that will correct the errors that 
occurred in 1990. Their only advice is to ``spend more money.'' 
Experts overwhelmingly say that throwing money at the problem 
will not work. The solution lies in applying sound scientific 
methods, as developed in the Census Bureau's plan. The 
administration has been a sound steward of the taxpayer's 
funds, while the House majority has repeatedly called for 
squandering taxpayer's dollars on a census that will be less 
accurate, and unfair to millions of Americans.

                                   - 
