[House Prints, 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                           [COMMITTEE PRINT]
107th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
_______________________________________________________________________

 
                             INTERIM REPORT

                                 of the

                               ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                  HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                  2001

                                     


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13





                               MARCH 2002
                                     

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

  Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
                      http://www.house.gov/reform





                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-505                          WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
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

                     DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California             PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia                    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida                  ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California                 DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia               JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida                 JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida              DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho          STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia                      ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee            BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 
------ ------                            (Independent)


                      Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                 Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
                     James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
                     Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
                 Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director












                                PREFACE

    This report outlines the Committee on Government Reform's 
activities for the first session of the 107th Congress. A 
separate and final report covering activities during both 
sessions will be published at the conclusion of the 107th 
Congress in accordance with House Rule XI, 1(d).
                                               Dan Burton, Chairman

                                 (III)












                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Part One. Committee Organization.................................     1
  I. Historical Overview..............................................1
 II. Jurisdiction.....................................................3
III. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform......................6
 IV. Subcommittees...................................................12
Part Two. Committee Activities...................................    15
  I. Legislation.....................................................15
        A. Legislation Enacted into Law..........................    15
        B. Legislation Approved by the House.....................    25
        C. Legislation Reported by the Committee or Subcommittee.    34
 II. Oversight Activities............................................37
        A. Committee Reports.....................................    37
        B. Oversight Hearings....................................    37
              Full Committee.....................................    37
              Subcommittees......................................    52
Part Three. Publications.........................................   103
  I. Committee Prints...............................................103
 II. Printed Hearings...............................................104

                  Views of the Ranking Minority Member

Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman....................................   107

















 INTERIM REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT 
               REFORM, 107TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, 2001

                    PART ONE. COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION

                         I. Historical Overview

    The Committee on Government Reform serves as the House of 
Representative's chief investigative and oversight body, 
reviewing allegations of waste, fraud and abuse across the 
Federal Government. The committee's unique oversight 
jurisdiction makes it one of the most influential committees in 
the House of Representatives.
    Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) currently serves as the 
chairman of the committee. The ranking minority member is 
Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).
    The Committee on Government Reform first appeared in 1927 
as the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. 
It was created by consolidating the 11 Committees on 
Expenditures previously responsible for overseeing how taxpayer 
moneys were spent at each executive branch department.
    Under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the 
committee was renamed the Committee on Government Operations. 
The name change was intended to communicate the primary 
function of the committee--to study ``the operations of 
Government activities at all levels with a view to determining 
their economy and efficiency.'' The Government Operations 
Committee's oversight jurisdiction over all Federal agencies 
and departments was unprecedented in the legislative branch.
    On January 4, 1995, Republicans assumed control of the 
House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years. 
Republicans immediately implemented several internal reforms, 
including an initiative to reduce the number of standing 
committees in the House and cut committee staffs by one-third. 
The Committee on Government Reform exemplified the changes that 
took place in the House. Both the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service and the Committee on the District of Columbia 
were consolidated into the newly named Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee. The name change highlighted the Republican 
view that the Federal Government needed reform to ensure 
accountability. This consolidation of three committees into one 
resulted in millions of dollars in savings and a nearly 50 
percent reduction in staff.
    During the 104th Congress, under the leadership of Chairman 
Bill Clinger (R-PA), the Committee produced three major pieces 
of the ``Contract With America'' that became law: 1) 
legislation to stop Congress from imposing mandates on State 
and local governments without funding; 2) line-item veto 
legislation granting the President authority to strike 
individual items from tax and spending bills; and 3) an act to 
reduce the paperwork burden the Federal Government imposes on 
State and local governments, individuals, and private 
businesses. The committee also won passage of legislation to 
create a financial control board to help bring the District of 
Columbia out of its financial crisis.
    In addition to his legislative accomplishments, Chairman 
Clinger led the committee's investigation of the improper 
firings of White House Travel Office workers and the White 
House's controversial handling of FBI files.
    In 1997, following Chairman Clinger's retirement, 
Congressman Burton assumed the chairmanship. He became the 
first Republican member from the Hoosier State to chair a full 
committee of the House since 1931. Previously, Congressman 
Burton had been a senior member of the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service.
    At the onset of the 105th Congress, Chairman Burton guided 
a committee investigation into illegal foreign contributions 
that flowed into Presidential campaigns, the Justice 
Department's flawed handling of these allegations, and a series 
of controversial Presidential pardons.
    Under Chairman Burton's leadership, the committee has also 
enacted a number of important pieces of legislation governing 
such diverse areas as Federal employee benefits, the District 
of Columbia and Federal financial management. Prominent 
examples include: 1) The Erroneous Payments Recovery Act, which 
requires Federal agencies to use advanced private-sector 
auditing procedures to detect and recover mistaken payments; 2) 
the District of Columbia Family Court Act, creating a new 
Family Court in the wake of shocking revelations about the 
handling of foster care cases in the District of Columbia; and 
3) the Long-Term Care Security Act, establishing an insurance 
program for Federal employees covering long-term care needs.
    The committee currently has 44 members: 24 Republicans, 19 
Democrats and 1 Independent. It has seven subcommittees.
    Committee alumni include distinguished legislators and 
national leaders. During his only term in the House of 
Representatives, Abraham Lincoln was assigned to one of the 
committee's predecessor committees, the Committee on 
Expenditures in the War Department. Other alumni of the 
committee include Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Majority 
Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 
(R-IL), former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Republican 
Presidential nominee Bob Dole (R-KS), former Vice-President Dan 
Quayle (R-IN), former Presidential candidate John B. Anderson 
(R-IL), and former Speakers of the House John McCormack (D-MA) 
and Jim Wright (D-TX).

                            II. Jurisdiction

    House Rule X sets forth the committee's jurisdiction, 
functions, and responsibilities as follows:

                                 RULE X

                       Organization of Committees

Committees and their legislative jurisdictions
    1. There shall be in the House the following standing 
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and 
related functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 
4. All bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to 
subjects within the jurisdiction of the standing committees 
listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees, in 
accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows:

           *         *         *         *         *


                   (h) Committee on Government Reform

    (1) The Federal Civil Service, including intergovernmental 
personnel; and the status of officers and employees of the 
United States, including their compensation, classification, 
and retirement.
    (2) Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in 
general (other than appropriations).
    (3) Federal paperwork reduction.
    (4) Government management and accounting measures 
generally.
    (5) Holidays and celebrations.
    (6) Overall economy, efficiency, and management of 
government operations and activities, including Federal 
procurement.
    (7) National Archives.
    (8) Population and demography generally, including the 
Census.
    (9) Postal service generally, including 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 
proceeding provisions of this paragraph (and its oversight 
functions under clause 2(a) (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) The various standing committees shall have general 
oversight responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b) in 
order to assist the House in--
    (1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of--
          (A) the application, administration, execution, and 
        effectiveness of Federal laws; and
          (B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate 
        the necessity or desirability of enacting new or 
        additional legislation; and
    (2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of 
changes in Federal laws, and of such additional legislation as 
may be necessary or appropriate.
    (b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and programs 
addressing subjects within the jurisdiction or a committee are 
being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent 
of Congress and whether they should be continued, curtailed, or 
eliminated, each standing committee (other than the Committee 
on Appropriations) shall review and study on a continuing 
basis--
          (A) the application, administration, execution, and 
        effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects 
        within its jurisdiction;
          (B) the organization and operation of Federal 
        agencies and entities having responsibilities for the 
        administration and execution of laws and programs 
        addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;
          (C) any conditions or circumstances that may indicate 
        the necessity or desirability of enacting new or 
        additional legislation addressing subjects within its 
        jurisdiction (whether or not a bill or resolution has 
        been introduced with respect thereto); and
          (D) future research and forecasting on subjects 
        within its jurisdiction.

           *         *         *         *         *

    (c) Each standing committee shall review and study 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 shall--
          (A) receive and examine reports of the Comptroller 
        General of the United States and submit to the House 
        such recommendations as it considers necessary or 
        desirable in connection with the subject matter of the 
        reports;
          (B) evaluate the effects of laws enacted to 
        reorganize the legislative and executive branches of 
        the Government; and
          (C) study 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 may at any time conduct 
investigations of any matter without regard to clause 1, 2, 3, 
or this clause conferring jurisdiction over the matter to 
another standing committee. The findings and recommendations of 
the committee in such an investigation shall be made available 
to any other standing committee having jurisdiction over the 
matter involved.

            III. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform

    Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1) of the House of Representatives 
provides, in part:

          Each standing committee shall adopt written rules 
        governing its procedures. * * *

    In accordance with this, the Committee on Government 
Reform, on February 8, 2001, adopted the rules of the 
committee:

                     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 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, clause 
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) and (c).]

                            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 XIII, clauses 2-
4.
    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, unless the House is in session on such days) 
before consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or 
full committee. Any 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. 
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, clause 2(l) and Rule XIII, clause 
3(a)(1). The time allowed for filing such views shall be three 
calendar days, beginning on the day of notice, but excluding 
Saturdays, 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.
    An investigative or oversight report may be filed after 
sine die adjournment of the last regular session of 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 that 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.--Record Votes

    A record vote 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 eight 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 X, clauses 6, 7 
and 9, 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 X, clauses 6, 7 
and 9, 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, clause 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 Hearing Procedures

    Investigative hearings shall be conducted according to the 
procedures in House Rule XI, clause 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.--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings

    (1) An open meeting or hearing of the committee or a 
subcommittee may be covered, in whole or in part, by television 
broadcast, radio broadcast, Internet broadcast, and still 
photography, unless closed subject to the provisions of House 
Rule XI, clause 2(g). Any such coverage shall conform with the 
provisions of House Rule XI, clause 4.
    (2) Use of the Committee Broadcast System shall be fair and 
nonpartisan, and in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 4(b), 
and all other applicable rules of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Government Reform. Members of the 
committee shall have prompt access to a copy of coverage by the 
Committee Broadcast System, to the extent that such coverage is 
maintained.
    (3) Personnel providing coverage of an open meeting or 
hearing of the committee or a subcommittee by Internet 
broadcast, other than through the Committee Broadcast System, 
shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television 
Correspondents' Galleries.

                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, clause 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, clause 2(c);
          (c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and 
        estimates required by House Rule X, clause 4(f), 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) 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.

                         IV. Subcommittees \1\

    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 chairman Dan Burton at the beginning of 
the 107th Congress, established eight standing subcommittees, 
which cover the entire field of executive expenditures and 
operations. The names, chairpersons, and members of these 
subcommittees are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 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).

          Subcommittee on the Census, Dan Miller, Chairman; 
        members: Chris Cannon, Mark E. Souder, Bob Barr, Wm. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Lacy Clay, Carolyn B. Maloney, and Danny K. Davis.

          Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency 
        Organization, Dave Weldon, Chairman; members: Constance 
        A. Morella, John L. Mica, Mark E. Souder, C.L. 
        ``Butch'' Otter, Danny K. Davis, Major R. Owens, 
        Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Elijah E. Cummings.

          Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
        Human Resources, Mark E. Souder, Chairman; members: 
        Benjamin A. Gilman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John L. Mica, 
        Bob Barr, Dan Miller, Doug Ose, Jo Ann Davis, Dave 
        Weldon, Elijah E. Cummings, Rod R. Blagojevich, Bernard 
        Sanders, Danny K. Davis, Jim Turner, Thomas H. Allen, 
        and Janice D. Schakowsky.

          Subcommitte on the District of Columbia, Constance A. 
        Morella, Chairwoman; members: Todd Russell Platts, 
        Thomas M. Davis, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Diane E. 
        Watson, and Stephen F. Lynch.

          Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and 
        Regulatory Affairs, Doug Ose, Chairman; members: C.L. 
        ``Butch'' Otter, Christopher Shays, John M. McHugh, 
        Steven C. LaTourette, Chris Cannon, John J. Duncan, 
        Jr., John F. Tierney, Tom Lantos, Edolphus Towns, Patsy 
        T. Mink, Dennis J. Kucinich, and Rod R. Blagojevich.

          Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial 
        Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Stephen 
        Horn, Chairman; members: Ron Lewis, Dan Miller, Doug 
        Ose, Adam H. Putnam, Janice D. Schakowsky, Major R. 
        Owens, Paul E. Kanjorski, and Carolyn B. Maloney.

          Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs 
        and International Relations, Christopher Shays, 
        Chairman; members: Adam H. Putnam, Benjamin A. Gilman, 
        Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John M. McHugh, Stephen C. 
        LaTourette, Ron Lewis, Todd Russell Platts, Dave 
        Weldon, C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Edward L. Schrock, Dennis 
        J. Kucinich, Bernard Sanders, Thomas H. Allen, Tom 
        Lantos, John F. Tierney, Janice D. Schakowsky, Wm. Lacy 
        Clay, Diane E. Watson, and Stephen F. Lynch.

          Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, 
        Thomas M. Davis, Chairman; members: Jo Ann Davis, 
        Stephen Horn, Doug Ose, Edward L. Schrock, Jim Turner, 
        Paul E. Kanjorski, and Patsy T. Mink.
                     PART TWO. COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

                             I. Legislation

                    A. LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW

                             Full Committee

                       Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman

1. H.R. 132, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, HI, as the 
        ``Goro Hokama Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 132 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, HI, as 
the ``Goro Hokama Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Patsy 
Mink (HI) on January 3, 2001, and referred to House Committee 
on Government Reform. Approved by the House of Representatives 
under suspension of the rules on February 7, 2001. Passed by 
the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on March 21, 
2001. Signed by the President on April 12, 2001, and became 
Public Law No. 107-6.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 364, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 5927 Southwest 70th Street in Miami, FL, as the 
        ``Marjory Williams Scrivens Post Office''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 364 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 5927 Southwest 70th Street in Miami, FL, as 
the ``Marjory Williams Scrivens Post Office.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Carrie 
P. Meek (FL) on January 31, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on March 14, 
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent on August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 
20, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-29.
    d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 395, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2305 Minton Road in West Melbourne, FL, as the 
        ``Ronald W. Reagan Post Office of West Melbourne, Florida''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 395 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 2305 Minton Road in West Melbourne, FL, as 
the ``Ronald W. Reagan Post Office of West Melbourne, 
Florida.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Dave 
Weldon (FL) on February 6, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on February 6, 
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent on March 21, 2001. Signed by the President on April 12, 
2001, and became Public Law No. 107-7.
    d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 821, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1030 South Church Street in Asheboro, NC, as the 
        ``W. Joe Trogdon Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 821 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 1030 South Church Street in Asheboro, NC, as 
the ``W. Joe Trogdon Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Howard 
Coble (NC) on March 1, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on March 14, 
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent on August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 
20, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-32.
    d. Hearings.--None.
5. H.R. 1183, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, GA, as the ``G. 
        Elliot Hagan Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1183 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, GA, as the 
``G. Elliot Hagan Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jack 
Kingston (GA) on March 22, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on June 5, 2001. 
Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on 
August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 20, 2001, and 
became Public Law No. 107-34.
    d. Hearings.--None.
6. H.R. 1753, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, NE., in Roanoke, VA, as the 
        ``M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1753 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, NE., in Roanoke, VA, 
as the ``M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Bob 
Goodlatte (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on June 20, 2001. 
Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on 
August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 20, 2001, and 
became Public Law No. 107-35.
    d. Hearings.--None.
7. H.R. 1761, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, VA, as the 
        ``Herb Harris Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1761 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, VA, as 
the ``Herb Harris Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative James 
P. Moran (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on September 10, 
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent on December 6, 2001. Signed by the President on 
December 21, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-92.
    d. Hearings.--None.
8. H.R. 1766, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, VA, as the ``Stan 
        Parris Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1766 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, VA, as the 
``Stan Parris Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Frank 
R. Wolf (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on September 10, 
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent on November 30, 2001. Signed by the President on 
December 18, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-85.
    d. Hearings.--None.
9. H.R. 2043, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, IN, as the 
        ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2043 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, IN, as 
the ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Steve 
R. Buyer (IN) on May 26, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representative under suspension of the rules on June 5, 2001. 
Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on 
August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 20, 2001, and 
became Public Law No. 107-36.
    d. Hearings.--None.
10. H.R. 2261, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, GA, as the ``Earl T. 
        Shinhoster Post Office''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2261 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, GA, as the 
``Earl T. Shinhoster Post Office.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative 
Cynthia A. McKinney (GA) on June 20, 2001, and referred to the 
House Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on October 16, 
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent on November 30, 2001. Signed by the President on 
December 18, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-86.
    d. Hearings.--None.
11. H.R. 2454, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, as the 
        ``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post Office''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2454 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, 
as the ``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post Office.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Diane 
E. Watson (CA) on July 10, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House under 
suspension of the rules on October 16, 2001. Passed by the 
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on November 30, 
2001. Signed by the President on December 18, 2001, and became 
Public Law No. 107-88.
    d. Hearings.--None.
12. H.R. 3248, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 65 North Main Street in Cranbury, NJ, as the ``Todd 
        Beamer Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3248 designates U.S. Post 
Office located at 65 North Main Street in Cranbury, NJ, as the 
``Todd Beamer Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Rush 
D. Holt (NJ) on November 7, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on December 5, 
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent on December 20, 2001. Signed by the President on 
January 16, 2002, and became Public Law No. 107-129.
    d. Hearings.--None.
13. H.R. 3379, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the ``Raymond 
        M. Downey Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3379 designates the postal 
facility located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the 
``Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Steve 
Israel (NY) on November 29, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on December 18, 2001, and is pending 
before the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
14. S. 737, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 811 South Main Street in Yerington, NV, as the 
        ``Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Post Office''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--S. 737 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 811 South Main Street in Yerington, NV, as 
the ``Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Post Office.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Harry M. Reid 
(NV) on April 6, 2001, and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. Passed the Senate without amendment by 
unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on February 5, 
2002.
    d. Hearings.--None.
15. S. 970, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 39 Tremont Street, Paris Hill, ME, as the ``Horatio 
        King Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--S. 970 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 39 Tremont Street, Paris Hill, ME, as the 
``Horatio King Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Susan M. 
Collins (ME) on May 25, 2001, and referred to the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. Approved by 
the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules on 
February 5, 2002.
    d. Hearings.--None.
16. S. 1026, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 60 Third Avenue in Long Branch, NJ, as the ``Pat 
        King Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--S. 1026 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 60 Third Avenue in Long Branch, NJ, as the 
``Pat King Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Robert G. 
Torricelli (NJ) on June 13, 2001, and referred to the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Passed by the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. Approved by 
the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules on 
February 5, 2002.
    d. Hearings.--None.
17. S. 1714, to provide for the installation of a plaque to honor Dr. 
        James Harvey Early in the Williamsburg, KY Post Office Building
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--S. 1714 provides for the 
installation of a plaque to honor Dr. James Harvey Early in the 
Williamsburg, KY Post Office Building.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Mitch 
McConnell (KY) on November 15, 2001, and referred to the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Passed by the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent on December 6, 2001. Approved by 
the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules on 
December 20, 2001. Signed by the President on January 15, 2002, 
and became Public Law No. 107-120.
    d. Hearings.--None.

         Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization

                       Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman

1. H.J. Res. 7, Recognizing the 90th Birthday of Ronald Reagan
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the 90th birthday of 
Ronald Reagan.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative 
Christopher Cox on January 31, 2001 and referred to House 
Committee on Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives 
on February 6, 2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed 
Senate on February 6, 2001, without amendments, and with a 
preamble by unanimous consent. Signed by President on February 
15, 2001. Public Law 107-1.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 93, Federal Firefighters Retirement Age Fairness Act
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Amends 5, U.S.C. sections 8335 and 
8425 to provide that the mandatory separation age for Federal 
firefighters be made the same as the age with respect to 
Federal law enforcement officers.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Elton 
Gallegly on January 3, 2001 and referred to House Committee on 
Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives on January 
30, 2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate on August 
2, 2001, without amendments. Signed by President on August 20, 
2001. Public Law No. 107-27.
    d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 2133, To establish a commission for the purpose of encouraging 
        and providing for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of 
        the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Establishes the Brown v. Board of 
Education 50th Anniversary Commission to commemorate the 50th 
Anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Oliver L. Brown et 
al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas et al.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jim 
Ryun on June 12, 2001 and referred to House Committee on 
Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives on June 27, 
2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate with 
amendments by unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. House 
concurred in Senate amendments under suspension of the rules on 
September 10, 2001. Signed by President on September 18, 2001. 
Public Law No. 107-27.
    d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 2456, to provide that Federal employees may retain for personal 
        use promotional items received as a result of travel taken in 
        the course of employment
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2456 would allow Federal 
employees to retain frequent flyer miles and other promotional 
items received as a result of traveling on official government 
business, if such items are obtained under the same terms as 
those offered to the public and at no additional cost to the 
government.
    c. Legislative status.--H.R. 2456 was reported by the 
Committee on Government Reform on July 25, 2001, and passed the 
House of Representatives under suspension of the rules by a 
voice vote on July 31, 2001. The bill was ordered reported by 
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute on November 14, 2001. The bill, 
as amended in the Senate, was inserted into S. 1438, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002,'' 
which passed the House and the Senate and was signed into law 
on December 28, 2001, becoming Public Law 107-107.
    d. Hearings.--None.
5. H.R. 2559, To amend chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code, 
        relating to Federal long-term care insurance
    a. Report number and date.--The Committee on Government 
Reform did not issue a report. The Judiciary Committee issued 
House Report No. 107-235.
    b. Summary of measure.--Amends chapter 90 of title 5, 
United States Code to permit deferred annuitants to participate 
in the Federal long-term care insurance program and exempt 
Federal long-term care insurance premiums from State and local 
taxes.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Joe 
Scarborough on July 18, 2001 and referred to House Committee on 
Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives on October 
30, 2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate without 
amendment on December 17, 2001. Signed by President on December 
27, 2001. Public Law No. 107-104.
    d. Hearings.--None.
6. S. 1202, To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
        App.) to extend the authorization of appropriations for the 
        Office of Government Ethics through fiscal year 2006
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Amends the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to extend the authorization of 
appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics through 
fiscal year 2006.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Joseph I. 
Lieberman on July 19, 2001 and referred to Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. Passed Senate on November 15, 2001, 
without amendments, by unanimous consent. Referred to House 
Committees on Government Reform and Judiciary on November 16, 
2001. Passed House under suspension of the rules on December 
19, 2001. Signed by President on January 15, 2002. Public Law 
No. 107-119.
    d. Hearings.--None.

   Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources

                     Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman

1. H.R. 2291, Reauthorization of the Drug-Free Communities Act
    a. Report number and date.--H. Report No. 107-175, July 30, 
2001.
    b. Summary of measure.--The purpose of the ``Drug-Free 
Communities Act of 1997'' (21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1521 et seq.) 
(``DFCA'') is to establish a program to support and encourage 
local communities that first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-
term commitment to reduce substance abuse among youth. The DFCA 
did this primarily by authorizing grants of up to $100,000 to 
local community coalitions to assist them in their anti-drug 
efforts. H.R. 2291 expanded that highly successful program and 
reauthorized it for an additional 5 years (through fiscal year 
2007). The reauthorizing legislation includes provisions that 
(1) annually increase the total funds authorized for the 
program from $50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to $99,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2007; (2) increase the percentage of the total 
funds authorized available for administrative costs from the 3 
percent allowed under current law to 6 percent; (3) instruct 
the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
[ONDCP] to take steps to ensure that there is no bureaucratic 
duplication of effort among the various entities charged with 
administering the program and assisting coalitions; (4) allow 
coalitions to re-apply for grants even after 5 years, but with 
an increased matching requirement; (5) create a new class of 
grants that help mature coalitions ``mentor'' newly-formed 
coalitions; (6) instruct the Director to give priority for all 
grants to coalitions that propose to assist economically 
disadvantaged communities; (7) help coalitions serving Native 
American communities to meet their private fundraising 
``matching requirement'' under existing law by allowing them to 
count Federal funds allocated to tribal government agencies as 
non-Federal funds raised; and (8) establish a National 
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
    c. Legislative status.--Signed by President George W. Bush, 
December 14, 2001. Approved by Committee on July 25, 2001; 
approved by House on September 5, 2001.
    d. Hearings.--``H.R. 2291, Reauthorization of the Drug-Free 
Communities Act,'' June 28, 2001.

                   District of Columbia Subcommittee

                 Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman

1. H.R. 2061, To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the 
        District of Columbia
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Amends the charter of Southeastern 
University by removing the requirement that one-third of its 
Board of Trustees members be alumni of the university.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Delegate Eleanor 
Holmes Norton on June 5, 2001 and referred to House Committee 
on Government Reform. Forwarded by the District of Columbia 
Subcommittee to full committee on July 9, 2001. Reported out of 
Government Reform Committee on July 25, 2001. Approved by House 
of Representatives under suspension of the rules on September 
20, 2001. Passed Senate without amendment by unanimous consent 
on December 6, 2001. Signed by President on December 21, 2001 
and became Public Law No. 107-93.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 2199, District of Columbia Police Coordination Act of 2001
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Amends the National Capital 
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to 
permit any Federal law enforcement agency to enter into a 
cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department 
to assist in crime prevention and law enforcement activities in 
the District of Columbia. Both the chief of the Metropolitan 
Police Department and the U.S. attorney for the District of 
Columbia must agree that it is appropriate for such agencies to 
enter into cooperative agreements.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Delegate Eleanor 
Holmes Norton on June 14, 2001 and referred to House Committee 
on Government Reform. Forwarded by the District of Columbia 
Subcommittee to the full committee by unanimous consent on June 
26, 2001. Reported out of Government Reform Committee on July 
25, 2001. Approved by House of Representatives under suspension 
of the rules on September 25, 2001. Passed Senate with a 
technical amendment on December 11, 2001. House agreed to 
Senate amendment on December 19, 2001. Signed by President on 
January 8, 2002, and became Public Law No. 107-113.
    d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 2657, District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--In response to repeated failures of 
the District of Columbia child welfare services and the family 
division of Superior Court to protect the children of the city, 
H.R. 2657 sets out several major reforms of the family 
division, including: 1) renames the division as the Family 
Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; 2) 
grants the Family Court exclusive jurisdiction over many family 
and child welfare proceedings; 3) requires Family Court judges 
to serve 5-year appointments and mandates ongoing training 
programs in family law and other matters; 4) establishes 
special rules requiring the court to adhere to the principle of 
``One Family, One Judge''; 5) encourages the use of alternative 
dispute resolution procedures; and 6) allows hearing 
commissioners to serve as magistrate judges. The legislation 
further requires the Mayor to submit to Congress and the 
President a plan to integrate the computer systems of D.C. 
government with those of Superior Court, and requires the court 
to establish an electronic tracking and management system for 
Family Court proceedings.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Majority Whip Tom 
DeLay on July 26, 2001 and referred to House Committee on 
Government Reform. Forwarded by District of Columbia 
Subcommittee to full committee on July 27, 2001. Approved by 
House of Representatives on September 20, 2001 on a roll call 
vote of 408-0. Reported out of Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee on December 5, 2001, with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. Passed Senate under unanimous consent on 
December 14, 2001. House agreed to Senate amendment on December 
19, 2001. Signed by President on January 8, 2002, and became 
Public Law No. 107-114.
    d. Hearings.--``The Reform of the Family Division of the 
District of Columbia Superior Court: Improving Services to 
Families and Children,'' June 26, 2001.

    Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
                      Intergovernmental Relations

                      Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman

1. H.R. 2547, the ``Erroneous Payment Recovery Act''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R 2547 would require each Federal 
department and agency that enters into contracts for goods and 
services totaling more than $500 million in a fiscal year to 
implement a program to identify errors made in paying 
contractors and recovering any amounts erroneously paid. 
Amounts recovered would be available to reimburse the agency 
for program expenses and to pay for recovery audit services. 
Remaining amounts would be credited to the appropriations 
accounts from which the payments were made if available or 
deposited in the Treasury.
    c. Legislative status.--H.R. 2547 with an amendment was 
inserted into H.R. 2586, the ``National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2002,'' which passed the House of 
Representatives on September 25, 2001, and was inserted into S. 
1438 and was signed into law on December 28, 2001, becoming 
Public Law 107-107.
    d. Hearings.--None.

           Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy

                     Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman

1. H.R. 788, to provide for the conveyance of the excess Army Reserve 
        Center in Kewaunee, WI
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 788 would direct the 
Administrator of General Services to convey an Army Reserve 
Center, that is surplus to the needs of the Federal Government, 
to the city of Kewaunee, WI. Allows the property to be used by 
the city, or another local or State government approved by the 
city, and prohibits the use of the property for commercial 
purposes.
    c. Legislative status.--H.R. 788 passed the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on September 10, 
2001. It was inserted with an amendment into H.R. 2586/S. 1438, 
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002,'' which passed the House and the Senate and was signed 
into law on December 28, 2001, and became Public Law 107-107.
    d. Hearings.--None.

                  B. LEGISLATION APPROVED BY THE HOUSE

                             Full Committee

                       Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman

1. H. Con. Res. 257, expressing the sense of the Congress that the men 
        and women of the U.S. Postal Service have done an outstanding 
        job of collecting, processing, sorting, and delivering the mail 
        during this time of national emergency
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H. Con. Res. 257 expresses the 
sense of the Congress that the men and women of the U.S. Postal 
Service have done an outstanding job of collecting, processing, 
sorting, and delivering the mail during this time of national 
emergency
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Danny 
Davis (IL), referred to the House Committee on Government 
Reform, passed the House of Representatives under suspension of 
the rules on November 14, 2001, and is pending before the 
Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 1432, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 3698 Inner Perimeter Road in Valdosta, GA, as the 
        ``Major Lyn McIntosh Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1432 would designate the 
postal facility located at 3698 Inner Perimeter Road in 
Valdosta, GA, as the ``Major Lyn McIntosh Post Office 
Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--H.R. 1432 introduced by 
Representative Sanford Bishop (GA) on April 4, 2001, was 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed 
the House under suspension of the rules on December 20, 2001, 
and is pending before the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 1749, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, VA, as the 
        ``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1749 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, VA, as 
the ``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jo Ann 
Davis (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House Committee 
on Government Reform. Approved by the House of Representatives 
under suspension of the rules on October 9, 2001, and is 
currently pending in the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 2577, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 310 South State Street in St. Ignace, MI, as the 
        ``Bob Davis Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2577 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 310 South State Street in St. Ignace, MI, as 
the ``Bob Davis Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Bart 
Stupak (MI) on July 19, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on February 12, 2002, and is pending 
before the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
5. H.R. 2876, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 216 2nd Street, SW., in Harlem, MT as the ``Francis 
        Bardanouve United States Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2577 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 216 2nd Street, SW., in Harlem, MT, as the 
``Francis Bardanouve United States Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Dennis 
Rehberg (MT) on September 10, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on October 30, 2001, and is pending 
before the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
6. H.R. 2910, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 3131 South Crater Road in Petersburg, VA, as the 
        ``Norman Sisisky Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2910 designates the postal 
facility located at 3131 South Crater Road in Petersburg, VA, 
as the ``Norman Sisisky Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Randy 
Forbes (VA) on September 20, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform passed the House under 
suspension of the rules on October 30, 2001. The bill is 
pending before the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
7. H.R. 3072, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 125 Main Street in Forest City, NC, as the ``Vernon 
        Tarlton Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3072 designates the postal 
facility located at 125 Main Street in Forest City, NC as the 
``Vernon Tarlton Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative 
Charles Taylor (NC) on October 9, 2001, and passed the House 
under suspension of the rules on December 18, 2001. The bill is 
pending in the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.
8. H.R. 3379, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the ``Raymond 
        M. Downey Post Office Building''
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3379 designates the U.S. Post 
Office located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the 
``Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building.''
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Steve 
Israel (NY) on November 29, 2001, and referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on December 18, 
2001, and is currently pending in the Senate.
    d. Hearings.--None.

         Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization

                       Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman

1. S. Con. Res. 44, Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding 
        National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Pays tribute, on the occasion of 
the 60th anniversary of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl 
Harbor, Hawaii, by Japanese Imperial Forces, to the U.S. 
citizens who died as a result of the attack, and to the service 
of the American sailors and soldiers who survived the attack.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House under suspension of 
the rules on November 27, 2001. Passed Senate on November 15, 
2001.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H. Con. Res. 56, Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding 
        National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Pays tribute on the 60th 
anniversary of the 60th anniversary of the December 7, 1941, 
attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, by Japanese Imperial Forces, to 
the citizens who were killed in the attack, and to the service 
of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 6, 2001 and 
referred to Senate Committee.
    d. Hearings.--None.
3. H. Con. Res. 59, Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the 
        prevention of shaken baby syndrome
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Supports efforts to protect 
children from abuse and neglect. Encourages the people of the 
United States to educate themselves regarding shaken baby 
syndrome and the techniques to prevent it.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on April 3, 2001 under 
suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
4. H. Con. Res. 80, Congratulating the city of Detroit and its 
        residents on the occasion of the tricentennial of the city's 
        founding
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the city of Detroit 
on the occasion of the tricentennial of its founding, and its 
residents for their important contributions to the economic, 
social, and cultural development of the United States.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on May 22, 2001 by 
unanimous consent. Passed Senate on June 6, 2001 by unanimous 
consent.
    d. Hearings.--None.
5. H. Con. Res. 88, Expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
        President should issue a proclamation to recognize the 
        contribution of the Lao-Hmong in defending freedom and 
        democracy and supporting the goals of Lao-Hmong Day
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Calls upon the President to issue a 
proclamation to recognize the contribution of the Lao-Hmong in 
defending freedom and democracy and supporting the goals of 
Lao-Hmong Day.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on November 13, 2001 
under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate on December 10 by 
unanimous consent.
    d. Hearings.--None.
6. H. Con. Res. 163, Recognizing the historical significance of 
        Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of 
        Congress that history be regarded as a means of understanding 
        the past and solving the challenges of the future
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the historical 
significance of Juneteenth Independence Day (celebrated on June 
19 for 136 years to honor the memory of all those who endured 
slavery and especially those who moved from slavery to 
freedom). Encourages the continued celebration of this day to 
provide an opportunity for all people of the United States to 
learn more about the past and to better understand the 
experiences that have shaped the Nation.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 19, 2001 under 
suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
7. H. Con. Res. 179, Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the 
        establishment of a National Health Center Week to raise 
        awareness of health services provided by community, migrant, 
        public housing, and homeless health centers
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Expresses the sense of Congress 
that there should be established a National Community Health 
Center Week to raise awareness of health services provided by 
community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health 
centers.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on August 3, 2001 by 
unanimous consent.
    d. Hearings.--None.
8. H. Con. Res. 190, Supporting the goals and ideals of National 
        Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Congress supports the goals and 
ideals of National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on July 30, 2001 under 
suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
9. H. Con. Res. 292, Supporting the goals of establishing the Year of 
        the Rose
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--House supports the goals of 
establishing the Year of the Rose.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on December 19, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
10. H. Res. 97, Recognizing the enduring contributions, heroic 
        achievements, and dedicated work of Shirley Anita Chisholm
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the enduring 
contributions and heroic achievements of Shirley Anita 
Chisholm.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 12, 2001 under 
suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
11. H. Res. 116, Commemorating the dedication and sacrifices of the men 
        and women of the United States who were killed or disabled 
        while serving as law enforcement officers
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Calls for all peace officers slain 
in the line of duty to be honored and recognized.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on May 15, 2001 under 
suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
12. H. Res. 172, Honoring John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, 
        who lost their lives in the course of duty as firefighters
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Honors John J. Downing, Brian 
Fahey, and Harry Ford, who lost their lives in the course of 
duty as firefighters, and recognizes them for their bravery and 
sacrifice. Expresses condolences to their families. Pledges the 
support of the House of Representatives to continue to work on 
behalf of all of the Nation's firefighters who risk their lives 
every day to ensure the safety of all Americans.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 27, 2001 under 
suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
13. H. Res. 198, Congratulating Tony Gwynn on the announcement of his 
        retirement from the San Diego Padres and from Major League 
        Baseball
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates Tony Gwynn on the 
announcement of his retirement from the San Diego Padres and 
from Major League Baseball.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 2, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
14. H. Res. 201, Honoring four firefighters who lost their lives 
        fighting the Thirtymile Fire in the Cascade Mountains of 
        Washington State
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Honoring four firefighters who lost 
their lives in the Thirtymile Fire in the Cascade Mountains of 
Washington State.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on July 23, 2001 under 
suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
15. H. Res. 202, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        regarding the establishment of a Summer Emergency Blood Donor 
        Season to encourage eligible donors in the United States to 
        donate blood
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Expressing the sense of the House 
of Representatives regarding the establishment of a Summer 
Emergency Blood Donor Season to encourage eligible donors in 
the United States to donate blood.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on September 5, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
16. H. Res. 235, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        regarding the establishment of a National Words Can Heal Day
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Expressing the sense of the House 
of Representatives in support of the goals of National Words 
Can Heal Day.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on November 13, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
17. H. Res. 247, Honoring Cal Ripken, Jr., for an outstanding career, 
        congratulating him on his retirement, and thanking him for his 
        contributions to baseball, to the State of Maryland, and to the 
        Nation
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Honoring Cal Ripken, Jr., for an 
outstanding career, congratulating him on his retirement, and 
thanking him for his contributions to baseball, to the State of 
Maryland, and to the Nation.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 2, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
18. H. Res. 254, Supporting the goals of Pregnancy and Infant Loss 
        Remembrance Day
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--The House supports the goals of 
Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 9, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
19. H. Res. 266, Congratulating Barry Bonds on his spectacular, record-
        breaking season for the San Francisco Giants and Major League 
        Baseball
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Congratulating Barry Bonds on his 
spectacular, record-breaking season for the San Francisco 
Giants and Major League Baseball
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 30, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
20. H. Res. 298, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        that Veterans Day should continue to be observed on November 11 
        and separate from any other Federal holiday or day for Federal 
        elections or national observances
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that Veterans Day should continue to be 
observed on November 11 and separate from any other Federal 
holiday or day for Federal elections or national observances.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on December 5, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
21. H. Res. 308, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        regarding the establishment of a National Motivation and 
        Inspiration Day
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Supports the goals of National 
Motivation and Inspiration Day.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on December 18, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
22. H.R. 169, Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
        Retaliation Act of 2001
    a. Report number and date.--The committee did not issue a 
report on H.R. 169. The Committee on the Judiciary issued House 
Report No. 107-101.
    b. Summary of measure.--Requires Federal agencies to be 
accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and 
whistleblower protection laws. Requires agencies and the EEOC 
to disclose certain information on their Web sites.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 2, 2001 
under suspension of the rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.
23. H.R. 1088, Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Amends the Securities Exchange Act 
of 1934 to reduce Fees collected by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and provides special pay authority for the SEC.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 13, 2001.
    d. Hearings.--None.
24. H.R. 2362, Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission Act
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Establishes the Benjamin Franklin 
Tercentenary Commission.
    c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 31, 2001 
under suspension of the Rules.
    d. Hearings.--None.

                   District of Columbia Subcommittee

                 Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman

1. H.R. 1499, District of Columbia College Access Act Technical 
        Corrections Act of 2001
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--The D.C. Tuition Assistance 
Program, created in 1999, provides financial assistance for 
some D.C. residents to pursue undergraduate degrees in eligible 
public, private or select historically black institutions of 
higher learning. H.R. 1499 expands the program to include D.C. 
residents who: 1) graduated from secondary school, or received 
the equivalent of such diplomas, prior to 1998; 2) have not 
graduated from a secondary school or received the equivalent of 
such diplomas, but who are nonetheless accepted for enrollment 
as a freshman at an eligible institution; and 3) have lived in 
the city for at least 5 years and are re-enrolling in a post-
secondary institution after a break of at least 3 years. The 
legislation also includes all historically black colleges and 
universities (not just those located in Maryland and Virginia, 
as stated in the 1999 act) and prohibits the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia from using more than 7 percent of the 
program's total budget for administrative expenses.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Delegate Eleanor 
Holmes Norton on April 4, 2001 and referred to House Committee 
on Government Reform. Forwarded by the District of Columbia 
Subcommittee to full committee by unanimous consent on June 26, 
2001. Reported out of Government Reform Committee on July 25, 
2001. Approved by House of Representatives on July 30, 2001 
under suspension of the rules. Reported out of Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee, with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute on November 29, 2001.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 2305, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act 
        of 2001
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--The Criminal Justice Coordinating 
Council [CJCC] is a multi-agency, Federal-District of Columbia 
task force that is designed to forge cooperative solutions 
regarding criminal justice matters in the District of Columbia, 
where law enforcement, prosecution and sentencing activities 
are performed by Federal and local entities. This legislation 
permits the heads of various Federal and local law enforcement 
agencies to meet regularly under the auspices of the CJCC. It 
also requires the council to produce an annual report on its 
activities.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Connie Morella on June 25, 2001 and referred to 
House Committee on Government Reform. Forwarded by District of 
Columbia Subcommittee to full committee, as amended, on 
September 21, 2001. Approved by House of Representatives under 
suspension of the rules, on December 4, 2001. Referred to 
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
    d. Hearings.--``Coordination of Criminal Justice Activities 
in the District of Columbia,'' May 11, 2001.

Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs

                        Hon. Doug Ose, Chairman

1. H.R. 327, Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
    a. Report number and date.--There was no House Report on 
H.R. 327 in the 107th Congress. However, there were House 
reports for the predecessor bills to H.R. 327 both in the 105th 
(H.R. 3310) and 106th (H.R. 391) Congresses: House Report 105-
462, Part 1 and House Report 106-8, Part 1, respectively.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 327 amends 35 U.S.C. Sec. 44 
to facilitate compliance by small businesses with certain 
Federal paperwork requirements. It creates a single point of 
contact at each agency for small businesses. In addition, it 
establishes a task force to examine the feasibility of 
streamlining paperwork requirements applicable to small 
businesses.
    c. Legislative status.--H.R. 327 was approved by the House 
on March 15, 2001, by a vote of 418 to 0.
    d. Hearings.--There was no hearing on H.R. 327 in the 107th 
Congress. However, there were many hearings on small business 
paperwork relief in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

        C. LEGISLATION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE

                   District of Columbia Subcommittee

                 Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman

1. H.R. 2995, The District of Columbia Fiscal Integrity Act of 2001
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--When Congress created the District 
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
Authority (the Control Board) in 1995, it also established the 
post of chief financial officer [CFO] for the District of 
Columbia. With the Control Board expiring on September 30, 
2001, city officials and Members of Congress sought legislation 
to maintain the chief financial officer as the primary fiscal 
watchdog for the District of Columbia. H.R. 2995 would 
establish a 2-year transition period after the end of the 
Control Board, during which the CFO would continue to have 
broad powers over his own office and deputies in matters of 
personnel and procurement and would continue to prepare fiscal 
impact statements on all pieces of city legislation. The 
legislation also requires the establishment of an ``early-
warning system'' designed to give city and congressional 
officials a better long-term picture of the District's 
financial health and to identify potential fiscal problems. 
Finally, H.R. 2995 would, beginning in fiscal year 2004, give 
the District of Columbia full autonomy over its own, locally-
generated revenues.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Connie Morella on October 2, 2001 and referred to 
House Committee on Government Reform. Forwarded by District of 
Columbia Subcommittee to full committee on November 15, 2001.
    d. Hearings.--``The Outlook for the District of Columbia 
Government: The Post-Control Board Period,'' June 8, 2001, 
joint hearing with the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee 
on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the 
District of Columbia.
2. H. Res. 125, Re-open Pennsylvania Avenue to Traffic resolution
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--Expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the National Capital Planning Commission 
should adopt, and the President should implement, a plan to 
permanently re-open Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White 
House while maintaining adequate security for the President, 
First Family, White House staff and visitors.
    c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Connie Morella on April 26, 2001 and referred to 
House Committee on Government Reform. Forwarded from District 
of Columbia Subcommittee to full committee by unanimous consent 
on June 26, 2001. Reported by Government Reform Committee on 
July 25, 2001.
    d. Hearings.--``America's Main Street: The Future of 
Pennsylvania Avenue,'' March 21, 2001.

    Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
                      Intergovernmental Relations

                      Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman

1. H.R. 583, a bill to establish the Commission for the Comprehensive 
        Study of Privacy Protection
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 583 was introduced by 
Representative Asa Hutchinson from Arkansas on February 13, 
2001. This bill would establish an 18-month, 17-member 
commission to study and report to Congress and the President on 
issues relating to the protection of individual privacy and the 
balance to be achieved between protecting such privacy and 
allowing for appropriate uses of information. The bill requires 
the commission to conduct at least two hearings in each of the 
Nation's five geographical regions. H.R. 583 is similar to H.R. 
4049, introduced by Representative Hutchinson in the 106th 
Congress. During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology, chaired by 
Representative Stephen Horn, held three legislative hearings on 
the bill on April 12, 2000, May 15, 2000 and May 16, 2000. The 
subcommittee subsequently marked up H.R. 4049 and forwarded it 
to the full committee on June 14, 2000. The full committee 
marked up H.R. 4049, with amendments, on June 29, 2000, and 
ordered it to be reported to the full House. On October 2, 
2000, the full House considered the bill, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules. On motion to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, as amended, the bill received a favorable vote 
of 250 to 146. However, it failed to receive the two-thirds 
vote necessary for passage.
    c. Legislative status.--On May 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on 
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
Intergovernmental Relations approved H.R. 583 by a 4 to 1 vote 
and referred the legislation to the full committee.
    d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 577, a bill to require any organization that is established for 
        the purpose of raising funds for the creation of a Presidential 
        archival depository to disclose the sources and amounts of any 
        funds raised
    a. Report number and date.--None.
    b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 577 was introduced by 
Representative John Duncan from Tennessee on February 12, 2001. 
This bill is similar to H.R. 3239, which Representative Duncan 
introduced in the 106th Congress. The purpose of H.R. 577 is to 
ensure that fundraising for Presidential libraries occurs in 
the open, free from possible conflicts of interest and the 
appearance of impropriety. H.R. 577 would require any 
organization that is raising funds for a Presidential archival 
depository to make public the sources and amounts of any funds 
received for the depository's creation. The bill was amended to 
require disclosure of donations amounting to $200 or more per 
year while a President holds office and $5,000 or more after 
the President has left office and the Presidential depository 
becomes the responsibility of the National Archives and Records 
Administration.
    c. Legislative status.--On May 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on 
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
Intergovernmental Relations approved H.R. 577, as amended, by a 
unanimous voice vote and referred the legislation to the full 
committee. On May 15, 2001, the full committee approved H.R. 
577 by voice vote with an additional amendment, which expanded 
the provisions of the bill to include organizations operating 
under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 if 
the organization is named after or controlled by a Federal 
elected official who is currently holding office.
    d. Hearings.--``H.R. 577, a Bill to Require any 
Organization that is Established for the Purpose of Raising 
Funds for the Creation of a Presidential Archival Depository to 
Disclose the Sources and Amounts of any Funds Raised,'' April 
5, 2001.

                        II. Oversight Activities

                          A. COMMITTEE REPORTS

    There were no committee reports during the first session of 
the 107th Congress.

                         B. OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

                             Full Committee

                       Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman

1. ``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich,'' 
        Day 1, February 8, 2001
    a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing was Jack Quinn, 
attorney for Marc Rich, Morris ``Sandy'' Weinberg, former 
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Martin Auerbach, former Assistant U.S. 
Attorney, and Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General. The 
witnesses were first questioned about the background of Marc 
Rich, and whether he was a suitable candidate for a pardon. 
Weinberg and Auerbach detailed the history of the criminal 
investigation of Marc Rich, and testified that they believed 
that Rich was completely unsuited for a Presidential pardon. 
They believed that Rich had committed serious crimes, and was a 
fugitive from justice. Jack Quinn, who lobbied the Clinton 
White House for Rich's pardon, testified regarding his efforts 
to win the Rich pardon. Quinn had a number of contacts with 
senior White House staff and President Clinton regarding the 
Rich case. He had this access as a result of having been 
counsel to the President earlier in the Clinton administration. 
Quinn testified that he did not believe Rich was a fugitive, 
and believed that a pardon was the only way to resolve the Rich 
case.
    Quinn and former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder were 
questioned regarding the Justice Department's role in the Rich 
pardon. The Justice Department was never formally consulted by 
the White House, and the prosecutors responsible for the case 
did not know the pardon was being considered until after it was 
granted. Quinn testified that he notified Holder that he would 
be submitting the Rich pardon application directly to the White 
House, and that Holder did not object to his plan. For his 
part, Holder testified that while he was aware of Quinn's 
efforts to obtain the pardon, he did not think that it would 
succeed. Holder was also questioned regarding his input on the 
pardon. During the last day of the Clinton administration, 
White House Counsel Beth Nolan asked Holder for his position on 
the Rich pardon, and he stated that he was ``neutral, leaning 
toward favorable'' on the pardon. Holder took this position 
despite the fact that he knew little about the case, other than 
the fact that Rich was a wanted fugitive.
2. ``Special Education: Is IDEA Working as Congress Intended?'' 
        February 28, 2001
    a. Summary.--During the 106th Congress, the Committee on 
Government Reform initiated an investigation looking at the 
dramatic rise in autism rates. Government sources in the past 
have estimated that autism rates used to be 1 in 10,000 
children. These rates have risen to a current national average 
of 1 in 500 children. The investigation to date has focused on 
three issues: (1) concerns that childhood vaccines, including 
those containing thimerosal (mercury) may be linked to 
increased rates of autism spectrum disorders, pervasive 
developmental disorder, and speech and learning delays; (2) the 
level of research looking at the causes of, and treatments for, 
autism; and (3) the challenges of providing a ``free and 
appropriate'' education to individuals with autistic spectrum 
disorders. This hearing offered a review of the implementation 
of the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities 
Act, using the experiences of families with autistic children 
as the example to evaluate if the program was working as 
Congress intended.
    In the creation of laws to provide a public education to 
individuals with disabilities, Congress sought to develop a 
program in which the Federal, State and local governments would 
share additional expenses incurred for educating children with 
disabilities. Congress determined that the Federal Government 
should contribute up to 40 percent of the average per pupil 
expenditure of educating children with disabilities. However, 
to date, the Federal Government has never contributed more than 
14.9 percent. President George W. Bush, with the introduction 
of his Education Blueprint, stated: ``The federal role in 
education is not to serve the system. It is to serve the 
children.'' The President's blueprint offers four objectives: 
increasing accountability for student performance, improving 
student performance, reducing bureaucracy and increasing 
flexibility, and empowering parents.
    The committee received more than 2,500 letters from 
parents, educators, administrators, and disability-related 
organizations regarding the implementation of the Amendments to 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 [IDEA] 
[Public Law 105-7]. A majority of the responders felt the 
program was not being properly implemented. Most asked that the 
Federal Government fully-fund IDEA. Concerns raised by the 
majority of responders include children with disabilities being 
``warehoused,'' or placed in classes in which they were not 
intellectually challenged; the need for accountability of 
schools that do not comply with the law; the financial burden 
on local school districts for providing services to a sharply 
increasing number of children without additional Federal 
resources (for example, in the last school year in Indiana, 
requests for Special Education services went up 25 percent); 
the shortage of properly trained teachers, aides, and 
therapists; the failure of schools to fully inform parents of 
their rights under the law; the difficulties in coming to a 
timely consensus between schools and families on the Individual 
Education Plan [IEP] for children; the failure of schools to 
comply with established IEPs; and the concerns about school 
districts that hire outside counsel at taxpayer expense to take 
unresolved IDEA/IEP issues to court. During the hearing, the 
committee received testimony from parents, attorneys who are 
involved in litigation, local educators and administrators, and 
the Department of Education.
3. ``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich,'' 
        Day 2, March 1, 2001
    a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were former DNC 
Finance Chair Beth Dozoretz, former White House Counsel Beth 
Nolan, former Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, former 
White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, Marc Rich lawyers Jack 
Quinn, Robert Fink, and Peter Kadzik, and former Marc Rich 
lawyer I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.
    Documents and other information obtained by the committee 
indicated that Beth Dozoretz was involved in both lobbying the 
President for the Rich pardon, and soliciting contributions to 
the DNC and Clinton Presidential Library from Marc Rich's ex-
wife, Denise Rich. Given these facts, the committee had a 
number of questions for Dozoretz regarding the influence that 
these financial factors might have played in the consideration 
of the Marc Rich pardon. Rather than answer any questions from 
the committee, Dozoretz invoked her fifth amendment rights 
against self-incrimination.
    Jack Quinn, Beth Nolan, Bruce Lindsey, and John Podesta 
were questioned regarding the consideration of the Rich pardon 
at the White House. Nolan, Lindsey, and Podesta all testified 
that they were strongly opposed to the Rich pardon, but that 
the President granted the pardon despite their advice. They 
were also questioned regarding other controversial pardons and 
commutations, including those of Carlos Vignali, Edgar and 
Vonna Jo Gregory, and pardons lobbied for by Roger Clinton.
    Fink, Kadzik, and Libby were questioned regarding their 
efforts on behalf of Marc Rich. Fink described his role in 
helping Rich obtain the pardon, including the hiring of Jack 
Quinn. Kadzik explained his role in lobbying his friend and 
client John Podesta. Libby was questioned regarding his role in 
the Rich case, which predated any effort to obtain a pardon, 
and was instead limited to efforts to settle Rich's criminal 
case with prosecutors in New York.
4. ``Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The Status of National and 
        International Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research,'' 
        March 20, 2001
    a. Summary.--During the 106th Congress, the Committee on 
Government Reform initiated an oversight investigation looking 
at the regulatory environment for dietary supplements in the 
United States. A long and well-documented history of 
institutional-bias exists within the Federal Government and 
conventional medical community toward the use of dietary 
supplements for health promotion. This bias has at times 
created difficulties for those who manufacture or sell 
supplements, particularly smaller companies. Survey's show that 
about 50 percent of the American public now use dietary 
supplements on a regular basis. Americans have been adamant 
that the Federal Government should not restrict access to 
dietary supplements. There is growing public concern that 
agreements made through the CODEX Alimentarious for Food Safety 
will supersede U.S. law and eventually result in reduced access 
to dietary supplements.
    In 1994, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and 
Education Act [DSHEA] [Public Law 103-417] which amended the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to define a ``dietary 
supplement'' as a product: (1) other than tobacco, intended to 
supplement the diet that contains a vitamin, mineral, herb or 
botanical, dietary substance, or a concentrate, metabolite, 
constituent, extract, or combination of the above ingredients; 
(2) that is intended for ingestion, is not represented as food 
or as a sole item of a meal or diet, and is labeled as a 
dietary supplement; (3) that includes an article approved as a 
new drug, certified as an antibiotic, or licensed as a biologic 
and that was, prior to such approval, certification or 
licensure, marketed as a dietary supplement or food, unless the 
conditions of use and dosages are found to be unlawful; and (4) 
excludes such articles which were not so marketed prior to 
approval unless found to be lawful. Deems a dietary supplement 
to be a food. Excludes a dietary supplement from the definition 
of the term ``food additive.'' DSHEA clarified and extended the 
Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] ability to regulate 
dietary supplements. Under the existing law, the FDA has seven 
specific points of regulatory authority:
          LRefer for criminal action to any company 
        that sells a dietary supplement that is toxic or 
        unsanitary [Section 402 (a)].
          LObtain an injunction against the sale of a 
        dietary supplement that has false or unsubstantiated 
        claims [Section 402(a).(r6)].
          LSeize dietary supplements that pose an 
        ``unreasonable or significant risk of illness or 
        injury'' [Section 402(f)].
          LSue any company making a claim that a 
        product cures or treats a disease [Section 201(g)].
          LStop a new dietary ingredient from being 
        marketed if FDA does not receive enough safety data in 
        advance [Section 413].
          LStop the sale of an entire class of dietary 
        supplements if they pose an imminent public health 
        hazard [Section 402(f)].
          LRequires dietary supplements to meet strict 
        manufacturing requirements (Good Manufacturing 
        Practices), including potency, cleanliness, and 
        stability [Section 402(g)].
    The committee received testimony from dietary supplement 
experts as well as from the FDA and members of the U.S. 
Delegation to the CODEX Alimentarious for Food Safety. One 
concern of particular interest to the committee is that U.S. 
businesses may be adversely affected in the international 
marketplace if the CODEX negotiations do not protect U.S. 
perspectives and existing laws. It was strongly suggested that 
the administration ensure that each delegation to an 
international regulatory body such as CODEX include experts in 
international trade negotiations in addition to scientific 
experts.
5. ``The U.S. Postal Service's Uncertain Financial Outlook,'' Part I, 
        April 4, 2001
    a. Summary.--On April 4, 2001, the Committee on Government 
Reform held a hearing to examine the financial outlook of the 
U.S. Postal Service. This was the first hearing held by the 
committee during the 107th Congress to examine postal 
operations. At the hearing the committee focused on the 
financial challenges facing the Postal Service and options 
available to the agency to address those challenges. At the 
time of the hearing the Postal Service estimated that it would 
lose approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2001. A number of 
factors contributed to the Postal Service's dismal financial 
projections, including reduced mail volume, increased 
competition, management-labor relations problems, and statutory 
restrictions. Witnesses at the hearing included the Comptroller 
General of the United States, the Postmaster General, and the 
Postal Board of Governors.
    The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, 
testified that the Postal Service faces major challenges that 
collectively call for a structural transformation if it is to 
remain viable in the 21st century. General Walker announced 
that because of the Postal Service's rapidly deteriorating 
financial situation, the General Accounting Office [GAO] was 
placing the Postal Service on its high-risk list. According to 
General Walker, several actions need to be taken to address the 
Service's continued problems. Such actions include (1) 
developing a comprehensive plan to address the financial, 
operational, and human capital challenges; (2) providing 
quarterly financial reports to Congress and the public; and (3) 
identifying, in conjunction with GAO and other stakeholders, 
improvement options that will cut costs and improve 
productivity. GAO also testified that because there was a 
significant shift in the Postal Service's financial outlook in 
the last 4 months, Congress and postal stakeholders needed to 
have frequent, transparent and reliable information on the 
Service's current and projected financial situation.
    Postmaster General William Henderson testified that the 
Postal Service has few options available to it to address its 
financial challenges. The process for adjusting rates is long 
and cumbersome and the agency cannot build earnings for the 
long term like a private company. According to the Postmaster 
General, this makes the Postal Service uniquely vulnerable to 
rapid shifts in markets. The current financial challenge arises 
against a backdrop of explosive growth in communications 
technology and revolutionary restructuring of the commercial 
marketplace.
    General Henderson said that modernizing the Postal Service 
is necessary to allow the agency to address the challenges it 
faces. He testified that without the ability to adjust the way 
it conducts business, the Postal Service will become 
increasingly outmoded, and will have trouble meeting its very 
important responsibilities to the public.
6. ``Assessing The California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get To This 
        Point, And Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 11, 2001
    a. Summary.--Following an Energy Policy, Natural Resources 
and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee hearing in Sacramento on 
April 10, the full committee held 2 days of field hearings on 
the California Energy Crisis. The April 11 hearing in San Jose 
focused on the causes and effects of California's electricity 
crisis, the impact on the California economy, and the State and 
Federal response to the situation. Witnesses included: The 
Honorable Curt Hebert, chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission; Ms. Dede Hapner, vice president, Regulatory 
Relations, Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Mr. Stephen Pickett, 
vice president and general counsel, Southern California Edison; 
Mr. Dean N. Vanech, president, Delta Power Co.; and Mr. Paul E. 
Desrochers, director of fuel procurement, Thermo Ecotek.
    Chairman Hebert testified about the role of FERC in 
mitigating the electricity crisis. He reiterated his opposition 
to electricity price caps for California, stating that such a 
policy would divert energy supplies to other regions and 
exacerbate electricity shortages in the State. Representatives 
of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison 
testified on the impact of the crisis on the State's two 
largest utilities and the mounting debt they incurred due to 
the higher electricity prices. They criticized the State Public 
Utilities Commission for erecting barriers to the utilities 
entering into long-term contracts for electricity, leaving them 
vulnerable to wild price swings in the spot market. Mr. Vanech 
and Mr. Desrochers explained to the committee how qualifying 
facilities (small electricity generators) were impacted by the 
lack of payments from the major utilities, eliminating 3,000 
megawatts of power from the market place.
7. ``Assessing The California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get To This 
        Point, And Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 12, 2001
    a. Summary.--The full committee's second field hearing in 
San Diego on April 12 again focused on the causes and effects 
California's electricity crisis. Witnesses included: Mr. Sam 
Hardage, president, Woodfin Suite Hotels, LLC; Mr. John 
Wiederkehr, president, Certified Metal Craft, Inc.; Mr. Douglas 
Barnhart, president, Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc.; Mr. Richard 
Thomas, vice president, Alpine Stained Glass; Mark W. Seetin, 
vice president government affairs, New York Mercantile 
Exchange; Bill Horn, chairman, San Diego County Board of 
Supervisors; P. Gregory Conlon, former California PUC chairman; 
Mr. Kevin P. Madden, general counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission; Mr. Fredrick E. John, senior vice president 
external affairs, Sempra Energy; Mr. Steve Malcolm, president, 
Williams Energy Services; and Mr. John Stout, senior vice 
president for Asset Commercialization, Reliant Energy.
    Mr. Hardage, Mr. Wiederkehr, Mr. Barnhart, Mr. Thomas and 
Chairman Horn explained to the committee how San Diego 
businesses had been affected by the deregulation of electricity 
prices on the retail level in August 2000. Mr. Seetin was 
questioned about how markets work and why the system enacted by 
California failed. P. Gregory Conlon discussed how the PUC 
originally planned for the deregulation of the electricity 
markets during Governor Wilson's administration. Mr. Madden 
explained FERC's oversight of electricity generators and the 
Commission's decision to order the generators to justify 
possible overcharges during the crisis. Mr. John testified 
about Sempra's experience as the first utility allowed to 
deregulate its retail electricity, and the debt the company 
incurred due to the skyrocketing electricity prices. Mr. Stout 
and Mr. Malcolm answered questions on why electricity prices 
rose to such high levels in California and the allegations that 
electrical power generators had taken advantage of the crisis 
atmosphere to raise prices and boost profits. Mr. John and Mr. 
Malcolm also addressed the role of higher natural gas prices 
and California's constrained natural gas pipelines in creating 
high electricity prices.
8. ``Autism--Why the Increased Rates?'' April 25-26, 2001
    a. Summary.--During the 106th Congress, the Committee on 
Government Reform initiated an investigation to look at the 
dramatic rise in autism rates. Government sources in the past 
have estimated national autism rates to be 1 in 10,000 
children. Over the last decade those rates have risen to 1 in 
500 children. The investigation to date has looked at three 
issues: (1) concerns that childhood vaccines, including those 
containing thimerosal (mercury) may be linked to increased 
rates of autism spectrum disorders, and speech and learning 
delays; (2) the level of research looking at the causes of and 
treatments for autism; and (3) the challenges of providing a 
``free and appropriate'' education to individuals with autistic 
spectrum disorders.
    Autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder, is not simply a 
learning disability or developmental delay. Autism is a medical 
condition--a neurobiological disorder and complex developmental 
disability oftentimes also characterized as pervasive 
developmental disorders. Autism typically appears during the 
first 3 years of life. Individuals with autism typically have 
difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social 
interactions, and leisure or play activities. The disorder 
makes it hard to communicate with others and to relate to the 
outside world. In some cases, aggressive and/or self-injurious 
behavior may be present. Persons with autism may exhibit 
repeated body movements such as hand flapping and rocking, 
unusual responses to people or attachments to objects and 
resistance to changes in routine. Individuals may also 
experience sensitivities in any or all of the five senses.
    In the last 40 years, in addition to the sharp rise in 
autism rates, the type of autism has changed. Dr. Bernard 
Rimland, a noted expert, stated in testimony that an increasing 
number of cases diagnosed in recent years are acquired autism--
coming on suddenly in the second year of life. The committee 
has received a significant number of reports stating that 
children were normal prior to vaccination. At the time of 
vaccination, children who acquired autism, suffered a variety 
of reactions including excessive sleepiness, unmitigated 
crying, head banging, gastrointestinal reactions, and a sudden 
regression in to behaviors that were eventually diagnosed as 
autism. Dr. Andrew Wakefield presented findings from his 
clinical research which found through laboratory analysis 
measles virus remaining in the intestinal tract of children who 
acquired autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine and who 
also suffered gastrointestinal issues. Many of these children, 
when properly treated for the gastrointestinal issues had a 
dramatic improvement in the symptoms of autism.
    During the course of the investigation, the following 
concerns were raised: the need to fully understand the actual 
incidence of autism and autism spectrum disorders; the 
potential link between thimerosal (mercury)-containing vaccines 
and acquired or late-onset autism; late onset autistic 
entercolotis and its connection to the measles-mumps-rubella 
vaccine; the lack of federally-funded research regarding these 
issues; the need for more autism-related research that will 
lead to better treatment options and cures; and the need for 
more practice-based research to evaluate current treatment 
options.
9. ``The FBI's Controversial Handling of Organized Crime Investigations 
        in Boston,'' May 3, 2001
    a. Summary.--On May 3, the committee held its first hearing 
to explore allegations of wrongdoing by Federal law enforcement 
agents in Boston over the last three decades. The first hearing 
focused on the case of Joseph Salvati, who spent 30 years in 
prison for a murder he did not commit. The convictions were 
based primarily on the testimony of notorious Boston mob killer 
turned FBI witness, Joseph ``The Animal'' Barboza. Documents 
obtained by the committee prior to the hearing showed that not 
only was the prosecution of Joseph Salvati and three others 
based on highly dubious testimony, but that Federal and State 
law enforcement authorities had information indicating that 
they were sending the wrong men to the death chamber or prison 
for life.
    Participating witnesses included Joseph Salvati, his wife 
Marie Salvati, and Attorney Victor Garo, who recounted the 30-
year ordeal of the Salvati family, and Mr. Garo's 26 year pro 
bono representation that ultimately resulted in the commutation 
and dismissal of all charges resulting from law enforcement's 
withholding of critical exculpatory material at the time of 
trial and for decades afterward. Attorneys F. Lee Bailey and 
Joseph Balliro, Boston defense attorneys with extensive 
experience representing New England organized crime defendants, 
testified and questioned the veracity of Barboza at trial and 
the propriety of the actions of the FBI agents responsible for 
Barboza's testimony. Also testifying was retired FBI Special 
Agent H. Paul Rico, who developed Barboza as a government 
witness to testify against Salvati and others. He denied any 
wrongdoing by the FBI and showed little remorse for the part he 
played in sending Mr. Salvati to prison. At the same time, he 
admitted that, after hearing all the evidence presented at the 
hearing, Salvati may have been wrongly convicted.
10. ``Challenges to National Security: Constraints on Military 
        Training,'' May 9, 2001
    a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing into regulatory, 
commercial and urban encroachment on military training 
affecting installations and ranges across the United States. 
These encroachments threaten military readiness and the safety 
of those serving in uniform through the loss of training areas 
and realistic training. In many cases, requirements under the 
Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 
other Federal land use regulations have taken priority over the 
military training mission on military land. Commercial 
interests in airspace and radio frequency spectrum often 
threaten the degradation of air training, information 
gathering, communications and other operational needs. The 
witnesses included top military officials and those commander 
responsible for training: Admiral William J. Fallon, Vice Chief 
of Naval Operations; General John P. Jumper, Commander, Air 
Combat Command, U.S. Air Force; Lt. General Larry R. Ellis, 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, U.S. Army; 
Major General Edward Hanlon, Jr., Commanding General, U.S. 
Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton; Lt. General Leon J. LaPorte, 
Commanding General, III Corps and Fort Hood, U.S. Army; 
Brigadier General James R. Battaglini, Deputy Commanding 
General, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, U.S. Marine Corps; 
Captain William H. McRaven, Commodore, Naval Special Warfare, 
Seal Group One; and Colonel Herbert J. Carlisle, Commander, 
33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, U.S. Air Force.
    The committee has currently authorized two General 
Accounting Office studies in this area. One is a study of the 
Department of Defenses' organization for dealing with these 
encroachments and the resources committed to following 
regulations. The second is an audit of the Fish and Wildlife 
Services' Endangered Species program to examine priorities and 
shortfalls in carrying out its regulatory mission.
11. ``The U.S. Postal Service's Uncertain Financial Outlook,'' Part II, 
        May 16, 2001
    a. Summary.--The committee held a second hearing to examine 
the Postal Service's financial situation on May 16, 2001. At 
this hearing the committee heard from various postal 
stakeholders, including mailers and postal employee union 
representatives. Witnesses discussed the challenges facing the 
Postal Service and the impact of those challenges on postal 
business and the postal workforce. Since the committee's first 
postal hearing, held in April, the Postal Service took some 
steps to attempt to address its financial situation. It 
suspended capital improvement projects and undertook a study of 
5-day delivery service. Additionally, on May 8, 2001, the 
Postal Board of Governors announced that on July 1, 2001, 
postal rates would increase for some classes of mail. The new 
rates modify an earlier increase that went into effect in 
January 2001, which raised the price of a first-class stamp to 
34 cents.
    Representatives of the mailing community testified about 
the need for a financially healthy Postal Service because of 
its importance to the U.S. economy. However, they cautioned 
against rate increases as a way to restore the fiscal health of 
the postal system. Jerry Cerasale, vice president of government 
affairs for the Direct Marketing Association, testified that 
postage increases would be counterproductive to the Postal 
Service's goal of raising revenue. According to Mr. Cerasale, 
large rate increases devastate mail volume because they cause 
mailers to seek alternatives or force them to stop doing 
business altogether. He testified that a typical postage 
increase for a business that mails invoices, magazines, 
newsletters, newspapers or advertisements translates into 
thousands or millions of dollars in additional expenses. The 
rate increases will also impact consumers. Rate increases could 
result in higher costs for products shipped through the mail, 
including periodicals and items bought from catalogs or off of 
the Internet.
    Gene Del Polito, president of the Association for Postal 
Commerce, testified that the law governing postal operations 
has become an anachronism. In the 30 years since Congress 
passed the Postal Reorganization Act, the manner in which 
businesses and consumers communicate and transact their affairs 
has changed dramatically, however the legislative framework has 
not. According to Mr. Del Polito, this mismatch has contributed 
to the Postal Service's dismal financial reports and outlooks. 
As a result, he said that the passage of meaningful postal 
reform is essential. Gene Del Polito joined with Jack Estes, 
executive director of the Main Street Coalition for Postal 
Fairness in expressing support for the creation of a commission 
to study and make recommendations on the future and direction 
of the postal system. Pat Schroeder, president and chief 
executive officer of the Association of American Publishers 
advocated the creation of a postal closing commission modeled 
after BRAC, the military base closing commission.
    Moe Biller, president of the American Postal Workers Union, 
testified that the Postal Service's problems are a revenue 
issue rather than a cost issue. The slowdown in the economy and 
rising energy costs account for a substantial part of the 
current deficit projections of the Postal Service. According to 
Mr. Biller, these problems are temporary and will not impact 
the Postal Service over the long term. He said that the Postal 
Service as presently configured is a strong and vital 
institution, and despite its present financial difficulty, has 
substantial strength and is capable of performing well, 
presently and in the future.
12. ``The Use of Prosecutorial Powers in the Investigation of Joseph M. 
        Gersten,'' June 15, 2001
    a. Summary.--On June 15, the committee held a hearing 
regarding an FBI and Miami State Attorney's Office 
investigation of Dade County Commissioner Joseph Gersten. A 
review of the available evidence by committee staff suggests 
that individuals participated in a conspiracy to make 
allegations against Gersten involving drug use and consorting 
with prostitutes that they knew to be false. It also appears 
that government officials came into possession of strong 
evidence that the allegations may have been fabricated, and 
they either ignored the evidence or covered it up.
    The purpose of the hearing was to take testimony from 
prosecutors who were involved in the case. Two of the principal 
attorneys who conducted the investigation declined to be 
interviewed by committee staff, necessitating the hearing. A 
secondary purpose of the hearing was to determine when it is 
appropriate for U.S. law enforcement agencies to provide 
information to foreign governments about U.S. citizens under 
investigation. The Justice Department provided uncorroborated 
information about Gersten to authorities in Australia, where 
Gersten now lives.
    Witnesses at the hearing were Richard Gregorie, Assistant 
U.S. Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney, Miami-Dade 
County; Michael Band, former Assistant State Attorney, Miami-
Dade County; Mary Cagle, Assistant State Attorney, Miami-Dade 
County; and Mike Osborn, retired Miami homicide detective.
13. ``Compassionate Use of INDs--Is the Current System Effective?'' 
        June 20, 2001
    a. Summary.--If a serious medical condition such as 
metastatic cancer is unresolved after the treatment with the 
``standard of care'' patients and physicians turn to the 
research community for other treatment options. The drug 
approval process on average takes between 12 and 15 years. 
Medical research information is more widely available to the 
public through the Internet and through media discussions. 
Patients are increasingly more active in seeking access to 
experimental treatments. When an investigational drug shows 
promise, patients often seek access to the treatment. Seriously 
or terminally-ill patients have reported difficulty gaining 
access to experimental therapies when their medical or 
demographic characteristics do not match those being sought by 
researchers.
    The subject of special exemptions or emergency access to 
investigational new drugs, commonly referred to as 
``compassionate use'' has been a difficult and controversial 
one. At present there is no uniformity among companies for 
patients who do not qualify for a clinical trial to apply for 
and receive access to experimental treatments. The committee 
received testimony from families, the FDA, and the manufacturer 
of an experimental cancer therapy about the challenges of 
compassionate access. In cancer treatments many new therapies 
are biological therapies and there are inadequate amounts of 
these products to provide wide access to patients outside the 
clinical trials. Some companies have an established procedure 
for patients to apply for compassionate access and provide 
information on their Internet site about their program. The 
companies the committee evaluated approach compassionate access 
from different perspectives. One company utilizes a lottery to 
select from the thousands of applicants. Another company 
decided not to provide any product outside clinical trials 
because of the disparity between the numbers of requests and 
the small amount of additional supplies of the investigational 
new drug available.
14. ``Federal Information Technology Modernization: Assessing 
        Compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act,'' 
        June 21, 2001
    a. Summary.--On June 21, the committee held a hearing to 
assess executive branch compliance with the Government 
Paperwork Elimination Act [GPEA]. In 1998, Congress passed 
GPEA, requiring executive branch agencies to give people the 
option of filing their most frequently used forms 
electronically. The deadline for achieving this goal is October 
2003. The ultimate goal of GPEA, and of the committee's 
oversight activities, is to prod Federal agencies to use 
information technology to create new efficiencies and improve 
service to the public.
    Testifying before a congressional committee for the first 
time since his appointment, Office of Management and Budget 
Director Mitch Daniels stated that compliance with GPEA has 
been mixed. Director Daniels cited the EPA, the Treasury 
Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
for their successful efforts toward compliance with the law. 
Conversely, he cited the Defense Department, the Justice 
Department and the Department of Health and Human Services for 
failing to have an agency-wide commitment to e-government and 
GPEA.
    Committee members questioned Defense Department officials 
about the apparent lack of an enterprise-wide commitment to e-
government strategic planning at DOD. At the same time, the 
committee heard testimony from the Deputy Director of the U.S. 
Mint about that agency's successful use of information 
technology to improve customer service over the internet, 
eliminate stovepipes, and increase efficiency throughout the 
organization. Private-sector witnesses included representatives 
of Microsoft and Cisco Systems.
15. ``The Benefits of Audio-Visual Technology in Addressing Racial 
        Profiling,'' July 19, 2001
    a. Summary.--On July 19, the committee held a hearing 
regarding allegations of racial profiling, and the potential 
benefits of using audio-visual technology to prove or disprove 
those allegations. The committee heard from Assistant Attorney 
General for policy development Viet Dinh, who testified about 
Justice Department efforts to promote the use of audio-visual 
technology and other methods to discourage racial profiling by 
State and local police forces. The committee also heard 
testimony from two Texas State lawmakers, Senators Royce West 
and Robert Duncan. The two State legislators won passage of 
legislation requiring police departments in Texas to collect 
racial data on individuals stopped for traffic infractions 
unless those departments had applied for State funding to 
purchase audio-visual technology.
    Testifying on the second panel were Colonel Charles Dunbar, 
superintendent of the New Jersey State Police; Attorney Mark 
Finnegan; and Attorney Robert Wilkins. Mr. Finnegan testified 
about audio-visual evidence from a traffic stop in Ohio that 
corroborated his client's charge that a police officer 
committed an act of racial profiling against Hispanics. Mr. 
Wilkins testified about an incident during which he was stopped 
by Maryland State Police officers. Testifying on the third 
panel were former U.S. Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly; 
Rachel King, legislative director for the American Civil 
Liberties Union; and Chris Maloney, president of TriTech 
Software Systems. Mr. Kelly testified about efforts at the 
Customs Service under his tenure to more effectively conduct 
inspections of individuals entering the country without the use 
of racial profiling. Mr. Kelly stated that under new procedures 
adopted by Customs, seizures of illegal substances had 
increased while the number of actual inspections had gone down.
16. ``Preparing For The War On Terrorism,'' September 20, 2001
    a. Summary.--This committee hearing examined the extent of 
the threat to U.S. interests from international terrorist 
organizations and recommended U.S. actions in response to those 
threats. Witnesses included: the Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu, 
former Prime Minister of Israel; General Anthony Zinni, U.S. 
Marines, retired; Dr. Christopher Harmon, professor, U.S. 
Marine Corps Command and Staff College; and Dr. Jessica Stern, 
Harvard University.
    Former Prime Minister Netanyahu gave compelling testimony 
about how the Israeli Government has dealt with terrorism and 
suggest how the United States should meet the growing threat. 
General Zinni told the committee of his experience in the 
region as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, 
facing terrorist threats to U.S. military installations across 
the Middle East. Dr. Stern and Dr. Harmon, recognized academic 
experts on terrorism, explained the goals and probable courses 
of action by terrorists today.
17. ``Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: Ensuring the Safety of 
        Postal Employees and the U.S. Mail,'' October 30, 2001
    a. Summary.--On October 30, 2001, the committee convened a 
hearing to review efforts being undertaken to protect the 
safety and security of postal workers, customers and the mail 
in the aftermath of the terrorist-related anthrax attacks. At 
the time of the hearing, three people infected with anthrax had 
died, including two postal workers. Thousands of others were 
being treated with antibiotics. The anthrax attacks also caused 
mail delivery to be suspended and businesses, government 
offices, and mail processing facilities to shut down.
    At the hearing, the committee examined a number of mail 
security and safety issues. Witnesses included Kenneth Weaver, 
Chief Postal Inspector of the Postal Inspection Service; Dr. 
Mitch Cohen of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 
James Jarboe of the Federal Bureau of Investigations; and the 
Honorable John Potter, Postmaster General of the United States. 
The committee also heard from a panel of representatives from 
the various Postal employee unions who addressed the impact of 
mail safety and security on their members.
    Postmaster General John E. Potter acknowledged that 
although the risks of contamination from opening the mail are 
slim, the safety of the mail could not be guaranteed. General 
Potter said that the Postal Service was working in conjunction 
with the medical community to develop a plan to address the 
threats to postal employees of mail containing anthrax. 
Additionally, the Postal Inspection Service was working with 
the law enforcement community, including the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, to investigate the crimes. General Potter 
testified that the Postal Service is taking a number of steps 
to protect postal workers and the mail. Thousands of postal 
employees were tested and treated for exposure to anthrax. 
Protective equipment, including masks and gloves, were provided 
to postal workers. The Postal Service also was testing postal 
facilities and modifying cleaning equipment to minimize the 
spread of dust and spores. General Potter announced that the 
Postal Service contracted for the purchase of electron beam 
systems to sanitize the mail. In the meantime, he said some 
mail would be shipped to private firms in Ohio and New Jersey 
so that it could be sanitized using electron beam technology.
    Some members of the committee raised questions about the 
possibility that mail containing anthrax could cross-
contaminate other mail. Members urged the Postal Service as 
well as health and law enforcement officials to take a 
proactive approach to determining whether cross contamination 
occurs. However, at the time of the hearing, testing of 
potentially contaminated mail had yet to begin. James Jarboe of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that the FBI had 
located a facility to examine the mail taken from Capitol Hill 
on October 17, 2001, 2 weeks since the anthrax-laced letter to 
Senator Daschle was opened. In a letter sent to the Postal 
Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the Center 
for Disease Control and Prevention, Chairman Burton and Ranking 
Minority Member Waxman urged the immediate testing of mail to 
determine whether and the extent to which cross-contamination 
of the mail occurs.
    Members also urged the Postal Service to consider ``low-
tech,'' common-sense safety approaches that could reduce the 
volume of anonymous mail needing sterilization, and noted that 
the Service had not developed emergency plans to respond to a 
bioterrorist attack using the mail. The Postal Service was 
encouraged to seek assistance from experts both inside and 
outside of the government as they developed a plan to ensure 
the safety of the mail for customers and postal workers. 
Finally, many members expressed support for emergency funding 
to assist the Postal Service in responding to the anthrax 
attacks.
18. ``The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Is It Working 
        As Congress Intended?'' November 1 and December 12, 2001
    a. Summary.--As part of the committee's ongoing review of 
vaccine safety and policy issues, two hearings were conducted 
in 2001 regarding the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and 
whether it is operating as Congress intended--as a less 
adversarial alternative to civil litigation in which 
individuals would be fairly and promptly compensated for 
vaccine injuries. In 1986, Congress adopted the Childhood 
Vaccine Injury Act to establish a federally sponsored, no-fault 
system of compensating individuals who suffer adverse reactions 
to vaccines. In 1986, vaccine manufacturers were threatening to 
leave the vaccine market because of increased civil litigation 
related to vaccine injuries. The law established the Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program [VICP], which is jointly 
administered by the Department of Justice and the Department of 
Health and Human Services. The Program was designed to serve 
three purposes:
          1. Provide fair, expedited compensation to those who 
        suffer vaccine injury;
          2. Enhance the operation of our system of childhood 
        immunizations; and
          3. Protect the Nation's vaccine supply by shielding 
        manufacturers and medical personnel delivering vaccines 
        from liability.
The committee is concerned about complaints regarding the 
management of the program. These complaints fall into three 
broad categories:
          1. The statute of limitations of 3 years for injuries 
        and 2 years for death cases is too narrow and excludes 
        families from the program.
          2. The inability to make interim payments to 
        petitioners for legal fees and expenses places them at 
        a disadvantage. While the Federal Government has 
        unlimited resources to pay for medical experts and the 
        attorneys are on salary, petitioners and their lawyers 
        often wait for years to be reimbursed for similar 
        expenses as cases drag on.
          3. The program has, in general, become too litigious 
        and adversarial. Cases drag on for years as petitioners 
        are required to hire medical experts to attempt to 
        prove that injuries are vaccine-related.
The committee received testimony regarding on-table injury 
cases that dragged on for 6-10 years. At times when the special 
master or courts ruled in favor of the petitioner, the 
government appealed. Of particular concern to the committee are 
two issues relative to the increasing adversarial nature of the 
program. Attorneys representing the Government whose behavior 
is out of line with the intended compassionate nature of the 
program, and utilizing the threat of appeal after a ruling in 
favor of the petitioner in order to have the case be 
``unpublished'' and thus not about to be cited as precedent in 
future cases. A majority of vaccine compensation cases are 
``unpublished.''
19. ``The Status of Insurance Restitution for Holocaust Victims and 
        Their Heirs,'' November 8, 2001
    a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing examining the 
efforts of the International Commission on Holocaust-Era 
Insurance Claims [ICHEIC] to settle unpaid insurance policy 
claims of Holocaust victims and their heirs. Holocaust 
survivors testified about the difficulties they encountered in 
receiving restitution through the Commission. The chairman of 
ICHEIC, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, 
acknowledged that the results produced by the Commission to 
date have not been satisfactory. However, he pointed out that 
participating insurance companies have awarded $21 million to 
deserving claimants since ICHEIC's creation.
    Participating insurance companies were criticized at the 
hearing for refusing to honor a $60 million financial 
commitment to the Commission, failing to publish complete lists 
of Holocaust-era policyholders, and being unwilling in some 
cases to comply with Chairman Eagleburger's decisions. These 
insurance companies have also requested a $76 million 
reimbursement for expenses incurred in claims processing, which 
was unacceptable to Chairman Eagleburger, insurance regulators, 
and survivor advocates. Many more claimants would receive 
compensation if non-participating German insurance companies 
joined the restitution process. The witnesses agreed that the 
German Government should exert more pressure on these companies 
to compensate unpaid policyholders.
20. ``Comprehensive Medical Care of Bioterrorism Exposure--Are We 
        Making Evidence Based Decisions?'' November 14, 2001
    a. Summary.--As an extension of the committee's ongoing 
investigation of the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, a 
hearing was conducted to review the comprehensive medical 
options available to deal with bioterrorism exposure. After the 
terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent 
postal terrorism with anthrax spores, there is an urgent need 
to understand the level of valid information about all 
treatment options available and under development that may 
offer protection against the biological agents that might be 
used in a terrorist attack. Witnesses provided expert testimony 
regarding nutritional and complementary treatments that can 
help individuals cope with the side effects of lengthy 
antibiotic treatments. Information was provided regarding 
research conducted in military laboratories that showed some 
measure of protection with homeopathic remedies for tularemia 
and other potential biological agents. There was a general 
acceptance from the hearing that nutrition and complementary 
approaches are not shown to replace conventional treatments 
such as antibiotics and vaccines. It was also generally 
accepted that there is research to indicate that there are 
opportunities to improve overall health through nutritional and 
complementary approaches, and that in the absence of vaccines 
for smallpox or other biological agents, that understanding 
what else may offer antibacterial or antiviral protection, or 
specific protection from the biological agent is important. 
More research in the area is certainly called for in order to 
provide a valid, evidenced-based response to the medical and 
public health community.
21. ``The FBI's Handling of Confidential Informants in Boston: Will the 
        Justice Department Comply With Congressional Subpoenas?'' 
        December 13, 2001
    a. Summary.--On December 13, the committee held a hearing 
regarding the Justice Department's failure to comply with 
committee document subpoenas. The documents in question were 
Justice Department memoranda regarding the Department's 
controversial handling of organized crime informants in Boston. 
The Government Reform Committee has been conducting an 
oversight investigation of widespread allegations of abuses 
committed by FBI agents in Boston with respect to organized 
crime informants they had cultivated. At a hearing earlier in 
the year, the committee received testimony from a Boston man 
who spent 30 years in prison for a murder he did not commit 
because of the perjurious testimony of FBI informant Joe ``the 
Animal'' Barboza. Documents that have recently come to light 
strongly suggest that the FBI knew that Barboza's testimony was 
false, and that another FBI mob informant had actually 
committed the crime.
    The committee's investigation of this and numerous other 
abuses has been seriously impeded by the Justice Department's 
new policy of prohibiting congressional committees from 
reviewing DOJ deliberative documents. At the hearing, committee 
members protested that the Department's new policy flew in the 
face of longstanding precedent of committees receiving access 
to such documents when the need arises. Committee members 
stated that the ability to review documents goes to the heart 
of Congress' ability to conduct meaningful oversight of the 
executive branch.
    Testifying on behalf of the administration was Michael E. 
Horowitz, Chief of Staff of the Criminal Division, Department 
of Justice. Just prior to the hearing, the President claimed 
Executive privilege over the documents under subpoena, creating 
a new barrier to the committee's access to the documents.

                             SUBCOMMITTEES

                       Subcommittee on the Census

                       Hon. Dan Miller, Chairman

1. ``Oversight of the 2000 Census: The Success of the 2000 Census,'' 
        February 14, 2001
    a. Summary.--The 1990 census marked the first time that 
decennial census response rates fell from the previous census. 
More troubling was the growth of the ``differential 
undercount.'' The differential undercount represents the groups 
of people, usually minority groups and those of low income, 
traditionally missed in the census. The Director of the Census 
Dr. Kenneth Prewitt predicted the 2000 census would have 
falling response rates and an even larger undercount than 1990. 
In fact, many ``experts'' in both the private and public 
sectors did not believe further coverage improvements were 
possible, citing statistical methodologies such as sampling for 
non-response follow-up and adjustment as the only remaining 
ways to reduce the undercount. Upon the completion of the 2000 
census, however, the Bureau officials determined that census 
2000 surpassed the accuracy of the 1990 census. Congress 
contributed a great deal to the effectiveness of the census by 
apportioning an unprecedented $6.7 billion for the decade and 
$4.5 billion for fiscal year 2000 alone.
    The Subcommittee on the Census held this hearing to explore 
four main topics: to determine the effectiveness of the census; 
evaluate the size of the undercount; ascertain the current 
status of the ongoing adjustment decision; and, evaluate the 
review called for in that year's appropriations language for 
the Census Bureau to count Americans abroad. Acting Census 
Bureau Director Bill Barron was the main witness of this 
hearing.
2. ``BEA: Is the GDP Accurately Measuring the U.S. Economy?'' April 5, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The hearing covered many topics relating to 
the Gross Domestic Product's reflection of the state including 
President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget increase of the Bureau 
of Economic Analysis [BEA]. In addition, the subcommittee 
considered challenges that the Census Bureau's proposed ACS 
survey would pose to BEA data users if enacted due to the 
resulting smaller sample group and data calculated on a 3 year 
average. Also discussed was the matter of data sharing and 
whether standard protocols should be applied to Federal 
agencies such as the BEA, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the 
Census Bureau. Last, Chairman Miller discussed with the panel 
of testifying economists how insufficient the traditional 
indicators of industrial productivity were to gauge the value 
of goods and services in much of the economy of today and how 
BEA is struggling with ways to measure value in the information 
age.
3. ``Oversight of the Census Bureau's Proposed American Community 
        Survey [ACS],'' June 13, 2001
    a. Summary.--The Bureau of the Census is currently testing 
a proposed alternative to the decennial census long form called 
the American Community Survey [ACS]. If funded by Congress, the 
ACS will be fully implemented in 2003 and will be distributed 
to 250,000 households monthly, for an annual sample size of 3 
million households. The 10-year sample size will contain 30 
million households. The somewhat problematic 2000 decennial 
census long form was delivered to 1 in every 6 households 
nationwide (although a greater percentage of rural households 
received the form). The long form included the 7 population 
questions asked on the decennial census short form and an 
additional 46 questions for a total of 53 questions. The ACS 
survey asks respondents to answer 69 questions. This second 
subcommittee hearing on the ACS served to further analyze the 
legal basis and process by which questions should be added or 
removed from the ACS survey based on data necessity and 
personal privacy concerns. In addition, the hearing served to 
discuss the accuracy and timeliness of the data collected 
through the ACS. Ultimately, privacy concerns must be 
reconciled to determine whether the American Community Survey 
is the best means by which to collect the demographic 
information required for implementing our Federal programs and 
informing public policy decisions.
4. ``Americans Abroad: How Can We Count Them?'' July 26, 2001
    a. Summary.--It is estimated that millions of American 
citizens live and work abroad. Many of these citizens pay taxes 
and vote in the United States and wish to be counted in the 
census. The Census Bureau currently enumerates American 
military personnel and other Federal employees living overseas, 
but does not count private American citizens who live abroad. 
The Subcommittee on the Census held a hearing on this topic in 
June 1999 and planned to continue the discussions with a panel 
comprised of American citizens' organizations abroad.
    As directed by language in its fiscal year 2001 budget, the 
Census Bureau had been in the process of studying the viability 
of including such Americans in future censuses, and it 
submitted a written report to Congress at the end of September 
outlining the questions that remained regarding counting 
Americans living abroad. Among these questions were: Who can be 
considered an American citizen, and for what would the data 
collected be used (redistricting or reapportionment)?

         Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization

                       Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman

1. Joint Hearing: ``The National Security Implications of the Human 
        Capital Crisis,'' March 29, 2001
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined how the human capital 
crisis is affecting the national security establishment, with a 
particular focus on the Department of Defense civilian 
workforce, and the projected trend lines for the future.
    The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: The 
Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Commissioner, U.S. Commission 
on National Security/21st Century; Admiral Harry D. Train, USN, 
Ret., Commissioner, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st 
Century; Mr. Henry L. Hinton, Jr., Managing Director, Defense 
Capabilities and Management, U.S. General Accounting Office; 
and Mr. Robert J. Lieberman, Deputy Inspector General, 
Department of Defense.
2. ``Health Care Inflation and Its Impact on the FEHBP,'' October 16, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing addressed the causes of premium 
increases in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as 
well as the continuing exodus of HMOs from the program. The 
subcommittee examined limitations in current law and 
administrative practice that might stifle competition and 
innovation and explored market-based approaches to ameliorating 
these problems.
    The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: The 
Honorable Tom A. Coburn, M.D., former Member of Congress; 
William E. Flynn III, Associate Director, Retirement and 
Insurance Services, Office of Personnel Management; Stephen W. 
Gammarino, senior vice president, BlueCross BlueShield 
Association; Colleen M. Kelley, president, National Treasury 
Employees Union; Lawrence Mirel, commissioner, District of 
Columbia, Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation; 
Robert Moffit, director, Domestic Policy Studies, the Heritage 
Foundation.

   Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources

                     Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman

1. ``The Study of Plan Colombia: An Assessment of Successes and 
        Challenges,'' March 2, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony from several 
witnesses on the current status of implementation of Plan 
Colombia, a Colombian Government initiative that involves drug 
interdiction operations, eradication of coca and poppy crops, 
alternative development opportunities, and boosting democratic 
institutions. Witnesses indicated that the initial equipment 
and training provided by the Department of State and Department 
of Defense quickly jump-started the Colombian Army and 
Colombian National Police's tactical operations. Testimony 
suggested that the full impact of Plan Colombia, was not yet 
really being seen due to the lead times associated with 
ordering and delivering of new equipment and slow progress in 
alternative development programs and judicial reform efforts.
    Witnesses included Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary Bureau 
of International Narcotics [INL] Department of State, General 
Peter Pace, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Southern Command 
(SOUTHCOM), Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, and Robert Newberry, Principal Deputy Assistant 
of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, 
Department of Defense.
2. `` `Medical' Marijuana, Federal Drug Law and the Constitution's 
        Supremacy Clause,'' March 27, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee received testimony from 
concerned citizens and others regarding the effects which State 
laws and initiatives purporting to allow the so-called 
``medicinal'' use of marijuana and other federally controlled 
substances have had on the enforcement of Federal narcotics 
law. Witnesses generally agreed that such initiatives were 
founded on questionable medical science, had impaired the 
enforcement and function of Federal controlled substances laws, 
and that careful consideration was warranted of an appropriate 
Federal enforcement strategy.
    Witnesses included Mrs. Betty Sembler, foudner and Chair of 
the Drug Free America Foundation, Mrs. Joyce Nalepka of America 
Cares, Mr. Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project, Ms. 
Laura Nagel, Deputy Associate Administrator for Diversion 
Control of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Honorable 
Bill McCollum, the Honorable Dan Lungren, and Dr. Janet Joy of 
the Institute of Medicine.
3. ``What are the Barriers to Effective Intergovernmental Efforts to 
        Stop the Flow of Illegal Drugs?'' April 13, 2001, San Diego 
        field hearing
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a joint hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
Intergovernmental Relations as part of a larger series of 
hearings on barriers to intergovernmental cooperation. The 
hearing specifically focused on barriers to effective 
intergovernmental efforts to stop the flow of illegal drugs.
    The subcommittee received testimony from local State and 
Federal officials on their joint efforts to stop drugs. 
Witnesses included: Roosevelt ``Rosey'' Grier, chairman of the 
Board, Impact Urban America; Estean Hanson Lenyoun III, 
president and chief executive officer, Impact Urban America, 
and Errol Chavez, Special Agent-In-Charge, San Diego Division, 
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
    The witnesses indicated generally that the local, State and 
Federal officials worked well together. However all agencies 
along the border need additional resources. Rosey Grier 
testified about the success of a faith-based drug treatment 
program he helped start in the city center of San Diego.
4. ``The Role of Community and Faith-Based Organizations in Providing 
        Effective Social Services,'' April 26, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony from the 
Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community 
Initiatives about how and why the Federal Government should 
promote faith-based and secular grassroots initiatives in the 
provision of social services. State and local service providers 
and intermediaries testified about the practical aspects of how 
they provide and promote effective services. Generally, 
witnesses suggested that community and faith-based 
organizations are particularly effective resources in assisting 
individuals in need. The issue of charitable choice was raised 
by members of the subcommittee, as well as invited Members of 
Congress. Questions and comments focused on the potential for 
discrimination in hiring practices, excessive entanglement in 
congregational affairs, accountability of faith and community-
based organizations, use of Federal funds for proselitization, 
and diluting the effectiveness of faith groups.
    Witnesses included Dr. John J. DiIulio, Jr., director, 
White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives; 
Katie Humphreys Secretary, Indiana Family & Social Services 
Administration; Debby Kratky, client systems manager, Work 
Advantage; Loren Snippe, director, Ottawa County Family 
Independence Program; Donna Jones, pastor, Cookman United 
Methodist Church; Bill Raymond, president, Faithworks 
Consulting Service; and Donna Jones Stanley, executive 
director, Associated Black Charities.
5. ``U.S. Air Interdiction Efforts in South America After The Peru 
        Incident,'' May 1, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee received testimony from 
several witnesses on the background, history and importance of 
U.S. air interdiction programs and policies, with special 
emphasis on the mistaken Peruvian Air Force shoot down of a 
missionary plane that resulted in the loss of two American 
lives. Witnesses generally agreed that the U.S./Peru air-bridge 
denial program had been successful over the past 5 years in 
interdicting illegal drug smuggling by air, but suggested that 
air-bridge denial programs should be suspended pending a formal 
State Department investigation to identify new measures and 
safeguards required to avert another tragedy.
    Witnesses included Pete Hoekstra, Member of Congress; Curt 
Weldon, Member of Congress; Bob Brown, Acting Deputy Director 
for Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy; 
Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; Chuck Winwood, Acting Commissioner, U.S. 
Customs Service; Joe Crow, Director of Latin American and 
Caribbean Programs, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs, Department of State; Rear Admiral David 
Belz, USCG, Director of the Joint Interagency Task Force East; 
Pete West, National Business Aviation Association; Adam 
Isacson, Center for International Policy; and Andy Messing, 
National Defense Council Foundation.
6. ``The Effectiveness of Faith Based Drug Treatment,'' May 23, 2001
    a. Summary.--During this hearing the subcommittee examined 
a variety of large and small faith-based programs to assess 
their effectiveness and also whether regulatory barriers exist 
that prevent or undermine faith-based organizations from 
participating in the provision of these services. On May 10, 
President Bush directed Director John DiIulio of the Office of 
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to complete an inventory 
of existing Federal partnerships with faith-based and community 
anti-drug partnerships within 30 days. This hearing was a 
sampling of that larger inventory.
    Hearing witnesses included a variety of faith-based 
providers, including representatives from Teen Challenge, House 
of Hope, an Indiana church-based program and an inner city 
program receiving Federal dollars. The faith-based witnesses 
testified they would not want Federal money if they had to 
dilute their faith-based message. All witnesses indicated a 
need for resources and a desire to improve evaluation of their 
programs. Teen Challenge and House of Hope testified that they 
experienced a success rate of 80-90 percent, and attributed 
this high success rate to their faith message. Some of the 
proponents of faith-based drug treatment programs argued that 
these programs can be more effective and often less costly than 
publicly funded programs.
7. ``H.R. 2291, Reauthorization of the Drug-Free Communities Act,'' 
        June 28, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony from a number 
of witnesses in support of H.R. 2291, the Reauthorization of 
the Drug-Free Communities Act. The DFCA (21 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1521 et seq.), an amendment to the National Narcotics 
Leadership Act of 1988, provides for direct grants of up to 
$100,000 per year to community organizations demonstrating a 
comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce substance abuse 
among youth. The DFCA program was intended, among other things, 
to strengthen collaboration among communities, the Federal 
Government, and State, local and tribal governments, to serve 
as a catalyst for increased citizen participation in community 
anti-drug efforts, and to re-channel Federal anti-drug 
resources and information to local communities. The DFCA is 
administered by the White House Office of National Drug Control 
Policy [ONDCP], but the actual evaluation and awarding of 
grants to anti-drug coalitions is carried out by the Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], a division 
of the Department of Justice.
    As originally drafted and referred to the subcommittee, 
H.R. 2291 reauthorized DFCA for an additional 5 fiscal years, 
and greatly increased its funding levels (up to a maximum of 
$75 million in fiscal year 2007). The bill also increased the 
cap on the amount of DFCA funds that could be spent on 
administrative overhead from 3 percent to 8 percent per year. 
Additional provisions included the creation of a new grant (of 
up to $75,000 per year) to support the mentoring of new 
coalitions by established coalitions, and the authorization of 
$2 million for the establishment of a National Community 
Antidrug Coalition Institute (the ``Institute'') by an eligible 
national nonprofit organization that represents, provides 
technical assistance to, and has expertise and experience in 
working with DFCA grant recipients.
    At the hearing, the subcommittee heard testimony from H.R. 
2291's sponsors, Representative Rob Portman of Ohio and 
Representative Sander Levin of Michigan; from representatives 
of the principal agencies administering DFCA, Dr. Donald M. 
Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy; and Mr. John J. Wilson, Acting Director of the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and from 
representatives of the coalitions receiving grants under DFCA, 
Gen. Arthur T. Dean (retired), chairman and CEO of the 
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America [CADCA]; the Hon. 
Michael Kramer, Judge of the Noble County Superior Court, 
Indiana, Chair of Drug-Free Noble County and Member of the 
Advisory Board of CADCA; and Mr. Lawrence Couch, program 
manager of the Montgomery County Partnership, Maryland.
    Each of the witnesses expressed their support for H.R. 2291 
and testified to the success of the DFCA program. Chairman Mark 
Souder and the other members of the subcommittee were 
supportive of the DFCA, but asked a number of questions about 
how administrative costs could be minimized so that as many 
dollars as possible could be given directly to the local 
coalitions. Ranking Minority Member Elijah Cummings asked 
whether the mentoring grants could be given preferentially to 
those assisting coalitions in economically disadvantaged 
communities.
    Based on the information obtained at the hearing, the 
subcommittee made several amendments to H.R. 2291 at markup and 
recommended its passage to the full committee. The amendments 
included increasing the authorized funding in the final years 
(to a maximum of $99 million in fiscal year 2007), capping the 
administrative costs at 6 percent per year, requiring that 
ONDCP ensure that there be no duplication of administrative 
tasks among the agencies and the Institute, and requiring that 
preference for mentoring grants be given to those serving 
coalitions in economically disadvantaged areas.
8. ``The Methamphetamine Problem in America: Growth and Trends,'' July 
        12, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony concerning 
the growth of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse in the 
United States, and potential ways in which this problem could 
be addressed. The witnesses explained how methamphetamine use 
and production had spread from California to the Pacific 
Northwest, the Midwest, and the South, how serious the health 
and environmental threats from this drug were, and the ways in 
which methamphetamine abuse could be fought through a 
combination of law enforcement and treatment options.
    Witnesses included Joseph D. Keefe, Chief of Operations of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration; Ron Brooks, chairman of 
the National Narcotic Officers Associations Coalition; Sheriff 
Doug Dukes and Deputy Sheriff Doug Harp of the Noble County, 
Indiana Sheriff's Department; Henry Serrano, chief of police of 
the Citrus Heights, California Police Department; and Susan 
Rook, Public Affairs Director of Step One.
9. ``Opportunities and Advancements in Stem Cell Research,'' July 17, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined the status of 
Federal policy and law regarding stem cell research funding, 
the current clinical uses and potential future uses of stem 
cells and the alternatives to destroying human embryos to 
obtain stem cells. The subcommittee heard from scientific 
experts, patient advocates, as well as families with children 
who were adopted as embryos.
    The witnesses included: Marlene, John and Hannah Strege 
(the first ever adopted embryo family); John, Lucinda, Mark and 
Luke Borden (adopted embryo family with twins); Joann Davidson 
of the Christian Adoption & Family Services Agency (an embryo 
adoption agency); Nathan Salley (a leukemia patient 
successfully treated with stem cells from cord blood); Ms. Joan 
Samuelson of the Parkinson's Action Network; David Arthur 
Prentice, PhD of Indiana State University, Department of Life 
Sciences; Carl Christopher (Chris) Hook, MD, of the Mayo Clinic 
in Rochester, MN; Gerald D. Fischbach, M.D., vice president for 
health and biomedical sciences and dean of the Faculty of 
Medicine at Columbia University Health Sciences; and Mollie and 
Jackie Singer with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation 
International.
    The testimony focused on the alternatives that exist to 
stem cell research requiring the destruction of living human 
embryos. These alternatives include research using stem cells 
from adult sources and cord blood and placentas as well as 
opportunities for adoption of ``spare'' embryos. As of today, 
the only clinically successful stem cell therapies involve 
cells derived from non-embryonic sources and no therapies have 
been developed using embryonic stem cells.
    This has been the only congressional hearing to date that 
has focused on the ethical alternatives to stem cell research 
that requires the destruction of living human embryos. It is 
also the only hearing that has explored the alternative to 
destruction of these embryos, which is adoption.
10. ``The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: How to Ensure the 
        Program Operates Efficiently and Effectively,'' August 1, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing on 
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The hearing 
examined the effectiveness and efficiency of the National Youth 
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, now in its 4th year. At roughly $1 
billion, this 5-year media campaign is the largest government-
sponsored and government-funded campaign of its kind in 
history. The Office of National Drug Control Policy is 
responsible for conducting and administering the National Youth 
Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Witnesses included the Acting 
Director of ONDCP, Ed Jurith; Mr. Bernard L. Ungar, Director, 
Physical Infrastructure Team, General Accounting Office; 
Captain Mark D. Westin, contract administration, Fleet & 
Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk Washington Detachment, 
Department of the Navy; Ms. Susan Davis, Deputy Chief of the 
Prevention Research Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
    Mr. Jurith testified that ONDCP would need to evaluate 
whether to re-bid the contract or simply continue with the 
prime contractor, Ogilvy & Mather. The General Accounting 
Office discussed is findings regarding possible irregularities 
in the administration of the contract by Ogilvy and Mather. 
Some subcommittee members expressed disapproval of even the 
possibility of continuing with Ogilvy because of their track 
record. The subcommittee recommended that ONDCP continue 
heightened diligence with contract administration to assure 
that this $1 billion media campaign succeeds.
11. ``Drug Trade and the Terror Network,'' October 2, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony that detailed 
the extent to which narcotics trafficking has provided funding 
and support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda 
terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden, and other 
terrorist organizations worldwide. The witnesses confirmed that 
the Taliban had directly benefited from all aspects of the 
Afghan opium trade, mainly through taxation. Despite a much-
heralded Taliban prohibition on opium poppy cultivation and a 
significant decrease in opium production in 2001, testimony 
strongly suggested that the Taliban had been engaged in major 
stockpiling of opium, forcing the local price to substantially 
increase and allowing the Taliban to continue profiting from 
the drug trade. The witnesses stressed that the United States 
would be ill advised to ignore the extent to which the profits 
from the drug trade are directed to finance terrorist 
activities.
    The witnesses included Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, Drug 
Enforcement Agency; and Bill Bach, Director, Office of Asia, 
Africa, Europe, and NIS Programs, Department of State.
12. ``Keeping a Strong Federal Law Enforcement Work Force,'' October 
        17, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony concerning 
the extent to which manpower, work hours, agent compensation, 
infrastructure and other factors affect the ability of the U.S. 
Customs Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol to carry out 
their law enforcement functions. Witnesses from each of these 
agencies explained to the subcommittee how their agencies were 
being challenged to meet the growing burden of counter-
terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, 
even as they struggled to meet their other law enforcement 
missions. The subcommittee was presented with several proposals 
to improve pay and benefits in order to improve the hiring and 
retention of officers at these agencies.
    Witnesses included Commissioner James Ziglar of the U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Robert M. Smith, 
Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Human Resources 
Management, U.S. Customs Service; and Gary E. Mead, Assistant 
Director of Business Services, U.S. Marshals Service.
13. ``Improving Security And Facilitating Commerce At The Northern 
        Border,'' field hearings at Highgate Springs, VT, and 
        Champlain, NY, October 28-29, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held the first of its ongoing 
series of field hearings at the Nation's border crossings 
concerning ways to improve security while also easing burdens 
on trade and travel. These first field hearings were held at 
Highgate Springs, VT, and Champlain, NY. The subcommittee heard 
testimony from supervisors and employees of the principal 
agencies entrusted with manning the border crossings, from a 
representative of the Canadian parliament, and from 
representatives of community and business leaders from both the 
United States and Canadian sides of the border. A number of 
proposals to improve security and efficiency at the border were 
suggested to the subcommittee.
    Witnesses at Highgate Springs, VT, included Mr. Jean 
Ouellette, District Director of the U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Mr. Philip W. Spayd, District Field 
Officer of the U.S. Customs Service; Mr. Denis Paradis, Member 
of Parliament of Canada, House of Commons; Mr. Sylvain Dion, 
president, Distribution Marcel Dion; Mr. Gilles Lariviere, 
president, West Brome Mill; Mr. Stephen Duchaine, president of 
the Highgate Springs Chapter, American Federation of Government 
Employees, Immigration and Naturalization Service Council; Mr. 
Tim Smith, executive director of the Franklin County Industrial 
Development Corp.; Mr. Chad Tsounis, director of the St. Albans 
Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. John Wilda, president of Chapter 
142, National Treasury Employees Union. Witnesses at Champlain, 
NY, included the Hon. Ron Stafford, New York State Senator; Mr. 
Michael Dambrosio, District Field Officer of the U.S. Customs 
Service; Ms. Francis Holmes, District Director of the U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mr. Garry Douglas, 
executive director of the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of 
Commerce; Mr. Carl Duford, president of the Champlain Chapter, 
American Federation of Government Employees, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service Council; and Mr. Thomas Keefe, 
president, St. Lawrence Chapter 138, National Treasury 
Employees Union.
14. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State, and Local Agencies Working 
        Together Effectively?'' October 31, 2001
    a. Summary.--This joint hearing was held by the 
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
Intergovernmental Relations; the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources; and the Subcommittee 
on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International 
Relations. Testimony from Federal agency witnesses suggested a 
general willingness to share information with other Federal 
agencies, as well as State and local law enforcement agencies. 
At the same time, however, Federal officials identified 
cultural, technological, and training barriers to information 
sharing. Testimony from State and local officials emphasized 
that they are on the front lines of homeland defense when 
emergencies arise. They noted that the Federal Government could 
do more to promote information sharing by increasing funding to 
the local level, allowing more access to classified 
information, and by seeking State and local participation on 
law enforcement task forces.
    The panel included Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, Drug 
Enforcement Agency; Richard R. Nedelkoff, Director, Bureau of 
Justice Assistance, Department of Justice; Kathleen L. 
McChesney, Assistant Director, Training Division, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation; Joe Green, Deputy Associate 
Commissioner for Field Operations, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; John F. Timoney, commissioner, 
Philadelphia Police Department; Edward T. Norris, commissioner, 
Baltimore Police Department; Charles H. Ramsey, chief, 
Washington Metropolitan Police Department; William Dwyer, 
chief, Farmington Police Department, representing Michigan 
Chiefs of Police Association; and Scott L. King, mayor, Gary, 
IN.
15. ``Federal Law Enforcement: Long-Term Implications of Homeland 
        Security Needs,'' December 5, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee discussed with the heads of 
several law enforcement agencies the impact that emphasis on 
homeland security requirements in the wake of the September 11, 
2001 terrorist attacks had had on execution of their more 
customary missions. The agency heads provided testimony 
regarding the immediate impact which increased law enforcement 
requirements had on their operations, and discussed the status 
of short and long-term planning to ensure that appropriate 
resources would be made available for ongoing law enforcement 
needs.
    The panel included Admiral James Loy, Commandant of the 
U.S. Coast Guard; Robert Bonner, Commissioner of the U.S. 
Customs Service; James Ziglar, Commissioner of the U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Asa Hutchinson, 
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; and Frank 
Gallagher, Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
16. ``Improving Security And Facilitating Commerce At The Northern 
        Border,'' field hearing at Blaine, WA, December 10, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held another in its ongoing 
series of field hearings at the Nation's border crossings 
concerning ways to improve security while also easing burdens 
on trade and travel, this time at Blaine, WA. As at Highgate 
Springs and Champlain, the subcommittee again heard testimony 
from supervisors and employees of the principal agencies 
entrusted with manning the border crossings and patrolling the 
region's borders and waterways, from a representative of the 
Canadian parliament, and from representatives of community and 
business leaders from both the United States and Canadian sides 
of the border. The subcommittee heard similar proposals to 
improve security and efficiency at the border.
    Witnesses included Rear Admiral Erroll M. Brown, Commander 
of the 13th U.S. Coast Guard District; Mr. Thomas W. Hardy, 
Director of Field Operations, Northwest Great Plains Customs 
Management Center, U.S. Customs Service; Mr. Robert S. Coleman, 
Jr., Director of the Seattle District, Immigration and 
Naturalization Service; Mr. Ronald H. Henley, Chief Patrol 
Agent of the Blaine Sector, U.S. Border Patrol; Ms. Val 
Meredith, Member of Canadian Parliament, House of Commons; Mr. 
David Andersson, president of the Pacific Corridor Enterprise 
Council; Ms. Terry Preshaw, member of the Vancouver Board of 
Trade; Mr. Gordon Schaffer, president-elect of the White Rock & 
South Surrey Chamber of Commerce; Hon. Georgia Gardner, 
Washington State Senator; Mr. Pete Kremen, Whatcom County 
executive; Mr. Jim Miller, executive director of the Whatcom 
Council of Governments; Ms. Pam Christianson, president of the 
Blaine Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Barry Clement, president of the 
National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 164; and Mr. Jerry 
Emory, vice president of the American Federation of Government 
Employees, National INS Council, Local 40.

                   District of Columbia Subcommittee

                 Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman

1. ``America's Main Street: The Future of Pennsylvania Avenue,'' March 
        21, 2001
    a. Summary.--Nearly 6 years after then-Treasury Secretary 
Robert E. Rubin ordered the U.S. Secret Service to 
``temporarily'' close Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic 
between 15th and 17th Streets, NW., the subcommittee sought an 
update on the closure, including hearing ideas from 
architectural and security firms on how the avenue could be re-
opened. The road is an important east-west artery for the 
District of Columbia, and was traveled by about 29,000 vehicles 
daily before its May 19, 1995 closure.
    Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, representing the 
Federal City Council (a Washington, D.C. civic and business 
organization) proposed a plan by which Pennsylvania Avenue 
would be reduced to four lanes, the road curved away from the 
White House and two pedestrian bridges built to prevent trucks 
and other large vehicles from driving in front of the Executive 
Mansion.
    D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, the chair of the City Council, 
and several business and civic leaders endorsed the idea of re-
opening Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic. Secret 
Service Director Brian Stafford repeated the agency's 
opposition to opening the road, contending that there is no 
adequate method to protect the White House from car or truck 
bombs if the road is open to public use. Richard L. Friedman, 
the chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, 
testified that the NCPC planned on convening a task force to 
examine the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue and other security 
issues and pledged to issue a recommendation on the avenue by 
the summer. (The report, ``Designing for Security in the 
Nation's Capital,'' issued in October, recommended building a 
tunnel to carry Pennsylvania Avenue below ground and open 
Pennsylvania Avenue to a ``circulator'' bus service to 
transport tourists and workers around the city's Monumental 
Core.)
2. ``Coordination of Criminal Justice Activities in the District of 
        Columbia,'' May 11, 2001
    a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office, pursuant to the 
fiscal year 2000 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
issued a report in March 2001 recommending better coordination 
among criminal justice agencies in the District of Columbia. 
The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997 brought a number of city functions--
including Superior Court, Pretrial Services, Defender Services 
and sentenced felon incarceration--under the auspices of the 
Federal Government, leaving the city's criminal justice system 
divided among Federal and local entities.
    Competing organizational interests have hampered needed 
reforms and improvements to the District's criminal justice 
process, according to the GAO report and hearing testimony from 
the city's public safety, political and judicial officials. One 
persistent example cited at the hearing is the millions of 
dollars in overtime paid annually to Metropolitan Police 
Department officers while they wait in court or to meet with 
prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office.
    There was a broad consensus among witnesses for the need to 
breathe new life into the Criminal Justice Coordinating 
Council, a multi-agency group that achieved some success when 
it had been funded by the District of Columbia Financial 
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the Control 
Board). The CJCC brings together the heads of the agencies with 
criminal justice responsibilities in the District (chief of 
police, U.S. attorney, head of Federal Bureau of Prisons, etc.) 
to work out problems of coordination.
3. ``The Outlook for the District of Columbia Government: The Post-
        Control Board Period,'' June 8, 2001. Joint hearing with the 
        Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of 
        Government Management, Restructuring and the District of 
        Columbia
    a. Summary.--With the D.C. Financial Responsibility and 
Management Assistance Authority (the Control Board) set to 
expire on September 30, 2001, the subcommittee held a joint 
hearing with its Senate counterparts to get a frank assessment 
from city government officials and outside experts on the 
current state of the District's fiscal and management 
situation. The hearing also was meant to serve as the starting 
point for a discussion on what actions would be necessary to 
ensure the District's continued financial health. Under the 
Control Board, established by Congress in 1995, the District 
turned a $518 million deficit into a $464 million surplus, saw 
its bond rating improve from junk-level to investment grade, 
and made substantial improvements in service delivery.
    Control Board chairman Alice Rivlin, Mayor Anthony Williams 
and City Council president Linda Cropp jointly testified in 
favor of city legislation that would continue to give the 
District's chief financial officer (an office created under the 
act establishing the Control Board) some oversight of the 
city's budget, tax and accounting functions. Several witnesses 
expressed concern that the city legislation did not go far 
enough in strengthening the position of the CFO, saying that 
such an important position required additional safeguards and 
explicit powers over the city's finances.
    Other witnesses, including representatives from the two 
major credit rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and Moody's 
Investors Service, testified that ensuring the independence of 
the chief financial officer was important to the long-term 
fiscal stability of the District. They also noted that it is 
very unusual for a city to emerge from a Control Board period 
without some kind of ``transition'' back to full fiscal 
sovereignty.
4. ``The Reform of the Family Division of the District of Columbia 
        Superior Court: Improving Services to Families and Children,'' 
        June 26, 2001
    a. Summary.--The death of 23-month-old Brianna Blackmond in 
January 2000 illustrated the grave failings of the District of 
Columbia's child welfare network. The system of social workers, 
child advocates and family division judges simply was not doing 
enough to protect the rights--and in some cases, the lives--of 
the city's children. In Brianna's case, the young girl was 
killed just weeks after a family division judge made the 
mistake of taking Brianna from a foster home and returning her 
to her troubled mother.
    Since the 1997 Revitalization Act, the District's Superior 
Court (including its family division) has fallen under control 
of the Federal Government, and this hearing was aimed at 
developing legislation to dramatically reform the family 
division and address the backlog of neglect and abuse cases. 
The biggest debate, at the hearing and in subsequent 
legislative negotiations, was over the length of term for 
family court judges. Superior Court Chief Judge Rufus King III 
argued in favor of a term of no more than 3 years, saying 
anything longer could lead to judicial burnout. Others, 
including child advocates and F. Scott McCown, a family court 
judge from Texas, strongly favored a 5-year term (which was 
ultimately supported by the subcommittee) to ensure judges have 
adequate time to learn the ropes of complicated family issues. 
There was overall support for the idea of ``One Family, One 
Judge,'' under which a judge would gain greater familiarity 
with a family's problems because he or she would hear all cases 
involving that family.
5. ``Prisoner Release in the District of Columbia: The Role of Halfway 
        Houses and Community Supervision in Prisoner Rehabilitation,'' 
        July 20, 2001
    a. Summary.--More than 2,500 felony inmates are expected to 
be released back to the District of Columbia each year for the 
next several years, a situation made worse by the fact that the 
city has a shortage of about 250 halfway house beds. Drug 
treatment and other support services are similarly available 
only on a limited basis. Finally, as a completely urban 
jurisdiction, the District has a higher incarceration rate than 
any of the 50 States, and its inmates are more likely to have 
serious drug and/or medical problems.
    Congress created the Court Services and Offender 
Supervision agency in 1997 to ensure that individuals released 
back into the community, either pre-trial or post-sentence, 
received proper monitoring, job support and other transitional 
services. At the hearing, Chairwoman Connie Morella entered 
into the record a chart showing that the number of D.C. 
parolees re-arrested on other charges had dropped considerably 
in recent years, from 158 in May 1998 to 66 in April 2001. The 
figures have fluctuated between 40 and 79 since September 1999. 
The shortage of halfway house beds, however, threatens to 
impede further progress, according to testimony from 
corrections officials and criminal justice observers. The 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, which became responsible for felony 
incarceration in the District under the 1997 Revitalization 
Act, has a policy of releasing its prisoners into halfway 
houses--something it cannot always do in the District.
6. ``Spring Valley: Toxic Waste Contamination in the Nation's 
        Capital,'' July 27, 2001
    a. Summary.--During World War I, the U.S. Army leased land 
from American University and several other property owners in 
an area of Northwest D.C. known as Spring Valley for the 
establishment of a weapons testing facility. The American 
University Experimental Station became the second-largest 
chemical weapons facility in the world, with up to 1,900 
military and civilian employees working there. When World War I 
ended, and the experiments were over, the chemicals were 
supposedly shipped to another site for disposal. But that did 
not happen.
    In 1993, a construction crew found buried munitions, 
starting a process of search-and-cleanup that continues to this 
day. Dangerously high levels of arsenic continue to be found in 
the soil in Spring Valley. Many residents believe the chemical 
remnants have caused cancer and other diseases in their loved 
ones, sometimes resulting in death. The Army Corps of Engineers 
is responsible for the cleanup, which has impacted hundreds of 
homes and the campus of American University. The Corps is 
working with residents, the city government and American 
University in this process.
    This hearing was called to determine how these chemicals 
were able to remain a secret for 75 years. Should not have 
someone--a landowner, a builder, a military authority, the 
university--known about the possible contamination and warned 
the public? In 1986, the U.S. Army considered examining the 
Spring Valley area for possible munitions as part of American 
University's planned construction of a campus building. The 
Army Corps decided then, against substantial evidence 
suggesting otherwise, that no large-scale investigation was 
needed. Likewise, in 1995, after 2 years of cleanup, the Corps 
declared the area safe--only to learn that was not the case 
when the District of Columbia government challenged the Army's 
findings.
    Despite calling many witnesses to testify--including 
representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army Audit Agency, 
American University and the W.C. & A.N. Miller Development Co. 
(the prime builders in Spring Valley)--the subcommittee decided 
at the conclusion of the hearing to seek a General Accounting 
Office investigation into the matter. That investigation is 
currently underway.
7. ``Mass Transit in the National Capital Region: Meeting Future 
        Capital Needs,'' September 21, 2001
    a. Summary.--Just 10 days after the September 11th 
terrorist attacks, the subcommittee convened a hearing on the 
status of the Washington Metro subway system. While originally 
intended to examine Metro's long-term capital needs to continue 
to move commuters smoothly around the region, much of the 
hearing's focus turned to the system's emergency response and 
planning and its capability for handling a bio-terrorist 
threat.
    Metro general manager Richard White testified that the 
subway system is at the forefront nationally of testing out a 
new system in which sensors would be able to detect the 
presence of a bio-agent in the system and respond accordingly. 
But he said such measures are still in the preliminary stage.
    A General Accounting Office report, released in July and 
the basis for this hearing, noted that the 25-year-old system 
is seeing a steadily growing number of riders while also facing 
growing pains associated with its age--most notably, broken 
escalators and the need to replace train cars. The GAO also 
suggested that Metro change its budgeting process by listing 
which projects it would not undertake should it receive less 
money than requested from local governments. White said Metro 
was opposed to this because he believes it would lead to less 
funding. But Metro is developing a ``core capacity'' plan to 
outline its long-term capital needs.
8. ``Emergency Preparedness in the Nation's Capital,'' November 2, 2001
    a. Summary.--The September 11th terrorist attacks on the 
Pentagon and the World Trade Center in New York City 
highlighted the importance of a coordinated response of local 
governments to catastrophic events. At the Pentagon, fire, 
police and emergency rescue forces from across the region 
worked hand-in-hand to save lives, tend to the injured and 
extinguish the fire. They were undoubtedly assisted by their 
routine training in ``mutual aid'' situations--emergencies that 
require responses from across jurisdictional boundaries.
    Unfortunately, the communication and coordination of 
regional political leaders were not so evident. At this 
hearing, Michael Rogers, the executive director of the 
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, testified that 
regional leaders did not even speak to each other, as a group, 
until 6 p.m. on the evening of the 11th--more than 8 hours 
after American Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, and long after 
most residents had left work and returned to the safety of 
their own homes. District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams 
testified that he regretted not using the area's Emergency 
Broadcast System to give citizens the facts of the situation. 
Shortly after the attacks, many people were not sure whether 
the Metro subway system was operating, whether roads were 
closed, and whether they should stay at work or try to get 
home.
    Coordination between the Federal and local governments was 
lacking as well. At the same time the Office of Personnel 
Management was telling Federal employees to go home, the Secret 
Service ordered the closure of several of the Potomac River 
bridges connecting the District to Virginia, creating a traffic 
nightmare. Chairwoman Morella called for the development of a 
regional emergency response plan, with a particular emphasis on 
bio-terrorist response, one that could help coordinate the 
various local and Federal entities in their response to future 
calamities.
9. ``Emergency Preparedness in the Nation's Capital: The Economic 
        Impact of Terrorist Attacks,'' November 15, 2001
    a. Summary.--In a continuation of its November 2 hearing, 
the District of Columbia Subcommittee looked closely into the 
economic damage caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks, 
and subsequent discovery of anthrax in the mail system, on the 
District and the metropolitan region. Dr. Stephen Fuller, a 
noted economist from George Mason University, testified that 
the city could be severely hurt by the terrorism events, given 
that its economy is heavily dependent on the hospitality and 
tourism industries. Because of safety fears and the prolonged 
closure of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, more 
business travelers are staying in the suburbs rather than 
coming downtown, he said. With hotel occupancy at less than 
half the normal rate in September and October (usually two of 
Washington's three best months for business travel and tourism) 
as many as 10,000 of the city's hospitality workers could lose 
their jobs, Fuller said.
    Fuller and other witnesses, including labor and business 
representatives, said they feared that the Federal Government's 
decision to close streets, cancel popular public tours of the 
White House, FBI building and the Capitol, and put up 
barricades at various tourist destinations, would only 
exacerbate the problem. William Hanbury, the president and CEO 
of the Washington, DC Convention and Tourism Corp., testified 
that local officials have prepared an aggressive advertising 
and marketing campaign to attract visitors to the Nation's 
Capital but did not want to launch the campaign while the news 
media was reporting daily on the anthrax situation and security 
measures in the District. Hanbury also testified that the new 
D.C. Convention Center, scheduled to open in the spring of 
2003, will not be delayed because of bad economy brought on by 
the terrorist attacks. The Convention Center construction is 
funded through a combination of hotel taxes and sales taxes on 
food.
10. ``The District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995: Blue Print 
        for Educational Reform in the District of Columbia,'' December 
        4, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing was convened just a few weeks 
after the District of Columbia Board of Education voted to cut 
the public school system's academic year by 7 days in response 
to budget shortfalls brought on by lax fiscal management. The 
school system had discovered an estimated $80 million 
shortfall--which turned out to be $98 million, the city's chief 
financial officer revealed at this hearing--shortly before the 
end of the city's 2001 fiscal year, which concluded on 
September 30, 2001. Chairwoman Morella and Ranking Member 
Norton both described the Board of Education plan as 
unacceptable, and urged the school board to come up with a 
different proposal to save money. Five days after the hearing, 
the city government gave the school system $10 million to avoid 
the budget cuts.
    Fiscal mismanagement and poorly performing schools have 
long been a problem in the District. Of late, the schools' 
budget has been under severe stress due to the high cost of 
transporting and educating special education students. The 
District places thousands of its special needs students into 
schools in other States, a practice that costs $34,000 per 
student--or more than double the cost to educate a special 
education student in D.C. schools. Making the problem worse is 
that the school system has failed to file proper paperwork with 
the Federal Government to recover its rightful Medicaid 
contribution. School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz and 
Superintendent Paul Vance agreed to send to the subcommittee 
details of their efforts to reduce special education costs by 
educating more special needs students in the District of 
Columbia, rather than in private placements.
    Vance and Cafritz also testified that the District's 
schools are showing some promise in terms of academic 
performance. In the 1996-97 school year, 34 percent of DCPS 
students tested at ``below basic'' for reading, according to 
the Stanford 9 achievement tests. That figure dropped to 25 
percent by the 2000-2001 academic year, as more students tested 
at ``basic,'' ``proficient,'' or ``advanced'' levels. In 
mathematics, the progress was even greater--a reduction in 
``below basic'' from 57 percent in 1996-97 to 36 percent last 
year.

Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs

                        Hon. Doug Ose, Chairman

1. ``A Rush to Regulate--the Congressional Review Act and Recent 
        Federal Regulations,'' March 27, 2001
    a. Summary.--Congress has a tool to disapprove regulations: 
the Congressional Review Act [CRA]. The purpose of the hearing 
was to examine some of the late-issued rules (since 1981, 
popularly known as ``midnight'' rules) by the Clinton 
administration and to ensure that the decisonmaking process was 
careful and above reproach. The hearing considered not only 
substantive concerns but also procedural flaws in issuance of 
these rulemakings. Under law, Congress has two opportunities to 
review agency regulatory actions: at the proposed rule stage 
and at the final rule stage. Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act, Congress can comment on agency proposed and interim rules 
during the public comment period. Under the CRA, Congress can 
disapprove an agency's final rule after it is promulgated.
    In March 2001, the House and the Senate passed a joint 
resolution of disapproval for the Department of Labor's major 
rule establishing a new comprehensive ergonomics standard. The 
reversal of the ergonomics rule was the first instance in which 
the CRA resulted in nullification of a rule. The hearing 
examined other recent major and significant rules for any rule 
which may be an additional candidate for a CRA resolution of 
disapproval. The potential candidates discussed included: the 
Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's revised 
debarment and suspension rule governing a ``satisfactory record 
of integrity and business ethics'' for contracting with the 
government; the Department of Agriculture's rule protecting 
national forest system roadless areas; and, the Environmental 
Protection Agency's rule establishing diesel fuel sulfur 
control requirements for new motor vehicles. The subcommittee 
also heard testimony on the importance of going through a 
public rulemaking process when withdrawing or suspending a 
rule.
    Witnesses included: Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, director, 
Regulatory Studies Program, Mercatus Center, George Mason 
University and former Administrator, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; Marshall 
E. Whitenton, vice president, Resources, Environment and 
Regulation Department, National Association of Manufacturers; 
Dr. Robert H. Nelson, professor, School of Public Affairs, 
University of Maryland; Raymond E. Ory, vice president, Baker 
and O'Brien, Inc.; Terry F. Gestrin, chairman, Valley County 
Commissioners, Cascade, ID; Evan Hayes, wheat farmer, American 
Falls, ID, representing the National Association of Wheat 
Growers; Sharon Buccino, senior attorney, Natural Resources 
Defense Council; and Thomas O. McGarity, W. James Kronzer 
Chair, University of Texas School of Law.
2. ``Assessing the California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get to This 
        Point and Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 10, 2001
    a. Summary.--The hearing, held in Sacramento, CA, focused 
on the causes and effects of California's energy crisis, the 
impact on California's economy, and the State and Federal 
responses to the situation. The availability, reliability and 
price of power are an integral part of our economic success. 
The converse of that statement is also true: an unavailable, 
unreliable, and expensive source of power will cause an 
economic crisis. The State of California was facing an energy 
crisis and had been stricken by rolling blackouts. The 
subcommittee investigated the alleged overcharges by 
electricity generators, including claims that electric supply 
was withheld by generators. At its root, the crisis stemmed 
from a dysfunctional market and a fundamental imbalance between 
supply and demand. As the economy in California expanded and as 
regulatory restrictions continued to make it difficult to build 
new power plants and transmission facilities, demand 
outstripped supply. A number of factors were expected to 
further constrain supplies, such as below average rainfall, 
which reduced hydroelectric supply, air emission restrictions, 
and the lack of production from alternative energy suppliers 
which were not paid for months.
    The minority disagreed with the majority's conclusions, 
noting that record-setting prices occurred in the absence of 
historically high demand, no evidence indicated that clean air 
regulations restricted the generation of electricity, and once 
permits were submitted for construction of new power plants, 
they were quickly approved. The minority pointed to withholding 
of supplies and price gouging by electricity generators as 
major contributing factors to the energy crisis.
    Key witnesses included: Loretta Lynch, president, 
California Public Utilities Commission; Terry Winter, president 
and CEO, California Independent System Operator; and Kevin 
Madden, general counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
The subcommittee also heard from a panel of small businessmen 
and farmers from the Sacramento area. The final panel featured: 
William MacDonald, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, 
Department of the Interior; and other witnesses pertaining to 
water management policies for the Trinity River in northern 
California.
3. ``Paperwork Inflation--Past Failures and Future Plans,'' April 24, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The Office of Management and Budget [OMB] 
estimates the Federal paperwork burden on the public at 7.2 
billion hours, at a cost of $190 billion a year. The purpose of 
the hearing was to examine OMB's and the Federal agencies' 
efforts to reduce paperwork, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act [PRA]. Much of the information that is gathered 
in this paperwork is important, sometimes even crucial for the 
government to function. However, much of it is duplicative and 
unnecessary. In 1995, Congress passed amendments to the PRA of 
1980 that set government-wide paperwork reduction goals of 10 
or 5 percent per year from fiscal year 1996 to 2001. The goal 
of PRA was to reduce red tape each year. These annual 
reductions in paperwork, however, were not achieved. Instead, 
paperwork burdens increased in each of the last 5 years.
    The hearing discussed efforts to reduce paperwork and OMB's 
role in closely scrutinizing paperwork burdens before they are 
imposed on the public. Federal agencies should find less 
burdensome ways to collect information. With the technology 
available today, there is no reason why the burden on the 
American public cannot be decreased.
    Witnesses included: Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, 
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Sean 
O'Keefe, Deputy Director, OMB; J. Christopher Mihm, 
Governmentwide Management Issues Director, General Accounting 
Office; Ken LaGrande, vice president, Sun Valley Rice; James M. 
Knott, president and chief executive officer, Riverdale Mills 
Corp.; John Nicholson, owner, Company Flowers; and Dr. John L. 
Bobis, director of regulatory affairs, Aerojet.
4. ``Unfunded Mandates--A Five-Year Review and Recommendations for 
        Change,'' May 24, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing on the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act [UMRA] was a joint hearing with the Committee on Rules 
Subcommittee on Technology and the House. In some cases 
mandates are imposed directly by Congress, such as the minimum 
wage, health insurance portability, and clean air. Some 
mandates, however, come not from Congress, but from the Federal 
agencies. After an outcry about the unfairness and burden of 
unfunded mandates, Congress enacted UMRA in 1995. It was 
designed ``[t]o curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on States and local governments; [and] to strengthen 
the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local 
and tribal governments.'' The act established new procedures 
designed to ensure that both the legislative and executive 
branches fully consider the potential effects of unfunded 
Federal mandates before imposing them on State and local 
governments or the private sector.
    After 5 years, the principal question is, how well is UMRA 
working? The hearing discussed the relative effectiveness of 
the provisions governing the legislative branch and the 
relative ineffectiveness of the provisions governing the 
executive branch. In 1998, the General Accounting Office [GAO] 
issued a report concluding that UMRA ``has had little effect on 
agencies' rulemaking actions.'' GAO concluded that UMRA had 
little impact on agency rulemaking because (1) most of the 
economically significant rules during UMRA's first 2 years were 
not subject to UMRA's requirements and (2) the agency analyses 
appeared to meet most of UMRA's substantive requirements. The 
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] has issued five annual 
reports on agency compliance with UMRA. These reports revealed 
from 13 to 17 proposed or final rules each year with a mandate 
over $100 million. Some Members are concerned that part of the 
reason for the ``little effect'' of UMRA on the executive 
branch may be due to OMB's insufficient guidance and 
ineffective oversight.
    Witnesses included: Dan L. Crippen, Director, Congressional 
Budget Office; Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, OMB; Paul S. 
Mannweiler, Indiana State Representative and immediate past 
president, National Conference of State Legislatures; Dr. 
Raymond C. Scheppach, executive director, National Governors' 
Association; Scott Holman, Sr., president and chief executive 
officer, Bay Cast, Inc., Michigan, and chairman, Regulatory 
Affairs Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Williams L. 
Kovacs, vice president, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
5. ``Gasoline Supply: Another Energy Crisis?,'' June 14, 2001
    a. Summary.--Even though demand for gasoline has risen 
nearly every year since 1982, refining capacity since then 
actually declined more than 10 percent. Added to the complexity 
of the demand and supply situation for gasoline are the current 
regulatory problems associated with high gasoline prices in 
terms of declining refining capacity and the fragility and 
instability of the gasoline market. Twenty years ago, the 
Nation was essentially one single market for gasoline. Today, 
the Nation has been balkanized into more than a dozen boutique 
markets with their own specialized blends of gasoline. The 
principal question about these boutique islands is not whether 
these special blends are more or less expensive to produce than 
conventional gasoline, but do they make the entire market less 
stable? It seems that this overlay of regulatory barriers on 
top of the current supply problems makes the market susceptible 
to recurrent price spikes. The minority finds that regulation 
is not the root cause of constraints in gasoline supplies--
refining capacity declined in response to low returns on 
investment (due in part to excess refining capacity) and the 
gasoline industry encouraged the use of boutique fuels.
    Beyond this balkanization of the gasoline market is the 
overarching regulation of gasoline under the Clean Air Act, 
particularly the oxygenate mandate added by Congress in 1990. 
Besides the regulatory problems, the hearing also explored 
opportunities to change the web of regulations to ensure a 
stable and adequate gasoline market. In addition, the 
subcommittee looked into efforts to reduce the cost of crude 
oil, the Federal Trade Commission's findings that price gouging 
contributed to price spikes in the Midwest, and conservation.
    Witnesses included: John Cook, Director, Petroleum 
Division, Energy Information Administration, Department of 
Energy; Robert D. Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency; 
Dr. Don L. Coursey, professor, Harris School of Public Policy, 
University of Chicago; Robert Slaughter, general counsel, 
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; Ben Lieberman, 
senior policy analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute; and A. 
Blakeman Early, environmental consultant, American Lung 
Association.
6. ``Air Transportation--Customer Problems and Solutions,'' July 31, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--Since Congress enacted the Airline 
Deregulation Act in 1978, air fares have fallen, more cities 
have more air service, and fatalities in the air have 
decreased. However, there are still problems concerning 
customer service, especially delays. In 2000, one in four 
flights were late, diverted or canceled. There is a growing gap 
between the demand for air transportation and the capacity to 
meet that demand. Some believe that air transportation problems 
can best be addressed by increasing airport capacity. The 
Department of Transportation's [DOT] Federal Aviation 
Administration [FAA] estimated an average 10 years planning 
cycle for new commercial runways--from time of active planning 
to the start of construction. In many cases, the process took 
15 to 20 years. One factor contributing to this lengthy process 
is due to the fact that there are approximately 40 Federal 
laws, Executive orders, and regulations governing runway and 
airport construction. The hearing explored the timetable for 
regulatory streamlining to address airport capacity and the 
growing demand for air transportation. It highlighted possible 
solutions, such as shortened time lines, a better coordinated 
review process that is simultaneous instead of sequential, and 
time limits both at the Federal and State/local levels.
    The minority also mentioned investment in high-speed rail. 
One out of every three flights in the Nation is 350 miles or 
less, and some of the most congested airports have a 
disproportionate number of these short flights.
    Witnesses included: Donna McLean, Assistant Secretary for 
the Office of Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer, 
DOT; Jane Garvey, Administrator, FAA, DOT; Ed Merlis, senior 
vice president, legislative and international affairs, Air 
Transport Association of America, Inc.; Todd Hauptli, senior 
vice president, legislative affairs, American Association of 
Airport Executives; Henry Ogrodzinski, president and chief 
executive officer, National Association of State Aviation 
Officials; David Krietor, aviation director, Phoenix Sky Harbor 
Airport; and Sue Sandahl, council member at-large, Richfield 
City Council, Minnesota.
7. ``FERC: Regulators in Deregulated Electricity Markets,'' August 2, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The root causes of the California energy 
crisis include: a flawed market design, lack of supply growth 
over the preceding decade, substantial demand growth in 
California and the entire West, high natural gas prices, and 
historic low hydroelectric levels. These factors contributed to 
a serious deficiency in electric power supply and caused 
wholesale energy prices to skyrocket. The minority finds that 
withholding of supplies and price gouging by electricity 
generators were major contributing factors. The Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission [FERC] had been criticized for its role 
in electricity deregulation, especially with regard to 
California. The hearing focused on FERC's ability to properly 
monitor deregulated markets to ensure that electricity prices 
are ``just and reasonable,'' as required under the Federal 
Power Act. The purpose of the hearing was to determine how FERC 
could improve its procedures to avoid a future crisis, like the 
one experienced in California. It assessed FERC's vision for 
market monitoring, as it outlined in Order 2000, agency staff 
levels and experience, and FERC's plan for addressing unplanned 
outages.
    Key witnesses included: Kevin Madden, General Counsel, 
FERC; Shelton Cannon, Deputy Director, Office of Markets, 
Tariffs and Rates, FERC; James E. Wells, Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment, General Accounting Office; Terry 
Winter, president and chief executive officer, California 
Independent System Operator; Phillip Harris, president and 
chief executive officer, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; and 
William Hogan, professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 
Harvard University.
8. ``Elevating EPA: Creating a New Cabinet Level Department,'' 
        September 21, 2001
    a. Summary.--Two bills were introduced to elevate the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to a cabinet level 
department; both were referred to the subcommittee. However, 
H.R. 2438 and H.R. 2694 introduced by Congressman Sherwood 
Boehlert and Congressman Steve Horn, respectively, take two 
vastly different approaches. In addition Congressman Vernon 
Ehlers introduced legislation, which would create a specific 
Deputy Administrator for Science. Two of these bills suggest 
the need for an evaluation of EPA's organization and structure 
to achieve its mission. The hearing examined the differences in 
the legislation as well as EPA's current organizational 
structure. Since its inception in 1970 by a Nixon Executive 
order, EPA has been an agency that was created piecemeal. 
Although this piecemeal approach was effective at eliminating 
numerous past sources of pollution, the Nation faces more 
complex environmental challenges. Many have argued that dealing 
with these more complicated environmental issues will require a 
different approach than that embodied in the environmental laws 
of the past and one requiring changes in EPA as well.
    Witnesses included: Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert; 
Representative Stephen Horn; Representative Vernon Ehlers; Dr. 
J. Clarence Davies, senior fellow, Resources for the Future; 
Dr. Janet L. Norwood, fellow, National Academy of Public 
Administration; Dr. Robert W. Hahn, director, AEI-Brookings 
Joint Center for Regulatory Affairs; and Janice Mazurek, 
director, Center for Innovation and the Environment, 
Progressive Policy Institute.
9. ``Natural Gas Infrastructure and Capacity Constraints,'' October 16, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the infrastructure and 
capacity constraints in California, and the unprecedented high 
natural gas prices. It also addressed the steps taken since May 
2001 to realign the market and steps which still need to be 
taken. During 2000 and 2001, southern California experienced 
natural gas prices in the range of twice the national average 
and at times up to $60 per million Btus at the California 
border trading locations. The hearing also reviewed the factors 
that may have contributed to high prices, including out-of-
balance supply and demand, limited interstate and intrastate 
natural gas transmission lines, a key pipeline capacity 
contract, and market manipulation. Since May 2001, prices have 
stabilized due in part to actions taken by the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission [FERC], California State agencies, and a 
slowing economy. The hearing reviewed further actions and 
authority that FERC may need to prevent unbalanced energy 
prices from occurring elsewhere in the United States.
    Key witnesses included: Pat Wood III, chairman, FERC; 
Loretta Lynch, president, California Public Utilities 
Commission; Michal C. Moore, commissioner, California Energy 
Commission; Lad Lorenz, director, capacity and operational 
planning, Southern California Gas Co.; Paul R. Carpenter, 
principal, Brattle Group; Professor Joseph Kalt, John F. 
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Paul 
Amirault, vice president, Marketing, Wild Goose Storage, Inc.; 
and Gay Friedmann, senior vice president, legislative affairs, 
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
10. ``What Regulations Are Needed to Ensure Air Security?'' November 
        27, 2001
    a. Summary.--In over 5 years, the Department of 
Transportation's [DOT] Federal Aviation Administration failed 
to issue a final rule on certification of screening companies. 
Since September 11, 2001, President Bush and Congress began to 
examine the existing air security system, including the laws, 
regulations, and actual practices. Much was found lacking. On 
November 19th, President Bush signed a comprehensive Aviation 
and Transportation Security Act written by Congress. The law 
placed responsibility for air security in the hands of DOT. 
Within 1 year, DOT is required to primarily use Federal 
employees for passenger and baggage screening. In addition, the 
law addresses many other areas of air security. The new law 
establishes ``emergency procedures'' allowing DOT to issue 
interim final regulations without any public notice and 
comment. The hearing provided a useful forum for congressional 
and public input into the regulatory decisionmaking process.
    Witnesses included: Representative John Mica; Issac Yeffet, 
former director of security for El-Al Airline; Ed Merlis, 
senior vice president, legislative and international affairs, 
Air Transport Association of America; Todd Hauptli, senior vice 
president, legislative affairs, American Association of Airport 
Executives; John O'Brien, director of engineering and air 
safety, Air Line Pilots Association; Patricia Friend, 
president, Association of Flight Attendants; Mark Roth, general 
counsel, American Federation of Government Employees; and Paul 
Hudson, executive director, Aviation Consumer Action Project.

    Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
                      Intergovernmental Relations

                      Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman

1. ``Are the Financial Records of the Federal Government Reliable?'' 
        March 30, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the first in a series of 
oversight hearings to examine the financial management 
practices at Federal departments and agencies, including the 
Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the 
Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense. 
These hearings focused on the actions agencies have taken, or 
need to take, to resolve the Federal Government's longstanding 
financial management problems. The subcommittee issued its 
annual financial management report card at this hearing, 
grading each of the 24 major departments and agencies in the 
executive branch on their financial management practices. The 
Federal Government earned an overall grade of C- for fiscal 
year 2000. During this hearing, witnesses stressed the 
importance of improving the Government's financial 
accountability and reporting.
2. ``Management Practices at the Internal Revenue Service,'' April 2, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--During this hearing, the subcommittee examined 
management practices at the Internal Revenue Service [IRS], 
which is responsible for collecting 95 percent of the Federal 
Government's annual revenue and for enforcing the Nation's tax 
laws. This hearing focused on the IRS's progress in 
implementing reforms required under the IRS Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998 and on the General Accounting 
Office's March 30, 2001, audit report. Hearing witnesses 
included IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti and Chairman 
Larry Levitan of the IRS Oversight Board. During the hearing, 
witnesses expressed concern over the security of IRS computer 
systems that safeguard the $2 trillion in tax revenue collected 
in fiscal year 2000. Although the IRS still has difficulty 
performing timely financial statements on an on-going basis, 
the GAO reported that progress is being made. The IRS received 
a clean audit opinion on its financial statements for fiscal 
year 2000.
3. ``Regional Offices: Are they Vital in Accomplishing the Federal 
        Government's Mission?'' San Francisco, CA, April 9, 2001
    a. Summary.--The current Federal Regional Office system was 
established in 1969. In recent years, however, advancing 
technology and expansion of the Internet has led the Federal 
Government to focus more attention on e-government and its 
potential to deliver Federal services more quickly. This field 
hearing examined whether regional Federal offices are still 
needed, given the speed and accessibility of electronic 
communications. Witnesses discussed the background and earlier 
need for these offices as well as many problems that continue 
to exist, including Federal agencies' ``top-down'' management 
style, which often imposes overly strict planning requirements 
on their regional offices.
4. ``What are the Barriers to Effective Intergovernmental Efforts to 
        Stop the Flow of Illegal Drugs?'' San Diego, CA, April 13, 2001
    a. Summary.--During this joint field hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources, the subcommittees explored the ways that various 
levels of government could better work together to address the 
problem of illegal drug trafficking in the Nation. The hearing 
included testimony from witnesses representing key Federal, 
State and local government organizations involved in narcotics 
interdiction who discussed the challenges they confront in 
their efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs. The 
subcommittees also heard testimony from representatives of 
community-based organizations that have successfully eliminated 
blatant drug markets in their neighborhoods. The conclusions 
drawn from this hearing include the need for better 
communication and coordination between the various levels of 
government, as well as better government partnering with 
successful private sector and non-profit groups that have 
demonstrated success in this effort.
5. ``The Alameda Corridor Project: Its Successes and Challenges,'' Long 
        Beach, CA, April 16, 2001
    a. Summary.--This field hearing was held in Long Beach, CA, 
to examine the successes and challenges of the Alameda Corridor 
Project, a grade-separated rail link between the ports of Long 
Beach and Los Angeles and railway terminals near downtown Los 
Angeles. The subcommittee learned that this $2.4 billion public 
works project, one of the largest in the Nation, is proceeding 
on time and within budget. Witnesses agreed that the success of 
the project was largely due to the need to expedite cargo to 
and from the busy port complex. Because the Alameda Corridor 
project will benefit both public and private sectors as port 
traffic continues to increase, there has been significant 
cooperation among the ports, the railroads and the cities 
affected by the project. In addition, overall management of the 
project by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority has 
been extremely efficient and effective. Witnesses included 
representatives from State and local government, the Alameda 
Corridor Transportation Authority and the railroads involved in 
the project.
6. ``Implementation of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 
        1998: Why Haven't Federal Employees Been Held Accountable for 
        Millions of Dollars of Federal Travel Expenditures?'' May 1, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held this hearing to examine 
the financial management of the Government travel card program. 
Witnesses included representatives from the banks that issue 
Government travel cards, the General Services Administration, 
which administers the program, several Federal departments and 
agencies that participate in the program, and the General 
Accounting Office. The subcommittee learned that although the 
Government is saving money by using the streamlined program, 
the Department of Defense's contracting bank, the Bank of 
America, reported that more than 40,000 Defense Department 
employees have defaulted on more than $40 million in Federal 
travel expenditures since the program began in November 1998. 
Bank officials told the subcommittee that it was currently 
writing off more than $2 million in Federal travel expenditures 
each month. The subcommittee also learned that several Federal 
agencies were also having trouble paying their centrally billed 
accounts. According to bank officials, the Bank of America had 
incurred more than $7.5 million in losses due to slow or non-
payments.
7. ``The Department of Defense: What Must be Done to Resolve DOD's 
        Longstanding Financial Management Problems?'' May 8, 2001
    a. Summary.--During this hearing, the subcommittee examined 
how the Defense Department accounts for the billions of tax 
dollars it spends annually. The hearing focused on a March 30, 
2001, audit report by the General Accounting Office in which 
auditors found that, for the 5th consecutive year, the 
Department of Defense was unable to maintain effective internal 
controls over its financial management systems. Further, the 
GAO found that the Defense Department did not comply with the 
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 and was 
unable to account for many of its assets, estimate the costs 
for cleaning up and disposing of extensive environmental 
contaminants, or accurately document the net cost of its 
operations. The subcommittee gave the department a grade of 
``F'' on its annual financial management report card. The 
Department of Defense receives approximately one-half of the 
Federal Government's discretionary budget.
8. ``The Agency for International Development: What Must be Done to 
        Resolve USAID's Longstanding Financial Management Problems?'' 
        May 8, 2001
    a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee examined 
financial management at the U.S. Agency for International 
Development [USAID]. During fiscal year 2000, the USAID 
received nearly $7 billion in appropriated funds and had a 
reported $6.6 billion in net loans receivable outstanding. Yet 
the USAID was unable to produce reliable, auditable financial 
statements, according to the agency's Inspector General. The 
Inspector General also reported that the USAID had several 
material weaknesses in its internal controls and did not comply 
with significant requirements of laws and regulations relating 
to Federal financial management. The agency received an ``F'' 
on the subcommittee's annual financial management report card.
9. ``The Department of Agriculture: What Must be Done to Resolve USDA's 
        Longstanding Financial Management Problems?'' May 8, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held this hearing to examine 
financial management at the Department of Agriculture, which 
spends billions of dollars each year for a broad spectrum of 
programs, including farm loans and nutrition programs, such as 
Food Stamps. The department administers $124 billion in loans 
and loan guarantees, but the subcommittee found that it 
maintains some of the poorest financial records in the Federal 
Government. At the hearing, representatives from the department 
acknowledged the existence of serious financial management 
problems and pledged to make improvements.
10. ``H.R. 866, a bill to prohibit the provision of financial 
        assistance by the Federal Government to any person who is more 
        than 60 days delinquent in the payment of any child support 
        obligation,'' June 6, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined a bill that would 
prohibit financial assistance by the Federal Government to 
anyone who is more than 60 days delinquent in the payment of 
any child support obligation. Witnesses included Representative 
Michael Bilirakis from Florida who introduced the bill, 
representatives from Federal agencies that provide health 
services and loans, and representatives of non-profit groups 
concerned with child welfare. Concerns were raised that the 
legislation could adversely affect children's welfare by 
cutting financial aid to their non-custodial parents. In 
addition, the subcommittee learned that delays in obtaining 
timely information from the States could adversely affect non-
custodial parents who were attempting to fulfill their child-
support obligations.
11. ``How Effectively are State and Federal Agencies Working Together 
        to Implement the Use of New DNA Technologies?'' June 12, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined how State and Federal 
law enforcement agencies are working together to ensure that 
recently developed DNA technology is available and being used 
to the fullest extent possible throughout the Nation. The use 
of DNA evidence provides criminal investigators with a powerful 
forensic tool that may either incriminate or clear a suspect. 
The subcommittee learned that hundreds of thousands of DNA 
samples have been collected nationwide, which has created 
enormous processing backlogs for State and local forensic 
laboratories. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 
(Public Law 106-546) authorized $45 million in grants over 3 
years to address the convicted offender backlog and another 
$125 million over 4 years to eliminate ongoing casework 
backlogs. However, witnesses told the subcommittee that there 
are serious shortages of forensic scientists who are trained in 
DNA technology and laboratories that are capable of processing 
DNA samples.
12. ``The Results Act: Has It Met Congressional Expectations?'' June 
        19, 2001
    a. Summary.--The Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993 (Public Law 103-62) was enacted to encourage greater 
efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in the Federal 
Government. The Results Act requires Federal departments and 
agencies to set goals and to use performance measures for 
management purposes and future budgeting. The law requires 
agencies to submit long-range strategic plans that are to be 
updated every 3 years, as well as annual performance plans and 
reports. The first performance reports comparing actual 
performance to agency goals were submitted on March 31, 2000. 
At the hearing, the subcommittee reviewed agency performance 
plans and reports submitted on March 31, 2001, and discussed 
several problem areas found in the reports. Specifically, 
agency results were difficult to assess due, in part, to 
overlapping programs and inadequate performance data. In 
general, witnesses testified that the performance reports and 
plans had major deficiencies. Witnesses concluded that 
consistent Government oversight is needed to ensure that the 
law is properly implemented.
13. ``Is the CIA's Refusal to Cooperate with Congressional Inquiries a 
        Threat to Effective Oversight of the Operations of the Federal 
        Government?'' July 18, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a joint hearing with the 
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and 
International Relations on effective oversight of the Central 
Intelligence Agency. The hearing was a result of the Central 
Intelligence Agency's unwillingness to cooperate with the 
oversight activities of the two subcommittees. The Subcommittee 
on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 
Intergovernmental Relations had requested the General 
Accounting Office to conduct a survey of computer security 
involving classified systems. With the exception of the CIA, 
all Federal agencies responded to the survey. The CIA cited a 
change in the rules of the House as justification for its 
refusal to cooperate. At the hearing, witnesses agreed that the 
CIA should be more responsive to congressional inquires. 
However, they disagreed about the amount of information the 
agency should disclose to committees other than the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The debate centered 
on the definition of ``sources and methods.'' CIA advocates 
argued that the agency's sources and methods encompass all of 
the agency's activities and operations. Other witnesses defined 
``sources and methods'' as the direct means of gathering 
intelligence information.
14. ``The Defense Department's Illegal Manipulation of Appropriated 
        Funds,'' July 23, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing focused on a General Accounting 
Office [GAO] report, released at the hearing, which found that 
the Department of Defense [DOD] made $615 million in illegal 
and improper ``adjustments'' to closed appropriations accounts. 
These ``adjustments'' enabled the DOD to resurrect and use 
funds beyond the time limits imposed by congressional 
appropriations and, perhaps, in amounts exceeding congressional 
appropriations. The hearing explored how these illegal 
adjustments were allowed to occur and what could be done to 
prevent such abuses in the future. The DOD witnesses 
acknowledged the problem and pledged to take appropriate 
corrective actions. The subcommittee has asked the GAO to 
determine what corrective actions the department has taken and 
whether they are effective.
15. ``The Use and Abuse of Government Purchase Cards: Is Anyone 
        Watching?'' July 30, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the Federal Government's 
purchase card programs at two units within the Department of 
the Navy--the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center and the 
Navy Public Works Center, both located in San Diego, CA. 
Witnesses included the commanding officers at both facilities, 
the admiral in charge of the facilities' purchase card program, 
and other Defense Department agencies responsible for the 
department's financial management. The subcommittee learned 
that there was a proliferation of the Government-guaranteed 
credit cards issued to employees at the facilities, yet there 
was poor financial control over either program. The General 
Accounting Office, which audited the programs, found several 
cases of fraudulent use of the credit cards, and numerous 
instances of questionable purchases, such as flowers, Mary Kay 
cosmetics, designer briefcases and gift certificates to 
Nordstrom.
16. ``Local Economy, Environment, and Intergovernmental Cooperation: 
        What Can Be Learned from Ft. Ord?'' Monterey, CA, August 28, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--This field hearing examined the local impact 
of the base closure process at Fort Ord in northern California. 
During the 1991 Base Closure and Realignment [BRAC] process, 
Fort Ord, an active army post from 1917 to 1994, was 
recommended for closure. After the fort's closure in 1994, the 
local community suffered a severe economic impact. According to 
witnesses from cities surrounding the closed facility, 
environmental hazards, such as lead paint and unexploded 
ordinance, have hampered the reuse process. These witnesses 
testified that various levels of government bureaucracy have 
also slowed redevelopment. At the time of the hearing, only a 
small percentage of the base's more than 27,000 acres had been 
redeveloped. Additionally, local witnesses testified that a 
plethora of State and Federal environmental laws coupled with 
complex laws governing who is responsible for clean-up costs 
continue to delay redevelopments and revitalization of the 
local economy.
17. ``What Can Be Done to Reduce the Threats Posed By Computer Viruses 
        and Worms to the Workings of Government?'' San Jose, CA, August 
        29, 2001
    a. Summary.--This field hearing highlighted the reported 
damage to the Federal Government's computer systems resulting 
from a rash of computer viruses and worms, including Code Red, 
Code Red II, and SirCam. In addition, the hearing examined the 
extent of the potential threat, emphasizing the need for 
proactive measures to protect critical operations and assets 
from more damaging attacks. Witnesses stressed the need for 
software vendors to improve their development practices and 
produce more secure systems. Although progress is being made in 
these areas, witnesses emphasized that substantial challenges 
remain.
18. ``Information Technology--Essential Yet Vulnerable: How Prepared 
        Are We for Attacks?'' September 26, 2001
    a. Summary.--During this hearing, witnesses discussed the 
probability of cyber-attacks against the Nation's critical 
computer-dependent infrastructure and the Nation's preparedness 
to deal with such attacks. Witnesses detailed the specific 
types of security weaknesses that pervade Federal agencies and 
demonstrated how these weaknesses increase the potential for 
cyber-attacks against targets such as the networks that control 
critical information and operations. In addition, witnesses 
summarized the lessons learned from the September 11, 2001, 
attacks, and made recommendations on the actions that are 
necessary to strengthen the overall security of the Nation's 
information infrastructure.
19. ``A Silent War: Are Federal, State, and Local Governments Prepared 
        for Biological and Chemical Attacks?'' October 5, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held this hearing to examine 
the Nation's ability to respond to biological or chemical 
attacks. Witnesses included Federal, State and local officials 
who are responsible for responding to national emergencies and 
others who have special expertise in the area of biological/
chemical attacks. The subcommittee learned that although 
progress has been made toward coordinating Federal, State and 
local efforts to respond to emergencies, several problems 
remain that could impede the Nation's ability to respond to a 
large-scale emergency. These impediments include an 
inadequately funded public health system, hospitals' inability 
to handle massive casualties, an inadequate national 
pharmaceutical stockpile of vaccines and antibiotics, and the 
poor flow of intelligence information from Federal law 
enforcement agencies to local police departments.
20. ``The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996: How Well Is It 
        Working?'' October 10, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the latest in a series of 
hearings held by the subcommittee to examine Federal debt 
collection practices in general and implementation of the Debt 
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 [DCIA] in particular. The 
DCIA established new tools and expanded existing ones to 
enhance the collection of non-tax-related Federal debt. The 
subcommittee received testimony from the General Accounting 
Office and the Departments of Education, Health and Human 
Services, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs on their progress in 
implementing the DCIA. The hearing also explored the results of 
a survey the subcommittee conducted to examine how effectively 
27 major Federal agencies were implementing the DCIA. The 
hearing demonstrated that, while some progress has been made, 
agencies must do a much better job in collecting delinquent 
debts. For example, not one major agency fully complied with 
the DCIA's basic mandate to refer eligible debts to the 
Treasury Department once they become more than 180 days 
delinquent. The subcommittee plans to issue an oversight report 
on this subject next year.
21. ``Oversight Hearing on The Presidential Records Act of 1978,'' 
        November 6, 2001
    a. Summary.--The Presidential Records Act declared 
Presidential records to be Federal property and placed them in 
the custody and control of the Archivist of the United States. 
The act first applied to the records of the Reagan 
administration. In January 2001, many of the Reagan records 
became subject to public disclosure under the terms of the act. 
However, concerns over how to handle potential ``Executive 
privilege'' claims have delayed the release of the records. 
Shortly before the subcommittee's hearing, President Bush 
issued Executive Order No. 13233 (November 1, 2001), which 
established new procedures to deal with Executive privilege 
claims of a former or incumbent President concerning records 
subject to the act. During the hearing, the subcommittee 
examined the impact of the Executive order on the Presidential 
Records Act. Administration witnesses defended the new 
Executive order. However, other witnesses expressed concern 
that the order violates the Presidential Records Act and would 
impede disclosure of a former President's records. Subsequent 
to the hearing, the subcommittee received many other 
expressions of opposition to the order on both legal and policy 
grounds. The subcommittee is pursuing this issue and 
considering the possibility of corrective legislation.
22. ``Computer Security: How is the Government Doing?'' November 9, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee issued its 
second annual computer security report card, grading the 24 
major executive branch departments and agencies on their 
computer security efforts. With assistance from the General 
Accounting Office [GAO], the subcommittee analyzed recent 
information security audits and evaluations of Federal agencies 
by the GAO and agency Inspectors General. The subcommittee 
found that pervasive weaknesses continue to exist in agency 
information systems. During the hearing, the GAO identified 
serious weaknesses at Federal departments and agencies and 
outlined major common weaknesses that agencies need to address 
to improve their information security programs. The GAO 
emphasized the importance of establishing a strong agencywide 
security program at each agency and developing a comprehensive 
governmentwide strategy for improvement. Witnesses discussed 
the administration's efforts to strengthen the security of the 
Nation's computer and communications systems and outlined the 
Office of Management and Budget's role in improving agency 
security programs by making adequate security a condition for 
approving all budget requests.
23. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State and Local Agencies Working 
        Together Effectively?'' November 13, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on the subcommittee's 
October 5, 2001, hearing in which witnesses testified that 
following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Federal 
law enforcement agencies failed to provide sufficient 
intelligence information to local police departments in a 
timely manner. Witnesses included representatives from Federal 
law enforcement agencies, local police departments, and a 
mayor. Local government officials testified that their 
inability to obtain a Government security clearance seriously 
impeded their efforts to obtain information and protect their 
communities. Representative Horn subsequently introduced 
legislation to extend security clearance background checks to 
Governors, mayors of cities with a population of 30,000 or 
more, and police chiefs of departments that participate in 
Federal joint task forces.
24. ``Does America Need a National Identifier?'' November 16, 2001
    a. Summary.--The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
renewed calls for a national identification system to improve 
national security. The recent lapses in identification security 
prompted the subcommittee to hold a hearing to examine the 
public policy implications of a national identification system, 
including civil liberties, law enforcement, security and 
technical issues. At this hearing, witnesses debated the 
necessity of an improved national identity system. While both 
panels agreed that some improvements to the identity system are 
necessary, witnesses did not support a mandatory national 
identification card. On the second panel, witnesses voiced 
differing views on the technological feasibility of a 
centralized national identification database. Subcommittee 
members also received testimony from a representative of 
Belgium, a country that requires citizens to carry a national 
identification card.
25. ``The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996: How Well Is It 
        Working?'' December 5, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the 
subcommittee's October 10, 2001, hearing on implementation of 
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. One of the 
witnesses scheduled to testify at that hearing, Deputy 
Secretary of Agriculture James R. Moseley, was unable to 
attend. The primary purpose of the December 5 hearing was to 
receive Mr. Moseley's testimony. As such, it focused on debt 
collection at the Department of Agriculture. The subcommittee 
also received testimony from the General Accounting Office and 
the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service on the 
Agriculture Department's debt-collection practices. The hearing 
exposed serious deficiencies in the Agriculture Department's 
debt-collection efforts. It also elicited a strong personal 
commitment from Deputy Secretary Moseley to improve the 
department's debt-collection performance during 2002. The 
subcommittee intends to track the department's progress during 
the coming year.

 Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International 
                               Relations

                    Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman

1. ``Defense Security Service: Mission Degradation?'' March 2, 2001
    a. Summary.--This was the third hearing the subcommittee 
convened on DSS operational problems. The DOD's Defense 
Security Service [DSS] administers the Personnel Security 
Investigations [PSI] program for conducting security clearance 
background investigations. The purpose of March 2, 2001 hearing 
was to examine the status of Defense Security Service [DSS] 
efforts to eliminate the personnel security investigations 
backlog.
    The subcommittee wanted to determine what progress the 
Defense Security Service [DSS] made in reducing the personnel 
security investigations backlog, and how DOD determined DSS 
processing delays and system changes have not compromised 
national security. Witnesses included Mr. Robert J. Lieberman, 
Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, 
Department of Defense; Mr. Arthur L. Money, Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Security and Information Operations, Command, 
Control, Communications and Intelligence, Department of 
Defense; and, General Charles Cunningham, Director, Defense 
Security Service.
    In 2000, at the subcommittee's request, the General 
Accounting Office [GAO] completed a review of the DSS personnel 
security investigation backlog entitled, ``DOD Personnel: More 
Actions Needed to Address Backlog of Security Clearance 
Reinvestigations,'' (GAO/NSIAD-00-215, August 2000).
    In order to reduce the investigations backlog and reduce 
the time it takes to close personnel security investigation 
cases, DOD has transferred some of the caseload to the Office 
of Personnel and Management [OPM] and is considering changing 
some investigation standards. However, DSS continues to have 
operation problems with the Case Control Management System 
[CCMS], which hampers the agency's ability to track security 
clearance requests, provide feedback to requestors on case 
status, and reduce the personnel security investigation 
backlog.
2. ``F-22 Cost Controls: How Realistic are Production Cost Reduction 
        Plan Estimates?'' August 2, 2001
    a. Summary.--This was the second hearing the subcommittee 
has convened regarding F-22 cost controls. The purpose of the 
hearing was a continuation of the subcommittee's examination of 
Production Cost Reduction Plans [PCRP] for the F-22 program to 
determine the implementation status of best business practices, 
outsourcing and improvements in manufacturing and procurement 
processes. Witnesses included Mr. Allen Li, Director; Mr. 
Robert Murphy, Assistant Director; and Mr. Donald Springman, 
Senior Analyst, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. 
General Accounting Office; Mrs. Darleen A. Druyun, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force-Acquisition and 
Management; Dr. George Schneiter, Director of Strategic and 
Tactical Systems, Department of the Air Force; and Mr. Francis 
P. Summers, Regional Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency. 
The subcommittee has been conducting a review of production 
cost reduction plans [PCRP] for the F-22 program to determine 
the extent of realized cost savings, the potential for 
additional savings and the value of improvements in 
manufacturing and procurement processes.
    As part of the examination, the subcommittee requested that 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] review the status of 
production cost reduction plans. GAO reported a very sizeable 
difference between the Air Force Program Office and the OSD-
Cost Analysis Improvement Group [CAIG] projections of total F-
22 production costs. Comparison of the two estimates, adjusted 
for a 339 aircraft buy, indicated a difference of $7 billion as 
of December 2000. (GAO-01-782) The $7 billion variance 
represents fully 15 percent of the F-22 production budget, a 
large margin of error even in the imprecise field of weapon 
system cost estimation, and adds substantial risk to the F-22 
program.
    The Air Force and OSD remain unable to reconcile the 
production cost estimates to bring them within a tolerable 
range of variance. In an attempt to analyze the difference, GAO 
and the subcommittee requested access to cost estimate records 
prepared by the OSD-CAIG, including briefings about the 
estimates, the methodologies used, and supporting analyses. The 
request was denied by the Department.
    DOD refusal to provide GAO and the subcommittee access to 
production cost estimation data and detailed methodologies 
prevent a complete analysis of the factors contributing to the 
estimating differences between the two production cost figures. 
But it is clear one major area of disagreement is valuation of 
PCRPs.
3. ``Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud and Abuse: GAO Views on National 
        Defense and International Relations Programs,'' March 7, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
look at high-risk operations and management challenges at the 
departments and agencies involved in national security, 
veterans' affairs, international relations and international 
trade. The hearing examined the major performance and 
management challenges confronting the Departments of Defense, 
Energy, NASA, Veterans Affairs, State, and USAID, to what 
extent these departments and agencies are implementing 
management improvements and reforms, and how these departments 
and agencies are meeting performance and accountability 
measurements and goals under the Results Act.
    David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. General 
Accounting Office [GAO], testified on recent GAO findings of 
significant management challenges and high risks of fraud, 
waste and abuse in DOD, VA, Department of State and the other 
agencies.
4. ``Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud and Abuse: Inspectors General 
        Views on National Defense, International Relations Programs,'' 
        March 15, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
look at high-risk operations and management challenges at the 
departments and agencies involved in defense, national 
security, and veterans' affairs. The hearing examined the major 
performance and management challenges confronting the 
Departments of Defense, Energy, Veterans Affairs, NASA, FEMA, 
State, USAID, the Peace Corps, and the International Trade 
Commission, to what extent these departments and agencies are 
implementing management improvements and reforms, and how these 
departments and agencies are meeting performance and 
accountability measurements and goals under the Results Act.
    Inspectors General from the Departments of Defense, Energy, 
Veterans Affairs, NASA, FEMA, State, USAID, the Peace Corps and 
the U.S. International Trade Commission testified on 
vulnerabilities and management challenges. They also discussed 
Results Act compliance with each department and the application 
of Results Act principles and measures to address potential 
problems of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.
5. ``Protecting American Interests Abroad: U.S. Citizens, Businesses 
        and Non-governmental Organizations,'' April 3, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
look at the types of security threats, particularly terrorist 
threats, posed to non-official American interests overseas, and 
to review what U.S. Government agencies are doing to address 
those threats. The hearing examined the nature of the threat(s) 
posed to American citizens, businesses, and non-governmental 
organizations overseas, what the U.S. Government is doing to 
address the threat(s), and what the U.S. Government can do to 
better protect American interests abroad.
    Witnesses from private security associations, private 
organizations, the Department of State, the FBI, and USAID 
testified on programs to make U.S. citizens abroad aware of 
security threats. Information sharing and risk assessment 
programs were discussed, as well as the need for security 
training for citizens and organizations operating abroad.
6. ``Rule of Law Assistance Programs: Limited Impact, Limited 
        Sustainability,'' May 17, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
examine whether the U.S. Government has learned from past 
mistakes with rule-of-law assistance programs in places such as 
Haiti and Latin America, and to examine the impact of existing 
funding in the former Soviet Union, evaluating whether or not 
funding has been effective and sustainable. The hearing 
examined what has been done by USAID and the Departments of 
State, Justice, and Treasury to ensure rule-of-law assistance 
programs in the former Soviet Union are effective and 
sustainable and how effectively rule-of-law assistance programs 
have been monitored and evaluated.
    GAO testified on the results of work done at the 
subcommittee's request regarding the results of aid programs 
intended to foster the rule of law and civil society. State 
Department, USAID and Treasury Department witnesses also 
testified on the planning and evaluation process used to 
determine whether rule of law programs are achieving 
anticipated results.
7. ``Federal Interagency Data-Sharing and National Security,'' July 24, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
look at the Justice Department's Anti-Drug Network/Nigerian 
Crime Initiative [ADNET/NCI] as one example of interagency 
data-sharing to learn the most significant obstacles to 
information sharing among Federal agencies and to review the 
impact of data-sharing on national security. The hearing 
examined the status of the Anti-Drug Network/Nigerian Crime 
Initiative [ADNET/NCI] pilot project, the most significant 
obstacles to interagency data-sharing, and how greater 
interagency data-sharing could enhance national security.
    The Departments of Defense, State, Justice and Treasury 
testified on the status of the ADNET/NCI and the implications 
of that effort for broader data sharing to enhance border 
security and counter terrorism efforts.
8. ``Combating Terrorism: Management of Medical Stockpiles,'' May 1, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the 
status of corrective actions taken by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention [CDC], the Office of Emergency 
Preparedness [OEP], the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], 
and the U.S. Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response 
Force [CBIRF] to address the internal control weaknesses and 
General Accounting Office [GAO] recommendations regarding 
medical stockpile management. The hearing examined how the 
agencies addressed GAO recommendations and whether the 
stockpiles are managed effectively.
    GAO testified on followup work done for the subcommittee on 
management controls over Federal medical and pharmaceutical 
stockpiles held for use in the event of a terrorist incident. 
Witnesses from VA, HHS, CDC and the Marine Corps testified on 
their plans to expand and improve the composition and inventory 
management of stockpile programs.
9. ``Hepatitis C: Screening in the VA Health Care System,'' June 14, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the 
Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to screen and test 
veterans for the Hepatitis C Virus [HCV]. The hearing examined 
why screening and testing for HCV has been limited and 
inconsistent, and why VA personnel weren't made aware of the 
funding available for screening and testing veterans for HCV.
    GAO and VA witnesses discussed the limited results to date 
of the VA's initiative to screen and test veterans for 
Hepatitis C infection. While new data provided at the hearing 
suggests 49 percent of veterans using VA health care facilities 
since 1999 have been screened, versus only 20 percent by 
another indicator, GAO found that up to 90 percent could have 
been screened. Weaknesses and inconsistencies in the VA program 
were discussed.
10. ``Biological Warfare Defense Vaccine Research and Development 
        Programs,'' October 23, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the 
role vaccines play in civilian preparedness. The hearing 
examined the near and long term roles of vaccines in 
preparedness against biological warfare and terrorism, and how 
adaptable the current regulatory process is to the development 
and approval of bio-warfare defense vaccines.
    HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, GAO, DOD, and private vaccine 
makers testified on the scientific and logistical barriers to 
vaccine research and production and the departures from current 
regulatory standards required to assess vaccine efficacy 
against rare pathogens.
11. ``Chemical and Biological Defense: Department of Defense Medical 
        Readiness,'' November 7, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the 
Department of Defense's capacity to provide medical support to 
military personnel in the event of a chemical or biological 
attack. The hearing examined the extent to which the Department 
of Defense and the services adapted their medical specialty mix 
to chemical and biological warfare threats, and the extent of 
medical personnel training in the treatment of chemical and 
biological [CB] casualties.
    The General Accounting Office testified on the results of a 
GAO report entitled, ``Chemical and Biological Defense: DOD 
Needs to Clarify Expectations for Medical Readiness.'' GAO 
found DOD and the services had not fully addressed weaknesses 
and gaps in modeling, planning, training, tracking, or 
proficiency testing for the treatment of CB casualties. Dr. 
William Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs testified on behalf of the Department of Defense, and 
was accompanied by the Surgeons General of the Air Force, Army, 
and Navy.
12. ``Risk Communication: National Security and Public Health,'' 
        November 26, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
look at the application of risk communication strategies to 
Federal efforts to disseminate information on bioterrorism 
threats. The hearing examined how effectively the Federal 
Government disseminated information to the public on 
bioterrorism threats, and how physicians and public health 
experts have been involved in the formulation and 
implementation of Federal communication strategies.
    Dr. David Satcher, U.S. Surgeon General testified on the 
Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] efforts toward 
information dissemination and risk communication on 
bioterrorism threats. Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon 
General; Dr. Kenneth I. Shine, president of the Institute of 
Medicine; Dr. Mohammed Akhter, executive director, for the 
American Public Health Association; and Dr. Joseph Waeckerle, 
speaking on behalf of the American College of Emergency 
Physicians; testified on the government's lack of effective 
risk communication on bioterrorism threats.
13. ``Military Aircraft: Cannibalizations Adversely Affect Personnel 
        and Maintenance,'' May 22, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
discuss the impact of the U.S. military's practice of 
cannibalization of aircraft parts on readiness, costs and 
personnel. The hearing examined the extent to which the Air 
Force, Navy/Marines, and Army rely on cannibalization of 
aircraft parts to maintain readiness, and to what extent the 
military has identified the effects of cannibalization on 
costs, personnel, operating tempo, and morale. The conclusions 
were that cannibalizations have several adverse impacts. They 
increase maintenance costs by increasing workloads, may affect 
morale and the retention of personnel, and sometimes result in 
the unavailability of expensive aircraft for long periods of 
time. Cannibalizations can also create unnecessary mechanical 
problems for maintenance personnel. Moreover, the service 
branches consider cannibalizations a normal practice, contrary 
to Pentagon policy, as long as shortages and delayed delivery 
schedules exist of new aircraft parts.
    Witnesses were from the General Accounting Office, and the 
top logistics officers of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and 
U.S. Navy.
14. ``Sustaining Critical Military Training Facilities: Avon Park Air 
        Force Range,'' August 4, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
look at military training range management issues. The hearing 
examined the extent to which the Avon Park Air Force Range has 
confronted encroachment issues such as compatibility of range 
usage with current and planned local development, airspace 
access, natural resource conservation, and environmental 
compliance.
    Department of Defense military and civilian personnel, the 
Federal Aviation Administration, and local officials testified 
about the management challenges facing the Avon Park Air Force 
Range and the surrounding communities.
15. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State, and Local Agencies Working 
        Together Effectively?'' November 13, 2001
    a. Summary.--The Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, 
Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources, and the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans 
Affairs and International Relations held a joint oversight 
hearing to look at how effectively Federal and local law 
enforcement agencies are sharing information. The hearing 
examined what actions Federal law enforcement agencies have 
taken to improve information sharing with local enforcement 
agencies, what further actions are needed, whether Federal 
agencies are fully utilizing the resources of local law 
enforcement agencies, whether shared information has led to 
increased surveillance, arrests, and convictions of criminals, 
and whether data-sharing programs have proved cost effective.
    The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Drug Enforcement 
Agency, and representatives from several cities testified about 
the effectiveness of data sharing in combating crime and 
protecting national interests.
16. ``Combating Terrorism: In Search of a National Strategy,'' March 
        27, 2001
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine why 
the Federal effort to combat terrorism remains fragmented and 
unfocused. The hearing focused on two questions--What is the 
current national strategy to combat terrorism, and who in the 
U.S. Government is in charge of coordinating all Federal agency 
efforts to counter terrorism?
    Representatives from the RAND Corp., U.S. Commission on 
National Security/21st Century, Advisory Panel to Assess the 
Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons 
of Mass Destruction, and Center for Strategic and International 
Studies testified.
17. ``Combating Terrorism: Options to Improve the Federal Response,'' 
        April 24, 2001
    a. Summary.--The hearing was held in conjunction with the 
Committee on Transportation's Subcommittee on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. The 
purpose of the hearing was to examine three legislative 
proposals, H.R. 525, Preparedness Against Domestic Terrorism 
Act of 2001, H.R. 1158, National Homeland Security Agency Act, 
and H.R. 1292, Homeland Security Strategy Act of 2001. Each 
bill proposes to reorganize the Federal counterterrorism 
structure. The hearing focused on two questions--What is the 
current organizational structure of the Federal Government to 
combat terrorism, and how might the legislative proposals 
produce a more effective and efficient organization of the 
Federal Government to counter terrorism?
    Witnesses testifying included Representative Wayne 
Gilchrest (MD), Representative Mac Thornberry (TX), 
Representative Ike Skelton (MO), the U.S. General Accounting 
Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Advisory Panel 
to Assess the Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism 
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, the U.S. Commission on 
National Security/21st Century, the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, and the Henry L. Stimson Center.
18. ``The Biological Weapons Convention Protocol: Status and 
        Implications,'' June 5, 2001
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to continue the 
subcommittee's review of United States participation in efforts 
to develop a compliance protocol for the Convention on the 
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of 
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their 
Destruction [BWC]. The hearing focused on the questions--How 
was it determined the BWC Protocol, in its present form, will 
improve the verifiability of the BWC, and what additional 
mechanisms, under discussion, could be used to strengthen and 
improve implementation of the BWC?
    Witnesses included representatives from the Pharmaceutical 
Research and Manufacturers of America, Sandia National 
Laboratory, National War College, Henry L. Stimson Center, and 
Federation of American Scientists.
19. ``The Biological Weapons Convention Protocol: Status and 
        Implications,'' July 10, 2001
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to continue the 
subcommittee's review of United States participation in efforts 
to develop a compliance protocol for the Convention on the 
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of 
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their 
Destruction [BWC]. The hearing focused the questions--How was 
it determined the BWC Protocol, in its present form, will 
improve the verifiability of the BWC, and what additional 
mechanisms under discussion could be used to strengthen and 
improve implementation of the BWC?
    Witnesses included representatives from the Department of 
State and former officials who represented the United States at 
the BWC negotiations.
20. ``Combating Terrorism: Federal Response to a Biological Weapons 
        Attack,'' July 23, 2001
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
relationship between Federal and State governments during a 
biological weapons attack, and highlight the lessons learned 
from exercise Dark Winter. The hearing focused on the 
questions--How would the Federal Government react to a 
biological weapons attack on the United States, and what is the 
role of the National Guard during a biological weapons attack 
on the United States?
    Witnesses included the Governor of Oklahoma, 
representatives from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Center 
for Strategic and International Studies, Kroll Associates, and 
the Adjutant General of Connecticut, the Adjutant General of 
Florida, representatives from the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, Iowa Department of Public Health, and the 
Public Health Department, Seattle & King County, WA.
21. ``Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of Biological 
        Terrorism,'' October 12, 2001
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
factors that should be considered in assessing the risks of 
biological terrorism. The hearing focused on two questions--To 
what extent are assessments needed to address the threat of 
biological terrorism, and how are the intentions and 
capabilities of State and non-state actors measured in 
assessing the threat of biological terrorism?
    Witnesses included representatives from the U.S. General 
Accounting Office, the President of Advanced Bio-Systems, Inc., 
RAND Corp., and George Washington University.

           Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy

                     Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman

1. ``Telework Policies,'' March 22, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing to examine Federal Government agency efforts to create 
and promote telecommuting initiatives that permit employees to 
work away from the traditional work site, either at home or at 
telecommuting centers in compliance with section 359 of Public 
Law 106-346. We found that with a few exceptions, Federal 
agencies have been reluctant to implement telecommuting 
policies due to the radical change in work culture that is 
required. OPM expressed its commitment to the initiative, but 
was clearly in the beginning stages of establishing a 
governmentwide policy. Additionally, the GSA-managed 
telecenters were found to be underperforming and we were 
unconvinced that GSA has marketed them to the fullest 
potential. The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Steve 
Cohen, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management; 
Mr. David Bibb, Acting Deputy Director of the General Services 
Administration; Mr. Mark Lindsey, Acting Administrator of the 
Federal Railway Administration; Mr. Tony Young, director of the 
National Industries for the Severely Handicapped; Dr. Bradley 
Allenby, vice president of Environment, Health and Safety for 
AT&T and Ms. Jennfier Alcott, director of the Fredericksburg 
Regional Telework Center as to the cultural and technological 
barriers to successful telework initiatives.
    The subcommittee indicated that it would continue to 
monitor the development and implementation of a governmentwide 
telecommuting policy, including the use of telecenters.
2. ``Enterprise-Wide Strategies for Managing Information Resources and 
        Technology: Learning from State and Local Governments,'' April 
        3, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed a hearing held by the 
then-Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology [GMIT] in September 2000 that looked at the merits 
of establishing a Chief Information Officer [CIO] for the 
Federal Government. The GMIT hearing highlighted the 
infrastructural complications and deficiencies that now exist 
because of the lack of a Federal CIO. The purpose of the 
subcommittee's April 3rd hearing was to more closely examine 
the potential role of a Federal CIO by looking at the various 
approaches that a number of State and local governments have 
implemented to manage and oversee information and information 
resources, including the use of IT enterprise-wide and the 
promotion of electronic government.
    The hearing furthered the goal of Chairman Davis and 
Ranking Member Turner, who have both expressed deep concerns 
about the lack of coordination across government with respect 
to IT management and other information resources. As a result 
of their efforts to centralize the coordination of their IT 
capital planning, funding, personnel, and training across 
government, each of the State and local CIO witnesses testified 
with respect to the cost-savings, efficiencies, and improved 
service to citizens they have been able to achieve. The hearing 
provided a clear picture to the subcommittee of the benefits, 
obstacles, and solutions that States and local governments have 
accomplished by centralizing the management of their 
information resources, whether it be through a CIO or a panel 
of technology managers, and it demonstrated how those lessons 
learned could be applied to similar efforts at the Federal 
level. The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. David McClure, 
Director of Information Technology Management Issues for the 
U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Aldona Valicenti, president 
of the National Association of State Information Resources 
Executives and chief information officer for the State of 
Kentucky; Mr. Donald Upson, secretary of technology for the 
Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. Charlie Gerhards, deputy 
secretary for information technology, Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania; Mr. David Molchany, chief information officer of 
Fairfax County, VA; and Mr. Donald Evans, chief information 
officer of Public Technology, Inc.
3. ``FTS 2001: How And Why Transition Delays Have Decreased Competition 
        And Increased Prices,'' April 26, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing addressed the progress of the FTS 
2001 program, which provides long distance telecommunication 
services to Federal agencies. The FTS 2001 program is managed 
by the GSA and it is the follow-on to the FTS 2000 program 
which provided long distance telecommunications services to 
Federal agencies. The subcommittee sought to discover how the 
government had updated its strategy under the FTS 2001 program 
to achieve the overall goals of the program. A significant and 
growing part of the Federal Government's mission is enhanced 
service delivery to citizens, agencies, and State and local 
governments. Delays in agency acquisition of end-to-end network 
services could impede progress to delivering more information 
and services electronically. Insufficient contract management 
appears to have slowed this goal. As the manager of FTS 2001, 
GSA is responsible for overall contract management and 
administration, coordination and procurement of services, 
planning, engineering and performance support to agencies, and 
customer service. At the hearing, it was not evident that 
agencies received the necessary support from GSA to manage 
their transitions. Moreover, it was unclear what actions GSA 
took to monitor contractor performance and rapidly remedy 
transition problems. The GAO states that GSA eliminated 
contract performance requirements until the completion of 
transition and was not able to establish a database to manage 
and track transition until January 2001.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from Ms. Linda Koontz, 
Associate Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information 
Systems of the U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Sandra 
Bates, Commissioner of the Federal Technology Service of the 
General Services Administration; Brigadier General Gregory 
Premo, Deputy Director of Operations for the Defense 
Information Systems Agency, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. 
James Flyzik, Chief Information Officer of the U.S. Department 
of Treasury; Mr. Jerry Edgerton, senior vice president of 
Worldcom Federal Systems; Mr. Anthony D'Agata, vice president 
and general manager of Sprint Government Systems Division; Mr. 
John Doherty, vice president, AT&T Government Markets; and Mr. 
James F.X. Payne, senior vice president of Qwest 
Communications.
    The subcommittee intends to continue to monitor the 
progress of telecommunications procurement and management for 
the Federal Government. The subcommittee will continue to 
review the progress of FTS 2001 to ensure the Federal 
Government is updating its telecommunications acquisition 
strategy to secure up-to-date services at the best value.
4. ``The Next Steps in Services Acquisition Reform: Learning from the 
        Past, Preparing for the Future,'' May 22, 2001
    a. Summary.--The hearing addressed and examined the 
progress of the acquisition reform initiatives undertaken in 
the early to mid-nineties. This hearing assessed the next steps 
in services acquisition reform. The streamlining, cost savings, 
access to technological advancements, and reduced procurement 
cycles have dramatically improved the quality of products and 
services purchased by the Federal Government. The subcommittee 
reviewed the success or failure of implementation efforts 
governmentwide. Additionally, the hearing examined what 
subsequent legislation is necessary to further streamline 
procurement and achieve greater utilization of commercial best 
practices. The Federal Government purchases $87 billion in 
services a year. In order to ensure the government is 
maximizing efficiency for service contracting, the subcommittee 
reviewed workforce training, contract management, and the 
utilization of performance-based contracting and share-in-
savings contracting. The subcommittee examined the rapid growth 
of service contracting over the past decade. According to the 
General Accounting Office [GAO], since fiscal year 1990, the 
dollar value of service contracts has increased by 24 percent. 
Service contracting accounts for 43 percent of the government's 
total contracting expenses--larger than any other contracting 
expenditure. While there is no doubt that increased competition 
and growth in services contracting has led to greater 
efficiency for the Federal Government, there is evidence to 
suggest that agencies are having increased difficulty in 
managing the growing number of complex, multi-tiered service 
contracts.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. David Cooper, 
Director, Contracting Issues of the U.S. General Accounting 
Office; Mr. David Oliver, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logisitics for the U.S. Department 
of Defense; Mr. David Drabkin, Deputy Associate Administrator 
for Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy of the 
General Services Administration; Dr. Steven Kelman, Albert J. 
Weatherhead III and Richard W. Weatherhead professor of public 
management at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at 
Harvard University; Mr. Michael Mutek, senior vice president, 
general counsel and secretary of Raytheon Technical Information 
Services testifying on behalf of the Professional Services 
Council; and Mr. Mark Wagner, manager, Federal Government 
Affairs of Johnson Controls testifying on behalf of Contract 
Services Association.
    The subcommittee intends to hold additional legislative 
hearings on services acquisition reform in spring 2002.
5. ``Ensuring Program Goals Are Met: A Review of the Metropolitan Area 
        Acquisition Program,'' June 13, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the progress of the MAA 
program. The subcommittee explored whether or not the program 
has accomplished its primary goals of: (1) ensuring the best 
service and price for the government and (2) maximizing 
competition for services. Specifically, we reviewed the 
problems that Federal Government agencies in phase I and II 
cities encountered in transitioning to the MAA program. 
Additionally, this oversight hearing focused on what further 
action the General Services Administration, working with 
Federal agencies, needs to take in order to achieve the 
programmatic goals of the MAA. The MAA program was initiated by 
GSA in 1997 in order to capitalize on the goals in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. That act was intended to 
promote competition and higher quality services for consumers 
while reducing regulations to lower prices and facilitate the 
deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Accordingly, 
GSA's Federal Technology Service designed the ambitious MAA 
program in conjunction with Congress and the vendor community. 
GSA encountered many program challenges in implementing the 
goals of the program and did not adequately attempt to update 
the overall acquisition strategy once problems were identified. 
Often, there was a failure to communicate between FTS regions 
and headquarters. While it is clear that many of the hurdles 
that have existed nationwide within the telecommunications 
marketplace contributed to MAA program delays, it does not 
appear the FTS shared problems and solutions among user cities 
to eliminate future impediments to transition.
    The subcommittee heard from testimony from Ms. Linda 
Koontz, Associate Director, Governmentwide and Defense 
Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Sandra 
Bates, Commissioner of the Federal Technology Service of the 
General Services Administration; Commander Robert Day, 
Commanding Officer Coast Guard Electronic Support Boston of the 
U.S. Coast Guard; Mr. John Doherty, vice president of AT&T 
Government Markets; Mr. James F.X. Payne, senior vice president 
of government systems of Qwest Communications; Mr. Randall L. 
Lucas, vice president of sales, Federal Markets of Verizon 
Federal Inc.; Mr. Jerry Hogge, vice president of government 
solutions and enhanced service providers of Winstar; and Mr. 
David Page, vice president, Federal Systems of Bell South 
Business Systems.
    The subcommittee will continue to review what impact the 
delays in transition had on the MAA program and additional 
solutions for updating the Federal Government's local 
telecommunications acquisition strategy.
6. ``The Best Services at The Lowest Price: Moving Beyond a Black-and-
        White Discussion of Outsourcing,'' June 28, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing to examine the Federal Government's implementation of 
the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. We reviewed 
outsourcing as a means to enhance cost savings and efficient 
delivery of services under Federal agency oversight and 
management, while ensuring the equitable treatment of the 
agencies' employees. The subcommittee also reviewed DOD's 
compliance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act and 
the process by which an agency determines which positions it 
will study under an A-76 cost comparison.
    While outsourcing through the A-76 process is a means to 
achieving cost savings, there exist on-going concerns about the 
length and complexity of the process. The subcommittee heard 
testimony from the Honorable Pete Sessions (R-TX); the 
Honorable Albert Wynn (D-MD); the Honorable Luis Guitierrez (D-
IL); Mr. Barry Holman, Director of Defense Capabilities and 
Management of the U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Angela 
Styles, Director of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy of 
the Office of Management and Budget; and Mr. Ray DuBois, 
Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment of 
the U.S. Department of Defense along with testimony provided to 
the subcommittee from numerous private sector associations, 
companies, and trade unions. Currently, the congressionally 
mandated GAO Commercial Activities Panel is examining these 
issues and will report its findings and recommendations to 
Congress in May 2002. The subcommittee will conduct a followup 
hearing at that time.
7. ``Toward Greater Public-Private Collaboration in Research and 
        Development: How the Treatment of Intellectual Property Rights 
        Is Minimizing Innovation in the Federal Government,'' July 17, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing addressed one of several barriers 
to acquisitions and sourcing by the Government: the treatment 
of intellectual property in government-funded research and 
development [R&D]. The goals of the hearing were to gather 
information about the nature and scope of intellectual property 
law and regulation as it relates to procurement. The Government 
has had difficulty attracting innovation to meet its R&D needs, 
and the hearing investigated existing mechanisms for flexible 
contracting, the need for training of the acquisition workforce 
on intellectual property issues, reform efforts currently 
underway in agencies, and proposals for regulatory and 
legislative change. The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. 
Jack Brock, Managing Director of Acquisition and Sourcing 
Management at the U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Deidre 
Lee, Director of Defense Procurement for the U.S. Department of 
Defense; Mr. Eric Fygi, Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. 
Department of Energy; Mr. Richard Carroll, chief executive 
officer of Digital Systems Resources, Inc.; Mr. Richard Kuyath, 
counsel for the 3M Corp.; and Dr. Christopher Hill, professor 
of public policy and technology and vice provost for research, 
George Mason University.
    How the Government treats intellectual property has a 
profound impact on the competitive environment for R&D. This 
hearing revealed that efforts underway in agencies are 
progressing, but that more reform may be necessary to attract 
top companies. Intellectual property rights are the lifeblood 
of commercial firms and are vitally important to universities. 
Working to improve the Government's treatment of intellectual 
property rights must be a priority in order to ensure the 
ability to access the very best technologies for the country's 
future civilian and military needs. The subcommittee plans to 
hold additional hearings on these subjects in 2002.
8. ``Public Service for the 21st Century: Innovative Solutions to the 
        Federal Government's Technology Workforce Crisis,'' July 31, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the information 
technology human capital management [HCM] crisis facing the 
Federal Government. Government-wide, significant human capital 
shortages exist that will only get worse as 35 percent of the 
Federal workforce becomes eligible to retire in the next 5 
years and an estimated 50 percent of the government's 
technology workforce will be eligible to retire by 2006. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from the Honorable David Walker, 
Comptroller General of the U.S. General Accounting Office; the 
Honorable Kay Coles James, Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management; the Honorable Stephen Perry, Administrator of the 
U.S. General Services Administration; Dr. Steven Kelman, 
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 
Albert J. Weatherhead III and Richard W. Weatherhead professor 
of public policy; Mr. Martin Faga, CEO of the Mitre Corp. and 
representative of the National Academy of Public 
Administration; Dr. Ernst Volgenau, president and CEO of SRA 
International, and representative of the Information Technology 
Association of America [ITAA]; and Mr. Steve Rohleder, managing 
partner, Accenture.
    While the administration has requested workforce analysis 
reports from all executive agencies that include identifying 
personnel needs, succession planning, recruitment and retention 
strategies, and human capital is expected to be a part of every 
agency's performance plan and budget submissions, the 
participation of agencies in HCM may need to be monitored in 
2002.
    The hearing also focused on legislation sponsored by the 
chairman, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2001 (H.R. 2678). This 
bill helps government transform itself by creating a new vision 
of public service for the 21st century. The legislation sets up 
an exchange program between agencies and the private sector for 
mid-level IT managers who can work daily on reviewing the 
status of IT modernizations and cross-agency initiatives. This 
public-private exchange program will allow for greater 
knowledge and understanding between the public and private 
sectors, and it will foster greater innovation and partnership 
for government and industry.
9. ``Toward a Telework-Friendly Government Workplace: an Update on 
        Public and Private Approaches to Telecommuting,'' September 6, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted a follow-up to its 
March 22, 2001, oversight hearing to examine Federal agencies' 
progress in developing and implementing telecommuting 
initiatives. We found that the cultural change required by 
managers, in particular, remains the greatest obstacle to 
overcome. OPM and GSA joined forces to create a comprehensive 
telework Web site to educate managers and employees, alike. GAO 
has recently reported to Congress about the potential tax, 
regulatory, liability, and managerial barriers that private 
sector companies must address when implementing telecommuting 
initiatives. The subcommittee examined the extent to which 
these private sector telecommuting barriers may be applicable 
to the Federal Government. The subcommittee heard testimony 
from Mr. Robert Robertson, Director of Education, Workforce and 
Income Security Issues at the U.S. General Accounting Office; 
Ms. Teresa Jenkins, Director of the Office of Workforce 
Relations at the Office of Personnel Management; Mr. David 
Bibb, Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Government-
wide Policy for the U.S. General Services Administration; Mr. 
Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology 
Association of America [ITAA]; Mr. Mark Straton, vice president 
of global marketing for Siemens Enterprise Networks; and Mr. 
Robert Milkovich, managing director of CarrAmerica.
    The creation and implementation of telecommuting policies 
is an on-going process in the Federal agencies. Therefore, the 
subcommittee will continue to monitor the work of OPM and GSA 
in this area, in addition to the efforts made by individual 
agencies.
10. ``The Potential Benefits of Public-Private Partnerships as a Real 
        Property Management Tool,'' October 1, 2001
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing to examine the benefits of the Federal Government 
entering into public-private partnerships for real property. 
The General Services Administration needs to address the 
growing challenges created by deteriorating buildings in the 
Federal inventory. Currently, billions of dollars are spent to 
maintain buildings. However, that is insufficient to reduce the 
deferred maintenance backlog. The hearing revealed that since 
limited funding is available for repairs and alterations of 
Federal buildings, public-private partnerships are potentially 
beneficial as a real property management tool. The public-
private partnership provisions of H.R. 2710, the Federal Asset 
Management Improvement Act of 2001, were discussed. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Bernard Ungar, Director 
of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the U.S. Government 
Accounting Office; Mr. Stephen Perry, Administrator of the U.S. 
General Services Administration; Mr. Ray DuBois, Deputy 
Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment for 
the U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Anatolij Kushnir, Director 
of the Office of Asset Enterprise Management for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Kimberly Burke, principal, Ernst & 
Young; and Mr. Sherwood Johnston, designated broker, Arizona of 
CarrAmerica Reality Corp.
11. ``Transforming the IT and Acquisition Workforces: Using Market-
        Based Pay, Recruiting and Retention Strategies to Make the 
        Federal Government an Employer of Choice for IT and Acquisition 
        Employees,'' October 4, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on the July 31st 
hearing's exploration of the human capital management crisis 
facing the government and reviewed a draft of legislation to be 
introduced later in the session. The subcommittee also reviewed 
the findings of the report of the National Academy of Public 
Administration [NAPA] from its recent in-depth study of public 
and private sector compensation practices for IT employees. At 
this hearing, the subcommittee reviewed testimony provided by 
Mr. David McClure, Director of IT Management Issues for the 
U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Mark Forman, Associate 
Director for Information Technology and E-government for the 
U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Mr. Donald Winstead, 
Acting Associate Director of Workforce Compensation and 
Performance at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; the 
Honorable Don Upson, Secretary of Technology for the 
Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. Arthur Amler, director of 
employee compensation, for IBM, representing the Information 
Technology Association of America; Ms. Jean Baderschneider, 
vice president of procurement for ExxonMobil Global Services 
Co.; and Mr. Costis Toregas, president of Public Technology, 
Inc., representing the National Academy of Public 
Administration [NAPA].
    While advances in technology provide an unprecedented 
opportunity to improve government service, these gains can only 
be made if the Government has a skilled workforce that can 
acquire, manage, and implement information technology products 
and services. The current human resources management system of 
the great majority of Federal workers is built upon rigid 19th 
century models. The legislation would draw from the private 
sector's near universal use of ``pay-for- performance'' and 
would make new flexibilities available for hiring, training, 
and retaining employees in order to solve the looming human 
capital management crisis. Further hearings on these subjects 
are planned in 2002.
12. ``Moving Forward with Services Acquisition Reform: A Legislative 
        Approach to Utilizing Commercial Best Practices,'' November 1, 
        2001
    a. Summary.--The hearing built on oversight hearings 
conducted over the past year on the continuing barriers 
government agencies have in acquiring the goods and services 
necessary to meet mission objectives. The hearing reviewed 
proposed legislative initiatives designed to provide the 
Federal Government greater access to the commercial 
marketplace. Unfortunately, the subcommittee found the 
government is not utilizing commercial best practices or fully 
realizing the importance of performance metrics in acquisition 
cycles. The legislative proposals reviewed by the subcommittee 
are necessary to further streamline procurement and achieve 
greater utilization of commercial best practices. The Federal 
Government purchases $87 billion in services a year. In order 
to ensure the government is maximizing efficiency for service 
contracting, the subcommittee reviewed legislation which 
included provisions to address workforce training, business 
environment reform, contract management, the utilization of 
performance-based contracting and share-in-savings contracting.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. William Woods, 
Director of Contracting Issues for the U.S. General Accounting 
Office; Mr. Stephen Perry, Administrator of the U.S. General 
Services Administration; Ms. Angela Styles, Administrator of 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy for the Office of 
Management and Budget; Ms. Deidre Lee, Director of Defense 
Procurement of the U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Stan Z. 
Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council; Dr. 
Renato DiPentima, president of SRA Consulting and Systems 
Integration, testifying on behalf of the Information Technology 
Association of America; Mr. Mark Wagner, manager of Federal 
Government Affairs for Johnson Controls, testifying on behalf 
of the Contract Services Association; Mr. Charles Mather, 
principal at Acquisition Solutions, Inc.; and Dr. Charles 
Tiefer, professor at the University of Baltimore Law School.
    The subcommittee will be conducting additional legislative 
hearings in spring 2002.
13. ``Battling Bioterrorism: Why Timely Information-Sharing Between 
        Local, State and Federal Governments is the Key to Protecting 
        Public Health,'' December 14, 2001
    a. Summary.--This hearing discussed the response and 
information dissemination capabilities of the Nation's public 
health systems to a bioterrorism threat or incident. The 
hearing reviewed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
[CDC] March 2001 report on Public Health's Infrastructure: 
Every health department fully prepared; every community better 
protected. The best initial defense against public health 
threats, whether naturally occurring or deliberately caused, 
continues to be accurate, timely recognition and reporting of 
problems. To that end, one of our top priorities must be to 
ensure we have a strong information-sharing network that 
protects privacy while seamlessly connecting local, State, and 
Federal Governments. The March 2001 report outlined a number of 
goals for improving communication and information technology 
capabilities at the Federal, State, and local level. The 
hearing examined our progress to date in meeting the goals set 
forth in the report and the timeframes for reaching yet unmet 
goals. Additionally, it discussed lessons learned from the 
recent events related to the anthrax incidents in October and 
November 2001 as well as existing pilot programs on the Health 
Alert Network [HAN] and the National Electronic Disease 
Surveillance System [NEDSS]. The hearing also reviewed best 
practices for information sharing among Federal, State, and 
local entities to determine our next steps for responding to 
future bioterrorism threats. The anthrax attacks in October 
2001 showed the need to improve information-sharing 
capabilities of the disparate Federal, State, and local health 
authorities, as well as private hospitals in the event of a 
public health emergency. Both basic IT infrastructure and 
communications protocols must be clarified and improved in 
order to achieve the efficient system necessary to effectively 
respond to an emergency.
    Finally, the subcommittee reviewed what effect media 
reporting played in the public health communities' response to 
the anthrax incidents. As public health professionals attempted 
to provide warnings and guidance based on traditional 
epidemiological methods, they often found themselves outpaced 
by constant media reports. Timely and accurate transmission of 
information to the general public will be a vital 
communications objective in future health emergencies. Recent 
events have shown the slim margin of error in this area before 
public mistrust begins to take hold. Thus, future 
communications plans must take into account the role the media 
will play in shaping public reaction and ensuring that the 
correct message emerges immediately from those responsible for 
making health policy decisions.
    The subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Edward Baker, 
M.D., MPH, Director of the Public Health Program Practice 
Office for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr. 
Kevin Yeskey, M.D., Acting Director of the Bioterrorism 
Preparedness and Response Program, National Center for 
Infectious Diseases. Additionally the subcommittee reviewed 
testimony from a range of State and local government 
organizations along with testimony from private sector health 
providers, including Mr. Rock Regan, chief information officer 
for the State of Connecticut, representing the National 
Association of State Chief Information Officers; Dr. Gianfranco 
Pezzino, M.D., MPH, State epidemiologist for the Kansas 
Department of Health and Environment, representing the Council 
for State and Territorial Epidemiologists; Dr. Paul Wiesner, 
M.D., MPH, Director for the DeKalb County Board of Health, 
representing the National Association of County and City Health 
Officials; Mr. Michael H. Covert, president of the Washington 
Hospital Center, representing the American Hospital 
Association; Dr. Carol S. Sharrett, M.D., MPH, director of 
health for Fairfax County, VA; and Dr. Charles E. Saunders, 
M.D., president of EDS Health Care Global Industry Group.
    The subcommittee will be holding additional hearings on 
information sharing best practices throughout 2002.
                        PART THREE. PUBLICATIONS

                          I. Committee Prints

                             Full Committee

                       Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman

    1. ``Rules of the Committee on Government Reform,'' 
February 2001.

         Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization

                       Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman

    1. ``Title 5, United States Code, Government Organization 
and Employees,'' May 2001.

                          II. Printed Hearings

                             Full Committee

                       Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman

    1. ``Challenges to National Security: Constraints on 
Military Training,'' May 9, 2001, Serial No. 107-3.
    2. ``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive 
Marc Rich,'' February 8 and March 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-11.

                       Subcommittee on the Census

                       Hon. Dan Miller, Chairman

    1. ``The Success of the 2000 Census,'' February 14, 2001, 
Serial No. 107-7.
    2. ``BEA: Is the GDP Accurately Measuring the U.S. 
Economy?'' April 5, 2001, Serial No. 107-8.
    3. ``The Census Bureau's Proposed American Community Survey 
[ACS],'' June 13, 2001, Serial No. 107-9.
    4. ``Americans Abroad: How Can We Count Them?'' July 26, 
2001, Serial No. 107-13.

         Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization

                       Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman

    1. ``The National Security Implications of the Human 
Capital Crisis,'' March 29, 2001, Serial No. 107-5, held joint 
with the Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and 
the District of Columbia Subcommittee, Governmental Affairs 
Committee, U.S. Senate.

   Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources

                     Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman

    1. `` `Medical' Marijuana, Federal Drug Law and the 
Constitution's Supremacy Clause,'' March 27, 2001, Serial No. 
107-2.

                Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

                 Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman

    1. ``America's Main Street: The Future of Pennsylvania 
Avenue,'' March 21, 2001, Serial No. 107-6.
    2. ``Coordination of Criminal Justice Activities in the 
District of Columbia,'' May 11, 2001, Serial No. 107-20.
    3. ``The Outlook for the District of Columbia Government: 
The Post-Control Board Period,'' June 8, 2001, Serial No. 107-
15.

 Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International 
                               Relations

                    Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman

    1. ``Protecting American Interests Abroad: U.S. Citizens, 
Businesses and Nongovernmental Organizations,'' April 3, 2001, 
Serial No. 107-16.
    2. ``Combating Terrorism: Management of Medical Supplies,'' 
May 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-17.
    3. ``Combating Terrorism: In Search of a National 
Strategy,'' March 27, 2001, Serial No. 107-18.

           Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy

                     Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman

    1. ``Telework Policies,'' March 22, 2001, Serial No. 107-1.
    2. ``Enterprise-Wide Strategies for Managing Information 
Resources and Technology: Learning from State and Local 
Governments,'' April 3, 2001, Serial No. 107-4.
                  VIEWS OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

                     Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman

    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.

                           OVERSIGHT HEARINGS

                             Full Committee

The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich, Day 1, 
        February 8, 2001
    In its description of the February 8, 2001, hearing on 
``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc 
Rich,'' the majority makes observations that unfairly 
characterize the record of the hearing. The majority writes 
that ``the Justice Department was never formally consulted by 
the White House, and the prosecutors responsible for the case 
did not know the pardon was being considered until after it was 
granted.'' In the very same paragraph, however, the majority 
acknowledges that ``White House Counsel Beth Nolan asked 
[Deputy Attorney General Eric] Holder for his position on the 
Rich pardon.'' It is inaccurate to conclude that no 
consultation occurred when the counsel to the President 
personally consulted the second highest ranking official in the 
Justice Department.
    The majority writes that Mr. Holder ``stated to Ms. Nolan 
that he was `neutral, leaning toward favorable' on the pardon. 
Holder took this position despite the fact that he knew little 
about the case, other than the fact that Rich was a wanted 
fugitive.'' The majority's suggestion that Mr. Holder supported 
the pardon and knew only that Mr. Rich was a fugitive is a 
distortion of Mr. Holder's hearing testimony. Mr. Holder 
testified that by ``neutral,'' he meant that he had no opinion 
based on the little he knew about the case. By ``leaning toward 
favorable,'' Mr. Holder said he meant that he would be moved in 
a positive direction if there were foreign policy benefits that 
would be reaped by granting the pardon. He had testified that 
he had been told that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had 
weighed in strongly on behalf of the pardon request.
The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich, Day 2, 
        March 1, 2001
    In its summary of the March 1, 2001, hearing on ``The 
Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich,'' the 
majority omits significant testimony. The majority writes that 
former White House Counsel Beth Nolan, former Deputy White 
House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, and former White House Chief of 
Staff John Podesta ``all testified that they were strongly 
opposed to the Rich pardon, but that the President granted the 
pardon despite their advice.'' Every one of those witnesses 
also testified that while they disagreed with the President's 
decision, they all believed that he made a decision based on 
his evaluation of the merits. Every one of those witnesses also 
testified that they had no reason to believe that a quid pro 
quo or any other improper consideration influenced the 
President's exercise of the pardon power.
    The majority writes that I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice 
President Cheney's chief of staff and formerly a lawyer 
representing Marc Rich, ``was questioned regarding his role in 
the Rich case, which predated any effort to obtain a pardon, 
and was instead limited to efforts to settle Rich's criminal 
case with prosecutors in New York.'' Mr. Libby made several 
other significant points in the hearing. For example, he 
testified that:

  Lhe agreed with five of the substantive reasons 
President Clinton had published to explain the pardon of Marc 
Rich;

  Lthe U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District 
of New York, which had obtained the indictment of Mr. Rich, had 
``misconstrued the facts and the law, and looking at all of the 
evidence of the defense . . . he had not violated the tax 
laws;''

  Lif it had been decided to pursue a pardon during his 
representation of Mr. Rich, he could have put together a good 
and defensible case for the pardon;

  Lhe thought his client, Mr. Rich, was a traitor to 
the United States; and

  Lon January 22, 2001, he called Mr. Rich at home and 
congratulated him on reaching a result that Mr. Rich had sought 
for a long time.
Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The Status of National and 
        International Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research, March 
        20, 2001; and Autism--Why the Increased Rates? April 25-26, 
        2001
    The majority's activities report sections regarding its 
investigation into health issues contains several omissions. 
Under the hearing, Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The 
Status of National and International Dietary Supplement 
Regulation and Research, the majority fails to include a 
description of testimony that raised concerns about the safety 
of some dietary supplements and suggested the need for greater 
regulation of these products. Under the hearing, Autism--Why 
the Increased Rates?, the majority fails to include 
descriptions of testimony of scientific witnesses who have 
examined the theory that autism can be caused by the MMR 
vaccine and have concluded that there is no evidence to support 
the theory and that the theory itself is fragmentary.
The Use of Prosecutorial Powers in the Investigation of Joseph M. 
        Gersten, June 15, 2001
    In its summary of the committee's June 15, 2001, hearing on 
The Use of Prosecutorial Powers in the Investigation of Joseph 
Gersten, the majority restates conclusions of an April 10, 
2001, staff report that were directly contradicted by every 
witness who gave testimony in the hearing. The majority first 
states, ``A review of the available evidence suggests that 
individuals participated in a conspiracy to make allegations 
against Gersten involving drug use and consorting with 
prostitutes that they knew to be false.'' At the hearing, which 
the majority's activities report purports to summarize, every 
witness gave testimony directly contradicting the majority's 
conclusion of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, the witnesses 
testified that Mr. Gersten was never indicted for any offense, 
had been cited for contempt of court for refusing to cooperate 
with the State's investigation, and had left the jurisdiction 
before a criminal proceeding would have required that he 
receive the State's evidence against him.
    The current and former prosecutors who appeared at the 
hearing all testified that they were aware that the witnesses 
who gave information about Mr. Gersten had extensive criminal 
records and dubious credibility. They testified that the 
existence of incriminating physical evidence nevertheless 
caused them to seek corroboration for the witness statements 
and to seek information from Mr. Gersten himself. They 
testified that despite a subpoena ordering Mr. Gersten to 
testify before the Florida State attorney, which conferred upon 
him a grant of use immunity from prosecution, Mr. Gersten 
refused to testify. The hearing testimony revealed that after 
three motions to quash the subpoena, a State court judge held 
Mr. Gersten in civil contempt and confined him to jail until he 
agreed to testify. Although an appellate court later ordered 
him released during the pendency of his appeals, the contempt 
order was upheld in all respects in six different State and 
Federal judicial proceedings. To date, Mr. Gersten continues to 
reside outside the United States and has not submitted to 
questioning by Florida authorities.
    The majority also writes that ``[t]wo of the principal 
attorneys who conducted the investigation declined to be 
interviewed by committee staff, necessitating the hearing.'' 
The majority fails to mention, however, that prior to any 
attempt to interview the prosecutors involved in the case, the 
majority staff released a report unfairly concluding that State 
prosecutors had engaged in serious misconduct. For example, the 
majority wrote, ``It appears, as new facts emerge, that the 
vast power of the state was used to destroy [Mr. Gersten].'' 
They also wrote that ``government officials acted in extreme 
bad faith'' and ``were more concerned about using allegations 
to harm Gersten than to find the truth.'' Mr. Band testified: 
``Had [majority] counsel for the committee contacted me some 6 
months ago, I believe I would have happily met with him on or 
off the record. I was not contacted until after the report was 
issued. I believed the report made insinuations which were 
unfair.'' Mr. Gregorie testified:

        What happened was, I was informed that this committee 
        wished to speak to me and I was informed of that after 
        a report had already been written which indicated that 
        there was wrongdoing, without anyone having spoken to 
        me. I then contacted someone who knows the system up 
        here . . . and they told me, Dick, you shouldn't go in 
        and answer questions where a part of your answer may be 
        taken--you may not be able to have your full story 
        told. Make sure you go before the committee, where 
        there are rules, where everyone will be there and where 
        the public will be able to hear and see all that is 
        said to you and all that you answer.

                             Subcommittees

                       Subcommittee on the Census

    The majority's summary of the February 14, 2001, hearing on 
the 2000 census is inaccurate and misleading. The 1990 census 
was not the first time that response rates fell, as the summary 
indicates. GAO report GAO/GGD-92-94 (page 36) indicates that 
the response rate went from 78 percent in 1970 to 75 percent in 
1980 to 65 percent in 1990. The response rate was also 65 
percent in 2000. The mail return rate, a more accurate measure 
of public participation in the census went from 87 percent in 
1970 to 83 percent in 1980 to 74 percent in 1990. This decline 
continued in 2000 where the return rate was 72 percent.
    More importantly, the summary of this hearing is misleading 
in suggesting that the 2000 census is more accurate than 1990. 
This statement is true only if you believe that counting some 
people twice is a sufficient correction for missing others. In 
1990, the census missed 8.4 million people and counted 4.4 
million people twice. In 2000, the census missed 6.5 million 
people and counted 6.1 million people twice. If all the people 
missed were in Texas and all the people counted twice were in 
California, the majority would not be so happy with the census 
results. In fact, those missed in the census tend to be the 
poor and minorities, while those counted twice tend to be 
affluent and white. We believe that an equitable census should 
be our goal, not one which substitutes one kind of error for 
another.

                                   - 
